Post on 28-Dec-2015
CEC-CAN Summer Policy Series ▪ July 2013
WHAT’S HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON?!
TODAY’S AGENDA
ESEA Reauthorization & Waivers
Update on Legislative & Policy Proposals
Next Generation of Assessments
Teacher Evaluation
Special Education Funding Outlook
2
33
4
44 Representatives
are past educators
7 Senators are past
educators
2007…2008…2009…2010…2011…2012…2013?
What a difference 7 years makes!!
6
CEC’S ESEA GUIDING PRINCIPLES
• Supporting a Well Prepared Successful Educational Workforce
• Improving Outcomes for All Children Through the Collaboration of All Educators
• Strengthening Assessment and Accountability for ALL
• Meaningful Systems that Encourage Collaborative and Supportive Measurement, Evaluation, and Reward of Professional Performance
• Developing Improved Strategies that Create Positive School Reform
• Meeting the Unique Needs of Gifted Learners
• Providing Full Funding to Execute the Goals and Provisions of ESEA
Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
LOTS OF TALKING…7
American Association of Administrators, Policy Insider Oct 2011
8
9
White House Announces Waivers
September, 2011
10
ESEA WAIVERS
– Remove 2014 AYP deadline
– Funding Flexibility
– Changes to Accountability
– Flexibility for HQT Plans
11
• 4 Conditions:– Adopt College & Career Ready
Standards– Develop Assessments that
Measure Student Growth– Develop Differentiated
Accountability System– Develop Guidelines for Local
Teacher and Principal Evaluations Based on Effectiveness
ESEA WAIVERS
• 41 States + Washington, DC have waivers
12
ESEA WAIVERS
13
2013 HOUSE VS. SENATE ESEA BILLS14
Total Opposites!!
WHERE ARE WE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS??
Passage by House Education
Committee
Passage by Senate Education
Committee
President Signs!
Conference Committee Works Out Differences!
Passage by Full House of Representatives Passage by Full Senate
• July 19, 2013: Passed House by 221-207 vote; all Democrats and 12 Republicans voted against
• Two days of debate– 18 amendments passed– 4 amendments defeated– 4 withdrawn
Student Success Act (HR 5)House Version of ESEA
CEC Opposed, as did most of the education & disability communities
17
Student Success Act (HR 5)House Version of ESEA
Provisions in Student Success Act (HR 5) CEC Supports
Eliminates AYP & 2014 Deadline
Maintains Disaggregation of Subgroup Data
18
CEC Expressed Serious Concerns with Student Success Act (HR 5)
Reduces Accountability for Students with Disabilities
Eliminates Highly Qualified Teacher Provisions
Lacks focus on Professional Development
Reduces, Caps and Eliminates Funding; Locks into place sequestration
Increases Privatization
Ignores High-Ability Students
Student Success Act (HR 5)House Version of ESEA
• Passed Senate Health, Education, Labor, Pensions (HELP) Committee June 12, 2013
• Passed with only Democrat support
• Two days of debate and amendments
Strengthening America’s Schools ActSenate Version of ESEA
CEC supported with some reservations, as did most of disability
community; education community split
20
Provisions in Strengthening America’s Schools Act CEC Supports
Focus on early learning for entry “ready to learn”
Encourage equity through greater transparency and fair distribution of resources
Limits Use of Alternate Assessment
Changes to Accountability System, Focus on Bottom 15%, Low Performing Subgroups, Maintains Subgroup Disaggregation, Student Growth & Performance Targets; Eliminates AYP & 2014 Deadline
Early Intervening Services in General Ed, UDL, PBIS
Mental Health Supports
Includes Key Provisions of CEC-Endorsed, TALENT Act for High-Ability Students
Strengthening America’s Schools ActSenate Version of ESEA
21
Provisions in Strengthening America’s Schools Act That Concern CEC
New Requirements without Adequate Resources
Accountability System Focus on Bottom 15% of Schools and Only Reporting for Remaining 85%
Includes “Turnaround” Models that Promote Firing of Staff and Other Interventions
Overemphasis of Teacher Evaluation from Federal Level
Defining “Highly Qualified” to Include Individuals Still Enrolled in Alternate Route to Certification Programs
Strengthening America’s Schools ActSenate Version of ESEA
WHAT’S NEXT FOR ESEA?22
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS & THE FUTURE OF TESTING
New Assessments, Adaptive Assessments, & Racing to the Top
23
RACE TO THE TOP ASSESSMENT CONTEST
24
Next Generation of Assessments
1%
Dynamic Learning
Maps
1%
National Center &
State Collaborative
99%
Smarter Balanced Consortia
99%
PARCC
Consortia
Aligns to the Common Core State Standards
TWO CONSORTIA: 1%
• Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Program (DLM) – Kansas University $22 million– 13 States - Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
– Accessibility - keyboard, drag-and-drop, touch-screen, and compatible with a variety of assistive technologies commonly used by students.
25
NATIONAL CENTER & STATE COLLABORATIVE
19 States: Alaska, Arizona Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wyoming
26
ASSESSMENT CONSORTIA: PARCC
27
Computer Based
28
ASSESSMENT CONSORTIA: SMARTER BALANCED
Computer Adaptive
TIMELINE
• 2012-13 School Year: First year pilot/field testing and related research and data collection
• 2013-14 School Year: Second year pilot/field testing and related research and data collection
• 2014-15 School Year: Full operational administration of PARCC / Smarter Balances assessments
• Summer 2015: Set achievement levels, including college-ready performance levels
29
TEACHER EVALUATIONIt’s a New World!!
30
POLICYMAKERS: A SHIFT IN FOCUS
Highly Qualified
Highly Effective
Inputs Outputs
31
System Components
Complex Role
Measure Evidence-Based Practice
Recognize Professionalism
Incorporate Research
CEC’s Position: Components of Special Education Teacher Evaluations
32
PROCESS: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
The Obama Administration, with bipartisan support
from Congress, included incentives to change
teacher evaluation systems in signature education
programs like Race to the Top and ESEA Waivers.
CEC convened an expert advisory workgroup to
inform its discussion of new teacher evaluation
systems. CEC developed preliminary
recommendations for its ESEA Reauthorization
Recommendations.
CEC worked for over a year with members and
experts in the field to draft a Position Statement.
Political Context
CEC Work Begins - 2009
CEC Drafts Position - 2012
CEC MEMBER & OUTSIDE EXPERT INPUT
Timeline:
9/2011 – Board of Directors Approved Concept
1/2012 – Small Expert Panel Identified
Issues/Challenges
3/2012 – Representative Assembly Commented;
– CEC Members and Convention Attendees
Commented at 2012 Convention Town Hall
6/2012 – CEC CAN Network Commented;
– Over 600 CEC Members Commented Online
7/2012 – PAS Team Developed Draft Position
Statement
8/2012 – Close to 40 National Experts Commented
9/2012 – Representative Assembly Commented
10/2012 – Board of Directors Approved
• All educators must be included in one evaluation system.
• Evaluation systems must identify appropriate professional development opportunities for teachers based on the results of their evaluations.
• Evaluations must support continuous improvement.
• Evaluation processes and all measures of teacher effectiveness must be open and transparent to the teacher being evaluated.
Include Fundamental System-Wide Components
37
TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS SHALL:
• Evaluations must clearly identify and be based on a special education teacher’s specific role and responsibilities during a given school year.
• Evaluations must take into account the population of children and youth and their range of exceptionalities that special education teachers instruct.
• Evaluations must be conducted by evaluators with expertise related to evidence-based service delivery models and individualized teaching practices and interventions in special education.
TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS SHALL :
Identify the Complex Role of the Special Education Teacher
38
• Evaluations must be based on multiple reliable measures and indicators that support valid measurement of special education teacher effectiveness.
• Evaluations should never be based solely on student growth.
• Statistical models that estimate a teacher’s contribution to student growth, such as value-added models, should not be applied to any teacher until there is a general consensus among researchers that the model provides a valid estimate of a teacher’s contribution to student growth.
Measure the Use of Evidence-Based Practices
39
TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS SHALL:
CEC Position on Special Education Teacher
Evaluation
CEC TOOLS FOR YOU!
Teacher Evaluation Toolkit for Special
Educators!
Visit: www.cec.sped.org
Policy & Advocacy
Learn, Understand, Navigate New Teacher Evaluation Systems with the Help of your
CEC Colleagues Through this Online Dialog!
Visit: www.cec.sped.org
CEC TOOLS FOR YOU!
SPECIAL/GIFTED EDUCATION FUNDINGThe Story of Sequestration
How did Special/Gifted Education Fare in FY 2013?
What to Expect for FY 2014
At Home Advocacy -- August Recess!!
3
2010
Congressional Elections Bring Fiscal Conservatives (Tea Party) to Washington
August 2011
Budget Control Act
Cut $1.2 Trillion
November 2011
Super Committee Fails!
2013
Sequestration Takes Effect
Lasts from (2013-2021)
5
SEQUESTRATION HITS…
$1.2 Trillion Cut2013-2021
• $85 B Cut• $600 M from
Special Education 2013
Cut $36.6 B from Non-Defense Discretionary
Programs 2014
7
FEDERAL BUDGET FY 2012
Education2%
Defense19%
Nondefense discretionary(other than education)
16%Social Security22%
Medicare15%
Medicaid7%
Other Mandatory
13%
Interest6%
Chart Courtesy of Committee for Education Funding45
Funding Cuts Due to Sequestration2013
-$2,500
-$2,000
-$1,500
-$1,000
-$500
$0
TotalDep't. of
ED
Title I ImpactAid
TeacherQuality
IDEAGrants
Career,Tech,Adult
StudentAid
HigherEd
HeadStart
-$2,478
-$727
-$65 -$124
-$620
-$87 -$86 -$129
-$401
In millions
9
Special/Gifted Education Funding Levels in FY 2013
2013
IDEA Part B $10.97 Billion Decrease of $602 Million
IDEA Part BSection 619 $353.24 Million Decrease of
$19 Million
IDEA Part C $419.65 Million Decrease of $23 Million
IDEA Part D $225.14 Million Decrease of $13 Million
Javits $0
SpEd Research $47.30 million Decrease of $2.5 Million
Sequestration = Full Funding Plunges to
14.5%
11
49
50
Impact of “Sequester“ Budget Cuts on Jobs May be Exaggerated
- March 20, 2013
The Overhyped, Overblown, & Overly Politicized Sequester Fears- May 30, 2013
Sequester Scorecard: A Month Later, Effects Still Up In Air- April 5, 2013
51
51
Tell CEC How Sequestration/Budget Cuts Are Impacting You! Email: pubpol@cec.sped.org
Special/Gifted Education Funding Levels in FY 2014
2014
SENATE
HOUSE
52
Senate Appropriations
Committee Votes to Reject
Sequestration!
IDEA Part B $11.722 Billion
IDEA Part BSection 619
$371.901 Million
IDEA Part C $462.710 Million
IDEA Part D $237.085 Million
Javits $15 Million
SpEd Research $69.905 million
Special/Gifted Education Funding Levels in FY 2014
2014
Pre-sequestration Levels and some
increases!
53
CNN Poll conducted by ORC International during November 16-18, 2012
54
CEC RESOURCES
• CEC Issue Briefs on Funding and ESEA
• CEC's 2014 Federal Outlook for Exceptional Children
• Personalized Stories from Your Network!
55
56
CEC Policy Insider Blog
Get the latest special/gifted education news
www.policyinsider.org
@CECADVOCACY
Follow us on Twitter for up to the minute policy updates!
57
TAKE ACTION: CEC’S LEGISLATIVE ACTION
CENTER
www.cec.sped.orgChoose: Policy & Advocacy
Choose: Take Action!
58
THANK YOU!!
59
CEC Policy Staff
Deb Ziegler Kim Hymes Rose Heller-KaplanAssociate Executive Director Senior Director Program AssistantPolicy & Advocacy Policy & Advocacy Policy & Advocacydebz@cec.sped.org kimh@cec.sped.org rosehk@cec.sped.org