Title: Title I Funding Formula: How it Works and What
1Title I Funding Formula How it Works and Whats
Ahead
- Steven Spillan, Esq.
- sspillan_at_bruman.com
- Brustein Manasevit, PLLC
2Title I Purpose
- To ensure that all children have a fair, equal,
and significant opportunity to obtain a
high-quality education and reach, at a minimum,
proficiency on challenging State academic
achievement standards and state academic
assessments.
3Title I Purpose
- Meeting the educational needs of low-achieving
children in our Nation's highest-poverty schools,
limited English proficient children, migratory
children, children with disabilities, Indian
children, neglected or delinquent children, and
young children in need of reading assistance
4Title I Purpose
- Closing the achievement gap between high- and
low-performing children, especially the
achievement gaps between minority and nonminority
students, and between disadvantaged children and
their more advantaged peers
5Title I Purpose
- Distributing and targeting resources sufficiently
to make a difference to local educational
agencies and schools where needs are greatest
6Title I Funding
- Funds are distributed to school districts
according to a set of four separate formulas - Basic Grant
- Concentration Grant
- Targeted Assistance Grant
- Education Finance Incentive Grant
7Title I Funding
- Although Title I, Part A funds flow through the
SEA to LEAs, ED calculates the amounts at the LEA
level for Basic, Concentrated, Targeted
Attendance Grants. - EFIG calculated for each state overall.
- Suballocated to LEAs via different formula.
8Title I Funding
- Many factors go into Title I formulas poverty,
population, eligibility thresholds, hold harmless
provisions, etc - Primary Population Factor for Title I-A funds
School-Age Children in Poor Families
9Title I Funding
- 1 of Title I, Part A grants reserved for
Outlying Areas.
10Title I Funding
- Arkansas Title I Allocation
- FY 2011 - 156,379,574
- FY 2012 - 152,850,371
- FY 2013?
- Likely to go down again due to decrease in
national poverty share (according to Census data) - Despite increase in poverty rate above 20,
national share decreased in last Census.
11Title I Basic Grant
- Original Title I-A formula, authorized and
implemented each year since FY1966 - Proportion declined from 86 in FY 2001 to 45 in
FY 2012 - All post FY 2001 Increases have been for Targeted
and EFIG. - Largest portion of Title I funds allocated
- Largest number of LEAs participating
- Due to low LEA eligibility threshold
12Title I Basic Grant
- Allocates funding to school districts based on
the number of poor children they serve. (compared
to national total) - Also considers
- Expenditure Factors
- Hold Harmless Level
- Minimum State Grant
- Ratable Reduction
- Further SEA Adjustments
13Title I Basic Grants
- Poverty Population Factor Children aged 5-17
- In poor families (based on updated 2010 Census
data), - In institutions for neglected or delinquent
children or in foster homes - In families receiving Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) payments above the poverty
income level for a family of four
14Title I Basic Grants
- Eligibility Threshold the number of children
counted in the population factor must constitute
10 or more such children and more than 2 of the
total school-age population. - Expenditure Factor State average per pupil
expenditure for public K-12 education, subject to
a minimum of 80 and a maximum of 120 of the
national average, further multiplied by 0.40. - The expenditure factor is the same for all LEAs
in the same state.
15Title I Basic Grants
- Hold Harmless If sufficient funds are
appropriated, each LEA is to receive a minimum of
85, 90, or 95 of its previous year grant. - 85 if the LEAs school-age child poverty rate is
less than 15, - 90 if the school-age child poverty rate is
between 15 and 30 - 95 if the school-age child poverty rate is
greater than 30.
16Title I Basic Grants
- Minimum State Grant each state is to receive a
minimum of - Up to 0.25 of total (if equal to or less than FY
2001 level) - Up to 0.35 of total (if more than FY 2001)
17Title I Basic Grants
- A state may not, as a result of the state minimum
provision, receive more than the average of - 0.25 of the total FY2001 amount for state grants
plus 0.35 of any amount above the FY2001 level, - and
- 150 of the national average grant per formula
child, multiplied by the number of formula
children in the state.
18Title I Basic Grants
- Ratable Reduction After maximum grants are
calculated, if appropriations are insufficient,
these amounts are reduced by the same percentage
for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and
state minimum provisions, until they equal the
aggregate level of appropriations.
19Title I Basic Grants
- After ED calculation, SEAs may make additional
adjustments - 4 reservation of state total allocations to be
used for school improvement grants - 1 reservation or 400,000, whichever is greater,
for state administration - Optional reservation of up to 5 of any statewide
increase in total Part A grants over the previous
year for academic achievement awards
20Title I Basic Grants
- SEA Adjustments (cont)
- Adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to
eligible charter schools or to account for recent
LEA boundary changes - Optional use by states of alternative methods to
reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED
among the states small LEAs (defined as those
serving an area with a total population of 20,000
or fewer persons).
21Title I Formula Key
- PF Population factor
- EF Expenditure factor
- L_HH LEA hold harmless level
- S_MIN State minimum
- APP Appropriation
- S_MIN_ADJ State minimum adjustment
- L_HH_ADJ LEA hold harmless adjustment
- OTR_ADJ Other possible adjustments by the SEA
- SCH_IMP_ADJ Reservation by SEA for school
improvement grants - S_ADMIN_ADJ Reservation by SEA for state
administration - AWD_ADJ Possible reservation by SEA for
achievement awards
22Title I Formula Key (cont)
- S Sum (for all eligible LEAs in the nation)
- ALL State total allocation
- EFF Effort factor
- EQ Equity factor
- S_ALL State total allocation
23Title I Basic Grants Formula
- Step 1
- Preliminary Grant 1 PF EF or L_HH, whichever
is greater - The population factor is multiplied by the
expenditure factor for each eligible LEA. - If this less than the LEAs hold harmless level,
the latter amount is used.
24Title I Basic Grants Formula
- Step 2
- Preliminary Grant 2 ( Preliminary Grant 1 / S
Preliminary Grant 1 ) APP or L_HH, whichever is
greater - The amount for each LEA in Step 1 is divided by
the total of these amounts for all eligible LEAs
in the nation, then multiplied by the available
appropriation.
25Title I Basic Grants Formula
- Step 3
- Preliminary Grant 3 (Preliminary Grant 2
S_MIN_ADJ L_HH_ADJ) or L_HH, whichever is
greater - The amount for each LEA in Step 2 is adjusted
through application of the state minimum grant
provision and by a factor to account for the
aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs to their
hold harmless level, given a fixed total
appropriation level.
26Title I Basic Grants Formula
- Step 4
- Final Grant Preliminary Grant 3 SCH_IMP_ADJ
S_ADMIN_ADJ AWD_ADJ OTR_ADJ - Further adjusted for the school improvement and
state administration reservations, possible state
reservations for achievement awards, and other
possible adjustments.
27Title I Concentration Grants
- Similar to Basic Formula, with one major
exception - Much higher LEA eligibility threshold
- Also differences regarding
- LEA hold harmless
- State minimum grant provisions
- Relatively small amount of Title I (from 14 in
FY 2001 to 9 in FY 2012) - Approximately 48 of LEAs participating
28Title I Concentration Grants
- Poverty Population Factor Children aged 5-17
- In poor families,
- In institutions for neglected or delinquent
children or in foster homes - In families receiving Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) payments above the poverty
income level for a family of four - Same as Basic
29Title I Concentration Grants
- Eligibility Threshold the number
- of children counted in the population factor must
exceed either 6,500 such children or 15 of the
total school-age population. - Expenditure Factor State average per pupil
expenditure for public K-12 education, subject to
a minimum of 80 and a maximum of 120 of the
national average, further multiplied by 0.40.
(same as Basic) - The expenditure factor is the same for all LEAs
in the same state.
30Title I Concentration Grants
- If sufficient funds are appropriated, each LEA is
to receive a minimum of 85, 90, or 95 of its
previous year grant. - 85 if the LEAs school-age child poverty rate is
less than 15, - 90 if the school-age child poverty rate is
between 15 and 30 - 95 if the school-age child poverty rate is
greater than 30. - Same as Basic
31Title I Concentration Grants
- Minimum State Grant each state is to receive a
minimum of - Up to 0.25 of total (if equal to or less than FY
2001 level) - Up to 0.35 of total (if more than FY 2001)
32Title I Concentration Grants
- A state may not, as a result of the state minimum
provision, receive more than the average of - 0.25 of the total FY2001 amount for state grants
plus 0.35 of any amount above the FY2001 level,
and - The greater of150 of the national average grant
per formula child, multiplied by the number of
formula children in the state or 340,000
33Title I Concentration Grants
- Ratable Reduction After maximum grants are
calculated, if appropriations are insufficient,
these amounts are reduced by the same percentage
for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and
state minimum provisions, until they equal the
aggregate level of appropriations.
34Title I Concentration Grants
- After ED calculation, SEAs may make additional
adjustments - 4 reservation of state total allocations to be
used for school improvement grants - 1 reservation or 400,000, whichever is greater,
for state administration - Optional reservation of up to 5 of any statewide
increase in total Part A grants over the previous
year for academic achievement awards
35Title I Concentration Grants
- SEA Adjustments (cont)
- Adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to
eligible charter schools or to account for recent
LEA boundary changes - Optional use by states of alternative methods to
reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED
among the states small LEAs (defined as those
serving an area with a total population of 20,000
or fewer persons).
36Title I Concentration Grants
- SEA Adjustments (cont)
- Where the total number of children counted in the
population factor for the state is less than
0.25 of the national total (as of the date of
enactment of the NCLB), SEAs may allocate
Concentration Grants among all LEAs with a number
or percentage of children counted in the
population factor that is greater than the state
average for that year.
37Title I Concentration Grants
- Step 1
- Preliminary Grant 1 PF EF or L_HH, whichever
is greater - The population factor is multiplied by the
expenditure factor for each eligible LEA. - If this is less than the LEAs hold harmless
level, the latter amount is used.
38Title I Concentration Grants
- Step 2
- Preliminary Grant 2 ( Preliminary Grant 1 / S
Preliminary Grant 1 ) APP or L_HH, whichever is
greater - The amount for each LEA in Step 1 is divided by
the total of these amounts for all eligible LEAs
in the nation, then multiplied by the available
appropriation.
39Title I Concentration Grants
- Step 3
- Preliminary Grant 3 (Preliminary Grant 2
S_MIN_ADJ L_HH_ADJ) or L_HH, whichever is
greater - The amount for each LEA in Step 2 is adjusted
through application of the state minimum grant
provision and by a factor to account for the
aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs to their
hold harmless level, given a fixed total
appropriation level.
40Title I Concentration Grants
- Step 4
- Final Grant Preliminary Grant 3 SCH_IMP_ADJ
S_ADMIN_ADJ AWD_ADJ OTR_ADJ - Further adjusted for the school improvement and
state administration reservations, possible state
reservations for achievement awards, and other
possible adjustments.
41Title I Concentration Grants
- For states where the number of children counted
in the population factor constituted less than
0.25 of the national total as of the date of
enactment of the NCLB, the state total is to be
allocated on the basis of the population factor
among LEAs that receive grants. - LEA Grant PF / S PF ALL or L_HH, whichever is
greater
42Title I Targeted Grants
- 22 of Title I in FY 2012
- 83 of LEAs participating
- Similar Formula to Basic
- Significant differences related to how children
in the population factor are counted
43Title I Targeted Grants
- Poor and other children counted in the formula
are assigned weights on the basis of each LEAs
school-age child poverty rate and number of
school-age children in poor families. - LEAs receive higher grants per child counted in
the formula, the higher their poverty rate and/or
number.
44Title I Targeted Grants
- Poverty Population Factor Children aged 5-17
- In poor families,
- In institutions for neglected or delinquent
children or in foster homes - In families receiving Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) payments above the poverty
income level for a family of four
45Title I Targeted Grants
46Title I Targeted Grants
- Weights are applied in a stepwise manner
- Which number is higher (count vs. percentage) is
the one actually used to calculate the grant
47Title I Targeted Grants
- Example Assume an LEA has 2,000 population
factor children, the total school-age population
is 10,000, and therefore the population factor
percentage is 20. - First find the Number Weights, then the
Percentage Weights, and use the larger of the two
numbers.
48Title I Targeted Grants
- Numbers Scale
- Step 1 691 1.0 691
- Step 2 (2,000 - 691) 1,309 1.5 1,963.5
- An LEA with a total number of population factor
children falling within the second step of the
numbers scale, the number of population factor
children above 691 is weighted at 1.5. - The weighted population factor counts from Steps
1 and 2 are combined (691 1,963.5) - Total (Numbers Scale) 2,654.5
49Title I Targeted Grants
- Percentage Scale
- Step 1 15.58 10,000 1,558 1.0 1,558
- Step 2 (20 - 15.58) 4.42 10,000 442
1.75 773.5 - An LEA with a population factor percentage
falling within the second step of the percentage
scale, the number of population factor children
above 15.58 of the LEAs total school-age
population is weighted at 1.75. - Total (Percentage Scale) 2,331.5 (Step 1 Step
2)
50Title I Targeted Grants
- Numbers Scale Weight 2,654.5
- Percentage Scale Weight 2,331.5
- Since the numbers scale weighted count exceeds
the percentage scale weighted count, the numbers
scale count would be used as the population
factor for this LEA in the calculation of
Targeted Grants.
51Title I Targeted Grants
- Eligibility Threshold The number of children
counted in the population factor (no weights)
must constitute 10 or more such children and 5
or more of the total school-age population. - Expenditure Factor State average per pupil
expenditure for public K-12 education, subject to
a minimum of 80 and a maximum of 120 of the
national average, further multiplied by 0.40.
(same as Basic) - The expenditure factor is the same for all LEAs
in the same state.
52Title I Targeted Grants
- Hold Harmless If sufficient funds are
appropriated, each LEA is to receive a minimum of
85, 90, or 95 of its previous year grant. - 85 if the LEAs school-age child poverty rate is
less than 15, - 90 if the school-age child poverty rate is
between 15 and 30 - 95 if the school-age child poverty rate is
greater than 30.
53Title I Targeted Grants
- Minimum State Grant Each state is to receive a
minimum of up to 0.35 of all Targeted Grant
appropriations.
54Title I Targeted Grants
- A state may not, as a result of the state minimum
provision, receive more than the average of - 0.35 of total state grants, and
- 150 of the national average grant per formula
child, multiplied by the number of formula
children in the state. (population factor child
counts are not weighted.)
55Title I Targeted Grants
- Ratable Reduction After maximum grants are
calculated, if appropriations are insufficient,
these amounts are reduced by the same percentage
for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and
state minimum provisions, until they equal the
aggregate level of appropriations.
56Title I Targeted Grants
- After ED calculation, SEAs may make additional
adjustments - 4 reservation of state total allocations to be
used for school improvement grants - 1 reservation or 400,000, whichever is greater,
for state administration - Optional reservation of up to 5 of any statewide
increase in total Part A grants over the previous
year for academic achievement awards
57Title I Targeted Grants
- SEA Adjustments (cont)
- Adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to
eligible charter schools or to account for recent
LEA boundary changes - Optional use by states of alternative methods to
reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED
among the states small LEAs (defined as those
serving an area with a total population of 20,000
or fewer persons).
58Title I Targeted Grants Formula
- Step 1
- Preliminary Grant 1 PF EF or L_HH, whichever
is greater - The population factor (weighted) is multiplied by
the expenditure factor for each eligible LEA. - If this is less than the LEAs hold harmless
level, the latter amount is used.
59Title I Targeted Grants
- Step 2
- Preliminary Grant 2 ( Preliminary Grant 1 / S
Preliminary Grant 1 ) APP or L_HH, whichever is
greater - The amount for each LEA in Step 1 is divided by
the total of these amounts for all eligible LEAs
in the nation, then multiplied by the available
appropriation.
60Title I Targeted Grants
- Step 3
- Preliminary Grant 3 (Preliminary Grant 2
S_MIN_ADJ L_HH_ADJ) or L_HH, whichever is
greater - The amount for each LEA in Step 2 is adjusted
through application of the state minimum grant
provision and by a factor to account for the
aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs to their
hold harmless level, given a fixed total
appropriation level.
61Title I Targeted Grants
- Step 4
- Final Grant Preliminary Grant 3 SCH_IMP_ADJ
S_ADMIN_ADJ AWD_ADJ OTR_ADJ - Further adjusted for the school improvement and
state administration reservations, possible state
reservations for achievement awards, and other
possible adjustments.
62Title I EFIG
- 22 of Title I in FY 2008
- 83 of LEAs participating
- In several ways significantly different from the
other Title I-A allocation formulas. - The first stage in the process of calculating
grants is based on data for states as a whole,
not LEAs.
63Title I EFIG
- Formula includes not only a population factor and
an expenditure factor, but also two unique
factors - Effort factor, based on average per pupil
expenditure for public K-12 education compared to
personal income per capita for each state
compared to the nation as a whole - Equity factor, based on variations in average per
pupil expenditure among the LEAs in each state.
64Title I EFIG
- While population factor child counts are not
weighted when calculating state total grants,
they are weighted in the separate process of
suballocating state total grants among LEAs. - Intra-state allocation process is based on the
same number and percentage scales as used for
Targeted Grants, but the weights attached to each
point varies based on the states equity factor.
65Title I EFIG
- Expenditure factor is modified through
application of slightly more narrow floor and
ceiling constraints for EFIG Grants.
66Title I EFIG
- State total EFIG Grants are based on each states
share of population factor multiplied by an
expenditure factor, an effort factor, and an
equity factor, adjusted by a state minimum - Each LEAs share of the state total is based on
comparative weighted population factor count for
the LEA, adjusted by an LEA hold harmless level
67Title I EFIG
- Poverty Population Factor In the first-stage
calculation of state total EFIG Grants, same as
Basic Grants - Estimated number of children aged 5-17
- In poor families
- In institutions for neglected or delinquent
children or in foster homes - In families receiving TANF payments above the
poverty income level for a family of four.
68Title I EFIG
- Poverty Population Factor In second-stage
suballocation among LEAs, weights are applied to
these child counts before they are actually used
in the formula - Same as Targeted Grants with respect to the
number and percentage scales used, but weights
attached to each point on the number and
percentage scales differs, depending on the
states equity factor
69Title I EFIG
70Title I EFIG
- Effort Factor Ratio of average per pupil
expenditure (APPE) to personal income per capita
(PCI) for each state divided by the ratio of APPE
to PCI for the nation - Resulting index number is greater than 1.0 for
states where the ratio of expenditures per pupil
for public education to personal income per
capita is greater than national average
71Title I EFIG
- Equity Factor based upon a measure of the
average disparity in average per pupil
expenditure among the LEAs of a state called the
coefficient of variation (CV). - An extra weight (1.4 vs. 1.0) is applied to
estimated counts of children from poor families.
72Title I EFIG
- Equity Factor (cont) Typical state equity
factors range from 0.0 - .25 - Most states in .10 - .20 range
- Equity factor is subtracted from 1.30 to
determine a multiplier to be used in calculating
state grants - The lower a states expenditure disparities among
its LEAs, the lower is its CV and equity factor,
the higher is its multiplier and its grant under
the EFIG formula.
73Title I EFIG
- Eligibility Threshold The number of children
counted in the population factor (no weights)
must constitute 10 or more such children and 5
or more of the total school-age population - Expenditure Factor State average per pupil
expenditure for public education, subject to a
minimum of 85 and a maximum of 115 of average,
further multiplied by 0.40
74Title I EFIG
- Hold Harmless If sufficient funds are
appropriated, each LEA is to receive a minimum of
85, 90, or 95 of its previous year grant. - 85 if the LEAs school-age child poverty rate is
less than 15, - 90 if the school-age child poverty rate is
between 15 and 30 - 95 if the school-age child poverty rate is
greater than 30.
75Title I EFIG
- Hold harmless is not taken into consideration in
the initial calculation of state total grants. - It is possible that state total grants are
insufficient to fully pay hold harmless amounts
to all LEAs in the state. - In that case, each LEA gets a proportional share
of its hold harmless amount.
76Title I EFIG
- Minimum State Grant Each state is to receive a
minimum of up to 0.35 of all EFIG
appropriations.
77Title I EFIG
- A state may not, as a result of the state minimum
provision, receive more than the average of - 0.35 of total state grants, and
- 150 of the national average grant per formula
child, multiplied by the number of formula
children in the state. (population factor child
counts are not weighted.)
78Title I EFIG
- Ratable Reduction After maximum grants are
calculated, if appropriations are insufficient,
these amounts are reduced by the same percentage
for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and
state minimum provisions, until they equal the
aggregate level of appropriations.
79Title I EFIG
- After ED calculation, SEAs may make additional
adjustments - 4 reservation of state total allocations to be
used for school improvement grants - 1 reservation or 400,000, whichever is greater,
for state administration - Optional reservation of up to 5 of any statewide
increase in total Part A grants over the previous
year for academic achievement awards
80Title I EFIG
- SEA Adjustments (cont)
- Adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to
eligible charter schools or to account for recent
LEA boundary changes - Optional use by states of alternative methods to
reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED
among the states small LEAs (defined as those
serving an area with a total population of 20,000
or fewer persons).
81Title I EFIG Formula
- Stage 1 Calculation of State Total EFIG
- Step 1 Preliminary State Grant PF EF EFF
(1.30 - EQ) - In Step 1, the population factor is multiplied by
the expenditure factor, the effort factor, and
1.30 minus the equity factor for each state.
82Title I EFIG Formula
- Stage 1 (cont)
- Step 2 Final State Grant ( Preliminary State
Grant / S Preliminary State Grant) APP
S_MIN_ADJ or S_MIN, if greater - The amount for each state in Step 1 is divided by
the total of these amounts for all eligible
states in the nation, then multiplied by the
available appropriation, adjusted through
application of the state minimum grant provision.
83Title I EFIG Formula
- Stage 2 Calculation of LEA EFIG Allocations
- Step 1 Preliminary LEA Grant 1 ( PF / S PF)
S_ALL, or L_HH, whichever is greater - The population factor for each eligible LEA is
divided by the total population factor for all
eligible LEAs in the state. - If this is less than the LEAs hold harmless
level, the latter amount is used.
84Title I EFIG Formula
- Stage 2 (cont)
- Step 2 Preliminary LEA Grant 2 Preliminary LEA
Grant 1 L_HH_ADJ or L_HH, whichever is greater - The amount for each LEA in Step 1 is adjusted
through application of a factor to account for
the aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs in
the state to their hold harmless level, given a
fixed total state allocation level.
85Title I EFIG Formula
- Stage 2 (cont)
- Step 3 Final LEA Grant Preliminary LEA Grant 2
SCH_IMP_ADJ S_ADMIN_ADJ AWD_ADJ OTR_ADJ - LEA grants as calculated in Step 2 are further
adjusted for the school improvement and state
administration reservations, possible state
reservations for achievement awards, and other
possible adjustments.
86Title I Consolidation
- Title IX of NCLB allows SEAs and LEAs record
expenditures of consolidated admin without
assigning allowable costs under each individual
program. - Applies to every program under NCLB.
87Title I Consolidation
- SEAs may consolidate state admin from any NCLB
program that authorizes use of admin. - SEA must demonstrate that the majority of its
resources for admin are derived from nonfederal
funds - SEA may adopt and use its own reasonable
standards for determining this. - Can be consolidated with other ED programs, as
designated by the Secretary
88Title I Consolidation
- LEAs may also consolidate admin funds under
applicable NCLB programs. - Must have SEA approval
- Can be consolidated with other ED programs, as
designated by the Secretary - No federal cap on LEA admin, but SEAs are
directed to establish limits on amount of funds
that LEAs can consolidate
89Title I Funding Whats Next?
- Continuing Annual Budget Battles
- Sequestration?
- ESEA Reauthorization?
90FY 2012 Budget
- Completed almost three months late, against
looming shutdown deadline - Cut ED funding by 233 million
- All programs subject to .189 across-the-board
cut - Some increases, including Title I
- FY 12 14.52 billion (up 73 million)
- Would have been 7 million higher if not for
rescission.
91FY 2013 Budget
- President proposing to level fund Title I.
- House GOP Proposing 7 billion cut to ED.
- Senate Proposing 1.4 billion increase for ED.
- Neither Hour or Senate has releases detailed
budget numbers.
92FY 2013 Presidents Proposal
- Overall, 2.5 increase in education spending
(1.72 billion) - New Race to the Top proposals for college
affordability and completion, improving
matriculation and reducing remediation (1.55
billion) - Legislative proposal would provide
- 30 billion to modernize schools
- 25 billion to help hire and retain teachers
- 1 billion for career academies
- Other programs frozen at FY 12 levels (no cuts)
- Includes Title I, SIG, 21st CCLC, IDEA Part B
93FY 2013 House GOP (Ryan Plan)
- Lowers spending caps by 5 in FY 2013 by 19 in
FY 2014 - Huge cuts in almost all areas except defense
- Education could lose 115 billion in the next
decade - Restructuring of tax code, entitlements
- Balances budget by 2040?
94FY 2013 Now What?
- House and Senate Appropriations Committees will
draft spending bills - Most Likely
- Election year politics
- Another Continuing Resolution (CR) and long
budget battle - Final action on sequestration and
- budget will come during lame
- duck session
95FY 2013 Outlook
- Budget and fiscal responsibility remain highly
visible issues. - All GOP candidates were forced to create a
platform for deficit reduction. - Balance between austerity and economic recovery
will remain a hot issue for 2012 elections.
96FY 2013 Other Concerns
- Budget Control Act of 2011
- Raised the debt ceiling temporarily
- Reduced spending caps by 891 billion over the
next ten years - Created Congressional debt Supercommittee
- Supercommittee failed to find 1.2 trillion in
savings by November 23, 2011, so
97Sequestration
- Automatic cuts take effect January 2, 2013
- Cuts to some programs may take effect immediately
(mid-year) - Cuts to education of up to 4.1 billion this
coming year - Never really intended to happen?
98Sequestration (cont)
- Adjust total for interest to reflect lesser debt
principal - 1.2 trillion to 984 billion
- Divide by year from 2013 through 2021
- Split between defense and non-defense spending
(about 54.5 billion each) - Take exempt programs out of the equation
99Sequestration (cont.)
- Spread cuts equally among remaining programs in
2013 (accomplished by reducing spending caps for
2014 and beyond) - Estimates on final cuts range from 5.5 - 9.1
100Sequestration (cont)
- Whats exempt?
- Some low income assistance programs (Social
Security, Medicaid, TANF) - Veterans benefits
- Pell grants, in first year
- Whats not exempt?
- Defense spending, among other items
- ESEA Title I
101Sequestration (cont)
102Sequestration
- Cuts will go into effect on January 2, 3013.
- Exactly how cuts will apply is still unclear.
- Will apply to all funds appropriated for FY 2013,
as well as all unobligated funds for
advance-funded programs appropriated in FY 2012
but available for obligation as of October 1,
2012.
103Sequestration
- Sequestration will likely affect funding for the
five major education programs which receive FY
2012 advance funding ESEA Title I and II, Impact
Aid, IDEA Part B, and CTE State Grants. - But what if those funds are already obligated
before January 2, 2013? - Any benefit to obligating early?
- Unclear.
104(No Transcript)
105Avoiding Sequestration?
- Must be rescinded by an act of Congress through
- Regular- year appropriations legislation passed
by House and Senate with specific rescission
language - An alternate spending plan with rescission
language or - Special legislation rescinding automatic cuts
- All options must be approved by House, Senate,
and President
106Avoiding Sequestration
- Originally meant to force Supercommittee to
succeed. - President Obama and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)
have said that they will not allow Congress to
circumvent this measure of accountability. - Growing pressure from advocates and industry
especially the defense industry may force them
to change their minds.
107Avoiding Sequestration
- A temporary fix (extending enactment date into
Spring) is likely, unless leadership can broker a
deal before the election. - Unclear if having sequestration on the table is
helpful or hurtful to incumbents. - If nothing before election, lame duck action
extremely likely.
108ESEA Reauthorization
- Near-universal unhappiness with current law
- Pressure on both sides to reduce size/scope of
federal footprint - Increasing sanctions for schools
- In March 2011, Sec. Duncan said 82 of schools
will be labeled failing this year.
109ESEA Reauthorization
- President Obamas Blueprint
- Rebrands Title I as College and Career Ready
Students - Maintains Title I formula grants to high-poverty
school districts - Makes significant changes to better support
states, districts, and schools in improving
achievement for all groups of students
110ESEA Reauthorization
- Obama Blueprint
- Focuses on flexibility on implementing turnaround
strategies - Continues encouragement of competitive grants
- Encourages increased resource equity at every
level of the system. - Districts will be required to ensure that their
high-poverty schools receive state and local
funding levels comparable to those received by
their low-poverty schools.
111ESEA Reauthorization
- Obama Blueprint
- Flexibility in spending, accountability, reform
strategies - No mention of altering funding formulas.
112ESEA Reauthorization
- Harkin Bill
- Not a complete re-write builds on existing ESEA
structure - More flexibility overall
- No more AYP/100 proficiency target
- State-based accountability
- No substantive changes to funding formulas
113ESEA Reauthorization
- Harkin Bill
- Some support, but also early opposition (not
enough accountability, issues with teacher
evaluation) - Groups opposed include ACLU, La Raza, NAACP, Ed
Trust, Chamber of Commerce, Congressional
Tri-Caucus
114ESEA Reauthorization
- Not a priority for Senate leadership
- Lack of strong bipartisan support
- Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) almost derailed markup
with procedural objection - Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) only voted for it
in Committee to keep it moving - Harkin says he wont move to place on Senate
floor unless House passes their own bipartisan
bill
115ESEA Reauthorization
- House GOP Bills
- Setting New Priorities in Education Spending Act
(H.R. 1891) - Eliminates/consolidates some federal education
programs - Passed through Committee
- Empowering Parents through Quality Charter
Schools Act (H.R. 2218) - Promotes expansion and replication of successful
charter models - Passed House with bipartisan support
116ESEA Reauthorization
- House GOP Bills
- State and Local Funding Flexibility Act (H.R.
2445) - Passed through Committee
- Creates essentially unlimited transferability
- Unlikely to become law
- Groups in Opposition
- Center for American Progress, Education Trust, La
Raza, NEA, AFT, Special Ed Groups
117ESEA Reauthorization
- Failure to move legislation on both sides of the
Capitol - Not a priority for leadership
- Lack of strong bipartisan support
- Encroachment of partisan politics in new issue
areas including education - Weve never had education dragged into this
vortex. Education has always been above it. Now
we find ourselves sitting in a partisan
firefight. (Rep. George Miller (D-CA) at CCSSO,
March 2012)
118ESEA Reauthorization
- Consensus in Washington that ESEA will not go
through this year - Chances in 2013 depend on political make up of
Congress and the White House. - If either party controls both branches, ESEA is
likely - If divided, will depend on how many moderates
remain in Congress.
119 120Brustein Manasevit, PLLC Fall Forum
- Federal Education Grants Management Conference
- November 29th-30th
- Cosmopolitan Hotel
- Clark County Nevada
- Registration opens late Summer 2012
- Please visit www.bruman.com for more details.
121- This presentation is intended solely to provide
general information and does not constitute legal
advice or a legal service. This presentation
does not create a client-lawyer relationship with
Brustein Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore,
carries none of the protections under the D.C.
Rules of Professional Conduct. Attendance at
this presentation, a later review of any printed
or electronic materials, or any follow-up
questions or communications arising out of this
presentation with any attorney at Brustein
Manasevit, PLLC does not create an
attorney-client relationship with Brustein
Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action
based upon any information in this presentation
without first consulting legal counsel familiar
with your particular circumstances.