NREAC Conference Call

  

November 19, 2005

1:00 – 2:00 EST

 

NREAC Members Present:

Joe Bard, PARSS, Coalition Chair

Mary Kusler, AASA

Bruce Hunter, AASA

Ray Patrick, MARE, Coalition Vice-Chair

Jerry Ness, MN

Dave Walrath, CA

 

Agenda Items 

Agenda Items:

  1. We began by discussing the funding levels for Education in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee approved their bill at the beginning of July, though we are expect the bill to be on the Senate floor this coming fall. Overall, the Senate matched the House’s overall funding increase for education of 0.2 percent, but overall we did worse on individual funding levels. The Senate, like the House only increased funding for Title I by $100 million. This is still only a $4.55 increase for every Title I student. The Senate only proposed a $100 million increase for IDEA. This is $50 million below the House and a decrease in the Congressional percentage of funding special education from 18.6 percent to 18 percent. It is clear that Congress believes they can step back on their commitment to special education funding. In addition, Title V, the Education Innovate Block Grant, is facing a $100 million cut. Safe and Drug Free Schools is facing a $136 million cut and Education Technology is looking at a $71 million cut. This represents real cuts to federal formula programs. On a brighter note, both Perkins and REAP were level funding. Although the Senate Committee tried to express their concern that they would have funded Title I and IDEA at higher levels if they had the money, it was clear it was just a matter of priorities. They managed to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health by over $1 billion. This is ten times more than they amount they increased IDEA.

    They need to hear from our grassroots. Our only hope in this situation is that they will find more money for us at the end of the day. However, they will only do this if they hear overwhelmingly from the grassroots. On September 13 the Committee for Education Funding, of which NREAC is a member, will be having a national grassroots call in day about the abysmal funding levels for education. We need to target our grassroots that day in order to have the maximum impact. In addition, I have attached a sample letter for districts to send to their members if they are losing Title I funding. Feel free to share this letter with your membership.

  2. Bruce shared the details of the IDEA regulations. He let the group know that he has reviewed the IDEA proposed regulations several times and has found numerous problems including areas that would make it more administrative burdensome for rural districts. The following points developed by AASA will be sent to the Department of Education as our response to the proposed rules for implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

    As you develop comments please consider using our points as a part of your own recommendations for altering the Department’s proposed IDEA rules. The proposed rules can be read and the information on sending your comments can be found at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2005-2/062105a.html .

    Here is a summary of our recommendations and observations:

    1.

    On at least 75 occasions, the NPRM creates concepts, requirements or actions that are not in the statute. In a small number of cases, the creation is helpful. However, in the overwhelming number of cases, the interpretation makes IDEA more complicated, more adversarial and more costly.
    2.

    There are so many references to the 1997 statue that it appears the Department is ignoring what Congress passed this time around. In some cases the 1997 referrals are helpful, but in the vast number of references the Department seems to be operating to leave the law much as it is.

    3.

    In a few cases the statute is interpreted in ways that go well beyond what was written in the new law, but will improve and streamline the program, such as defining the meaning of ten days for suspensions without services as ten consecutive days; and allowing the one year statute of limitation of complaints made through the state complaint procedure.

    4.

    Proposed rules for several of the important improvements follow the words of the statute closely, making for a clear and fair interpretation. Examples include: limitations on teacher participation in IEP meetings; flexibility to change the IEP without a meeting, if parents consent; and defining the state maintenance of effort language, so states will not be able to count federal funds as part of the state effort.
    5.

    The most important improvements in the statute were erased by the NPRM. They are: elimination of the early intervening and local MOE reduction provisions, effectively limiting local discretion; expansion of state complaint procedures beyond the two specific instances in the law; creation of IEP/parent authority that could keep students with major violations in their current placement.

    6.

    There are other areas of lesser concern that are still important where the NPRM interprets the statute in ways that contradict the intent of Congress, such as: requiring that parents be given the reasons for the determination that no reevaluation was needed; entitling parents to choose among all available schools within a district including magnets, specialty schools and charter schools; requiring parental consent to seek Medicaid reimbursement; giving parents a veto over presence of transition service providers in IEP meetings; using a definition of medical services that limits it to services by a licensed physician, rather than state certified health care providers; requiring scientifically incorrect inclusion of state test scores and reading fluency as indicators of learning disabilities; requiring highly qualified teachers for special education and regular education; requiring observation by a staff person trained in observation; and requiring a written report of every student who is evaluated for a learning disability.


    All comments will be due to the Department of Education by September 6, 2005. If you have an additional questions or comments on this, feel free to contact Bruce at bhunter@aasa.org or 703-875-0738.

     

  3. We then updated the coalition on progress on E-Rate.  Firstly, the proposed programmatic changes from the FCC were discussed.  Comments are due in the middle of October.   NREAC decided that they would like to respond to the proposals from the rural perspective.  I have also attached a document that outlines the questions within the E-Rate NPRM.  In order for NREAC to develop a response, we need feedback on these questions.  Please take a moment to answer the questions as they would relate to rural schools.  Also feel free to pass the questions along to technology savvy people within your organization.  We are asking for initial input to be into AASA by Friday, August 19th.  Please email any comments to mkusler@aasa.org.

    In addition, we are still trying to ensure that the Universal Service Program, of which E-Rate is a critical part, is exempted from the Anti-Deficiency Act.  Currently, we are operating on a one year exemption.  However, come December 31, 2005, if there is no extension of this exemption, it is more than likely that the E-Rate program will stop for at least a year in order for USAC to acquire enough funding in the bank to cover sending out commitment letters to schools and libraries.  With all of the legislative priorities this fall, including completion of the funding bills and the confirmation of Judge Roberts to the Supreme Court, it will be difficult to raise the importance of this issue.  We must work hard to do so.  There are currently House(HR 2533) and a Senate (S 241) bills to permanently exempt E-Rate from the Anti-Deficiency Act.  One way to create pressure is to get as many cosponsors as possible to this legislation.  The current cosponsors are listed below.  If your Senators and Representatives are not cosponsors, please urge them to become one today!

    S 241 Cosponsors

    Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 2/3/2005

    Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 5/11/2005

    Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 6/15/2005

    Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] - 2/2/2005

    Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/6/2005

    Sen Chafee, Lincoln [RI] - 2/18/2005

    Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 2/18/2005

    Sen Cornyn, John [TX] - 7/29/2005

    Sen Corzine, Jon S. [NJ] - 2/9/2005

    Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 4/12/2005

    Sen Dayton, Mark [MN] - 2/18/2005

    Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] - 2/9/2005
    Sen Dorgan, Byron L. [ND] - 4/4/2005 Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 5/11/2005
    Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] - 4/11/2005 Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 5/17/2005

    Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 3/1/2005

    Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] - 2/1/2005

    Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] - 2/3/2005

    Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] - 2/3/2005

    Sen Kohl, Herb [WI] - 3/1/2005

    Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA] - 3/10/2005

    Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/5/2005

    Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] - 3/1/2005

    Sen Levin, Carl [MI] - 4/4/2005

    Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. [AR] - 3/10/2005

    Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 4/4/2005

    Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] - 6/22/2005

    Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 4/12/2005

    Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 2/3/2005

    Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin [NE] - 4/4/2005

    Sen Pryor, Mark L. [AR] - 3/10/2005

    Sen Reed, Jack [RI] - 2/3/2005

    Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 4/4/2005

    Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] - 2/1/2005

    Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. [MD] - 4/4/2005

    Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 3/1/2005

    Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 4/19/2005

    Sen Stevens, Ted [AK] - 2/1/2005

    Sen Thomas, Craig [WY] - 5/17/2005

    Sen Thune, John [SD] - 6/9/2005

    Sen. Olympia Snowe [ME]

    HR 2533 Cosponsors

    Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] - 6/21/2005

    Rep Bean, Melissa L. [IL-8] - 7/26/2005

    Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 6/7/2005

    Rep Boehlert, Sherwood [NY-24] - 5/26/2005

    Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 6/13/2005

    Rep Brown, Sherrod [OH-13] - 5/23/2005

    Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 6/7/2005

    Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 7/11/2005

    Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 6/13/2005

    Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 7/21/2005

    Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 7/14/2005

    Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 7/26/2005

    Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 5/23/2005

    Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 6/13/2005

    Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 5/26/2005

    Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 6/13/2005

    Rep Gutknecht, Gil [MN-1] - 7/21/2005

    Rep Hinojosa, Ruben [TX-15] - 6/16/2005

    Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3] - 5/26/2005

    Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 5/23/2005

    Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 7/13/2005

    Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 5/26/2005

    Rep Leach, James A. [IA-2] - 5/24/2005

    Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 5/24/2005

    Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-3] - 6/30/2005

    Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 7/20/2005

    Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 6/16/2005

    Rep Menendez, Robert [NJ-13] - 7/26/2005

    Rep Moore, Dennis [KS-3] - 6/21/2005

    Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 7/28/2005

    Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] - 7/11/2005

    Rep Ortiz, Solomon P. [TX-27] - 6/21/2005

    Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 6/30/2005

    Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 5/23/2005

    Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 7/14/2005

    Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 7/12/2005

    Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 6/28/2005

    Rep Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 6/28/2005

    Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 6/13/2005

    Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 6/7/2005

    Rep Skelton, Ike [MO-4] - 6/16/2005

    Rep Strickland, Ted [OH-6] - 6/23/2005

    Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 5/23/2005

    Rep Young, Don [AK] - 6/7/2005

    Rep. Barbara Cubin [WY] – main sponsor

  4. Coalition members on the phone discussed the dates of our meeting during the NREA national conference in November and the January dates of our legislative meeting.  The November meeting is currently scheduled from 11:30 to 1:30 pm on Wednesday November 9, 2005.  This will be immediately following my legislative update at the NREA conference.  This will give us ample time to respond to the latest legislative news and plan for the future.

    The January legislative planning meeting was set for January 30 – 31, 2006.  The meeting will be all day on Monday on Capitol Hill and the Department of Education and until 2pm on Tuesday to plan out the legislative agenda.  It was suggested that members come to this meeting in January prepared to hammer out our legislative positions for the reauthorization of NCLB.

    It was also discussed that we would continue information to the entire list serve until the end of January.  However, after that time, organizations would have to join the NREAC in order to continue to receive the information and participate in discussions.

  5. Finally, our next conference call is set for Monday, September 19th from 1pm EST to 2pm EST.     The call in number will be (888) 809-4012.  All members are encouraged to call in. 

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 703-875-0733 or mkusler@aasa.org.