02/03/04 -- Hundreds of school board members from every state will be in Washington, D.C., Feb. 1-3 for NSBA's Federal Relations Network Conference. As they visit their members of Congress, they will focus on the following four issues.
Funding for education
The omnibus spending bill approved by Congress for 2004 includes a $1 billion increase for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and a $654 million increase for Title I -- far below what is needed. For both Title I and IDEA, Congress is, in effect, passing off the costs of its underfunded mandates to local schools and taxpayers.
Given the budget deficits affecting most states, state governments are not in a position to provide significant funding increases for education -- and will not be able to offset the shortfalls in federal funding.
As a result, school districts will be forced to make up the difference between the federal underfunding of these mandated programs through either local tax increases or education program reductions.
NSBA is urging Congress to help secure the future of our nation's children by adequately investing in our public schools. Congress must also recognize the cost of the new requirements it has imposed on school districts resulting from the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
Implementation of NCLB
NSBA fully supports the goals of NCLB to ensure that every student achieves the academic proficiency standards established by the states and to encourage states to reassess and strengthen their role in improving the quality of educational services available to K-12 public school students.
Following are some of NSBA's key recommendations to improve NCLB through legislative and regulatory changes:
• Federal funding -- The legislation creates an expectation that American education will make dramatic strides in advancing the education of all of the nation's 50 million public school children. Accomplishing this will require an investment of funds -- including federal resources.
In terms of costs, support for testing students is only the tip of the iceberg. School boards will need more resources to enhance teacher compensation, reduce class sizes, provide more professional development, purchase new curriculum materials and technology, provide after-school and early education programs, and implement various school reforms.
• Adequate yearly progress (AYP) -- The current design of AYP inappropriately overidentifies schools as "in need of improvement." The AYP calculations should give weight to the progress of students, such as students who move from "below proficient" levels to "proficient" levels.
Schools and districts should have the flexibility to have the proficiency scores of students belonging to more than one subgroup be counted as one student for AYP purposes rather than multiple times.
• Participation in assessments/graduation rates -- States should have the flexibility to grant waivers to local schools when the number of students within a subgroup would be too small to reasonably meet the 95 percent requirement.
In addition, states and districts should establish criteria for defining which students should be included when calculating "graduation rates."
• Public school choice/ supplemental services -- These provisions have strained school districts' budgets, led to overcrowding in some schools, and limited local school district authority.
NSBA believes school choice and supplemental services should be limited to students who belong to subgroups that failed to meet AYP targets. School districts should have a greater role in participating in the state process for selecting and approving supplemental service providers.
Schools should have the flexibility to offer supplemental services rather than choice in the first year of improvement status. Instructional personnel employed by supplemental service providers should be required to meet the same qualifications as comparable district employees
• Teacher and paraprofessional qualifications -- NSBA believes the provisions regarding "highly qualified" teachers in core subjects and special education and paraprofessionals should be modified to permit time extensions for unusual circumstances.
• Universal accountability -- Non-public schools serving Title I students should be subject to the annual academic assessment and public reporting requirements that NCLB places on public schools.
Reauthorization of IDEA
IDEA expired on Sept. 30, 2002, but it remains in effect as long as Congress continues appropriating funding for it.
Since the original legislation guaranteeing a free, appropriate education to children with disabilities was enacted 28 years ago, more detailed requirements through legislative amendments, regulations, court interpretations, paperwork, and self-imposed local compliance activities have been added.
As a result, local school districts are forced to implement special education programs and services out of growing concerns over increased litigation and settlements rather than on improving the education outcomes of students.
Both the House bill (H.R.1350) and Senate bill (S.1248) reauthorizing IDEA reflect many of NSBA's concerns. NSBA welcomes the shift in program emphasis from one of compliance to improving education outcomes and accountability for all students.
The House bill (H.R.1350), approved by the full House in April, substantially addressed NSBA's recommendations, although it doesn't include NSBA's proposals for full funding of the federal government's 40 percent share.
The Senate bill, unanimously approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in June, also includes many of NSBA's recommendations but fails to address two key concerns for local school districts: mandatory funding and discipline.
Although S.1248 has not yet come before the full Senate for a vote, the Senate did reach an agreement that floor amendments will be limited primarily to attorneys' fees, funding, paperwork reduction, special education programs for homeless children, and coordination of data on developmental disabilities. NSBA's positions include the following:
• Local district flexibility -- NSBA applauds the provisions in both bills that expand authority to local school districts to use federal funds to support pre-referral services, risk-sharing pools among districts for high-cost services, and schoolwide programs under Title I.
• Due process -- NSBA supports the provisions in both bills to significantly improve due process. These provisions address the early resolution of complaints, options for mediation, and the elimination of decisions by hearing officials based on procedural errors.
• Individual education plans (IEPs) -- Both bills contain provisions that would increase flexibility in the design and modification of IEPs, the convening of IEP meetings, and determining who must participate.
• Financial obligation for related services -- NSBA is pleased with the provisions in S.1248 requiring state law or a written agreement to define who should pay for related services and which services are covered.
School lunch programs
As Congress begins to consider legislation to reauthorize the school lunch program, NSBA will support bills to give school districts maximum flexibility and discretion.
NSBA expects Congress will consider tighter provisions to verify students' family incomes to determine their eligibility for free and reduced-price meals. Congress could require as much as 12 percent of free and reduced-price school meal applications to be audited. NSBA supports the provision in the current law calling for 3 percent of applications to be audited.
NSBA believes changing the income verification process would result in eligible children being dropped from the program and increased administrative burdens and costs.
And because the school lunch data is used as a trigger to distribute federal funding and benefits for many other programs, a reduction in the number of participating students would impact a school district's overall budget.
Congress also is expected to consider federal legislation that would regulate the sale of "competitive foods," such as food sold in vending machines.
NSBA supports the right of local school districts to make their own decisions about school-business relationships and opposes any legislation that would restrict or remove authority of the school board to oversee the operation of school meal programs.
The driving force behind the attempts to restrict competitive foods is the nation's concern over childhood obesity. However, school meals are only a small part of children's annual food consumption.
Parents, communities, health professionals, food manufacturers, the prepared food industry, and the television industry also should take responsibility for promoting healthy eating habits, as well as schools.
Federal law banning competitive foods in school will not prevent children from bringing non-nutritious items from home or purchasing them elsewhere.