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

• 42 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• Two days of debate– 18 amendments passed– 4 amendments defeated– 4 withdrawn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

http://www.parcconline.org/

28

ASSESSMENT CONSORTIA: SMARTER BALANCED

Computer Adaptive

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/

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 – Over-sampling of students with disabilities due to previous under-sampling.

• 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 Concept1/2012 – Small Expert Panel Identified Issues/Challenges3/2012 – Representative Assembly Commented; – CEC Members and Convention Attendees Commented at 2012 Convention Town Hall6/2012 – CEC CAN Network Commented; – Over 600 CEC Members Commented Online7/2012 – PAS Team Developed Draft Position Statement8/2012 – 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.

TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS SHALL:

Include Fundamental System-Wide Components

• 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

• 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.

TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS SHALL:

Measure the Use of Evidence-Based Practices

USE OF IEP

• Multiple indicators of special education teacher effectiveness may include … IEP development and implementation.

• Evaluations should not use a student’s progress on their goals, objectives, and benchmarks in the IEP as a measure of a special education teacher’s contribution to student growth.

• Evaluations must respect special education teachers’ professional practice and provide them with constructive and actionable feedback, resources, and opportunities to assist in addressing any areas for professional development and lead to well-grounded personnel decisions.

• Special education teachers must have reasonable case loads and paperwork responsibilities; competitive salaries; benefits; access to resources; and positive working conditions.

TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS SHALL:

Recognize the Professionalism of Special Education Teachers

• Leaders of evaluation systems reforms must collaborate to ensure that the development and implementation of evaluation systems are carried out in a systematic, coordinated, and efficient manner.

• Research should identify reliable measures and indicators of student growth that can be validly used to evaluate special education teachers.

• Policy makers and leaders should consider the intended and unintended consequences of wide-scale implementation of teacher evaluation systems.

TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEMS SHALL:

Continually Incorporate Findings From Research

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 Federal Government is OPEN!

The Story of Sequestration

How did Special/Gifted Education Fare in FY 2013?

What to Expect for FY 2014

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS…. OPEN!

• 1st shutdown in 17 years • 16-day shutdown spurred by

debate over government funding levels & funding of healthcare law

• October 1 federal funding for IDEA went to states as scheduled

• Deal keeps government funded

until January 15, 2014; raises debt ceiling until February 7, 2014

3

2010

Congressional Elections Bring Fiscal Conservatives (Tea Party) to Washington

August 2011

Budget Control ActCut $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 2012Education

2%

Defense19%

Nondefense discretionary(other than education)

16%Social Security22%

Medicare15%

Medicaid7%

Other Mandatory

13%

Interest6%

Chart Courtesy of Committee for Education Funding49

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

53

54

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

55

55

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

56 2014 Federal Fiscal Year Began on October 1, 2013 Different Views Led to Shutdown

IDEA Part B $11.472 Billion(+$500 M)

IDEA Part BSection 619

$353.238 Million

IDEA Part C$438.498

Million(+$19 M)

IDEA Part D$237.085

Million(+$14.5 M)

Javits $5 Million(+$5 M)

SpEd Research $54.000 Million(+$6.7 M)

Special/Gifted Education Funding Levels in FY 2014

2014

Pre-sequestration Levels and some

increases!

57

CNN Poll conducted by ORC International during November 16-18, 2012

58

YOUR HOMEWORK!Tell CEC ….

1. How is Your State’s ESEA Waiver Impacting You and Students with Disabilities?

2. How is Your New Teacher Evaluation System Working?

3. What is the Impact of Sequestration/Other Budget Cuts on You, Your Students, Your School ?

Email: pubpol@cec.sped.org

Your Stories Help Policymakers Understand the Impact of their Decisions!!

CEC RESOURCES

• CEC Issue Briefs on Funding and ESEA

• CEC's 2014 Federal Outlook for Exceptional Children

• Personalized Stories from Your Network!

60

61

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!

62

TAKE ACTION: CEC’S LEGISLATIVE ACTION

CENTER

www.cec.sped.orgChoose: Policy & Advocacy

Choose: Take Action!

63

THANK YOU!!

64

CEC Policy Staff

Deb Ziegler Kim Hymes Rose Haller-KaplanAssociate Executive Director Senior Director Program AssistantPolicy & Advocacy Policy & Advocacy Policy & Advocacydebz@cec.sped.org kimh@cec.sped.org rosehk@cec.sped.org