Distributed via Email: March 7, 2014
BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT
At the end of 2013, Congress finalized the Fiscal Year 2014 (FY-14) budget. The Bipartisan Budget Act stopped the across-the-board budget cuts from the sequester for two years (FY-14 and FY-15). Overall, the budget deal set caps for discretionary spending at higher levels than they would have been under the sequester, giving lawmakers time to work out a broader agreement on a mix of taxes, expenditures, and any changes to entitlement programs.
Once Congress passed this Act, and the President signed it into law, the House and Senate appropriations committees met to decide funding levels for agencies and programs. Here are how the two main programs fared:
PRESIDENT’S FY 15 BUDGET REQUEST
On March 4, President Obama released his FY-15 budget proposal. Federal FY-15 starts October 1, 2014 and runs through September 30, 2015, and these federal funds would be in school districts in the 2015 ‐ 16 school year. According to the President, his budget “emphasizes increased spending on domestic initiatives for education, public works, and research and manufacturing centers -- paid for by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and some corporations, rather than budget-cutting.”
His education budget funds the U. S. Department of Education (USDOE) at $68.6 billion, a $1.3 billion (1.9%) increase over FY-14 levels. He level funds Title I and IDEA, both of which face rising costs and increased enrollment, which is essentially a cut when calculated at the per ‐ pupil level. His proposed IDEA funding puts the federal investment at 15.6%, less than half of the promised 40%.
VOUCHER LEGISLATION INTRODUCED
Recently, prominent members of Congress introduced school voucher bills that would allow 63% of federal K-12 funds to be sent to private schools. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Representative Luke Messer (R-IN) introduced the Scholarships for Kids Act (S. 1968 /H.R. 4000) that would allow all of federal education expenditures, with the exception of IDEA, Impact Aid, and school lunch funds, to be used for private school vouchers for low-income students.
The legislation would authorize $24 billion to allow states to create vouchers that would “follow” children in low-income families to any public, private, or charter school of their parents’ choice. It would also consolidate more than 80 existing federal education funding programs into one funding stream that states could then use to create voucher programs for children in low-income families.
Turning Title I into a voucher program would destabilize district finances and make it more difficult to leverage the federal resources remaining in public schools to provide the important personnel and services needed to improve the education of students in poverty. Because Title I funds are not spent at a consistent rate or on a "per child" basis, this legislation would also require districts to significantly modify – if not completely overhaul – how they keep their financial records, creating a burdensome new federally-mandated bookkeeping system.
REDUCING FEDERAL MANDATES ON SCHOOL LUNCH ACT (HR 3663)
Illinois Representative Rodney Davis (R-13) is the chief co-sponsor of legislation introduced in December that offers public schools added flexibility in meeting the mandates of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.
Reducing Federal Mandates on School Lunch Act (HR 3663) offers relief to school districts on some of the federal mandates that have created soaring operational costs, along with other unintended consequences, such as school lunches that leave students hungry because of inadequate serving sizes or students do not like the food mandated and are refusing to eat it.
The Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 created overly prescriptive and unnecessary federal mandates. HR 3663 would allow local school officials to design flexible school meal programs that meet the needs of local students and local communities.
Even though the legislation has yet to start moving through the legislative process, it has already started to have a positive effect. One concern the legislation addresses has already been fixed, when, in January, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through a Final Rule in the Federal Register, decided to eliminate the caps on grain/protein servings for the school lunch program. Schools are now considered compliant if they meet minimum serving requirements in those areas and don't exceed overall calorie caps. In addition, this final rule allows frozen fruit with added sugar to be offered within the meal pattern. Under both flexibilities, the meal pattern still requires the menu to be in compliance with the nutrient standards, including the minimum and maximum calories, saturated fat, and trans fat.
SCHOOL NUTRITION PERSONNEL REGULATIONS
The USDA recently released proposed education and training requirements for school food service personnel. The standards could impact school district finances and operations by proposing minimum education and prior experience requirements for school food services directors, including contract personnel. The requirements would apply to new hires after July 1, 2015. The requirements for school service personnel (broken into director, manager, and staff levels) are divided into enrollment thresholds: districts with 2,499 or fewer students; 2,500 to 9,999 students; 10,000 and 24,999 students; and those enrolling more than 25,000 students. The enrollment applies to the total count of students served, an important nuance in smaller districts or districts that share food service personnel. No new funding is proposed to help school districts comply, and there is a specific prohibition on using federal school meal funds for college level credits. School districts can submit comments until April 4, 2014.
EPA PROPOSED PCB REGULATIONS
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering requiring school districts to remove a harmful chemical, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), that can be found in old fluorescent lighting fixtures in public buildings built before 1980, including schools.
In order to assess the financial and operational implications of this proposal, NSBA is asking districts to respond to a survey by March 21. The survey is located at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/JKTRX86
SECLUSION AND RESTRAINT
In mid-February, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, introduced legislation that would reduce the authority of states and local school districts to decide the appropriate use of restraint and seclusion in public schools. The bill, Keeping All Students Safe Act, follows similar language introduced several years ago. The bill fails to recognize the need for local school personnel to make decisions based on their onsite, real-time assessment of the situation. It also includes language that would allow parents to go straight to federal court, without first exhausting administrative remedies in IDEA, for an evidentiary hearing if they believe seclusion/restraint was inappropriately used on their child. This language would dramatically increase litigation for districts in federal court. In conjunction with the bill introduction, the HELP Committee also released a report addressing 10 worst-case examples of misuse, which fail to present a balanced view, considering the overwhelming majority of school districts that continue to demonstrate best practices. With Senator Harkin's pending retirement it is possible the bill will be moved out of Committee and onto the floor, but the House is not expected to move forward on the issue. This legislation has not been assigned a bill number.
This Federal Legislative Report is used to forward information on federal issues from NSBA and other federal sources. Those interested in additional information or signing up for these free reports should contact Susan Hilton.