|
|
THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 |
|
TO: |
The Honorable the Members of the Board of Regents |
|
FROM: |
Diana M.
Hinchcliff, Director, Office of Governmental
Relations |
|
SUBJECT: |
Proposed
Regents State and Federal Priority Legislation for
2007 |
|
DATE: |
August 25, 2006 |
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals
1-6 |
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
Executive Summary
Issue for Decision
Regents state and federal priority legislative proposals for 2007.
Reason(s) for Consideration
At the last Board of Regents meeting the Regents discussed the proposed
list of 2007 federal and state legislative priorities.
Proposed Handling
The Regents will be asked to approve a final list of legislative
priorities at the September meeting.
Procedural History
Each year the Regents identify policy issues that will require legislation for implementation. Some are carried over from the previous year and some are new. Those requiring a state appropriation are included in SED’s budget proposal. The others are proposed for introduction during the legislative session.
Background
Information
This item includes a one-page justification for each proposed priority legislative issue, preceded by a list of priorities by program area separated into state and federal. Congress recently reauthorized the Carl D. Perkins Vocational & Technical Education Act, and that issue has been removed from the preliminary list.
Recommendation
Approval of 2007 Regents priority legislation.
2007-2008 REGENTS PRIORITY LEGISLATION BY
LEVEL AND PROGRAM OFFICE
STATE
Cultural Education
New York Knowledge Initiative.............................................................
Page
1
Museum Education....................................................................................
Page 2
EMSC &
VESID
Early Childhood Education (also
Federal)....................................................
Page
3
IDEA
Reauthorization Conforming Legislation .............................................
Page 4
State Aid
Proposal .............................................................................
Page 5
Streamline
School Planning And Reporting Requirements............................. Page
6
Higher Education
Fee For Accrediting Institutions Of Higher
Education.....................................
Page 7..........................................................................................................................
Increased Access
To College For Students With Disabilities......................... Page
8
Allow Retired Teachers To Teach In Shortage
Subjects Without A Salary Cap Page
9
Professions
Enforcing Prosecution Of Illegal
Practice.............................................
Page 10
Update The Public Accountancy Statute....................................................
Page 11
FEDERAL
Cultural Education
Funding For The Corporation For Public
Broadcasting................................ Page
12
Funding For American History Grants.......................................................
Page 13
Funding For The Library Services And
Technology Act .............................. Page
14
Funding For The Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program .................
Page 15
Funding For Ready To Learn and Ready To
Teach ...................................
Page 16
Funding For US Department Of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service ...............
Page 17
EMSC & VESID
Early Childhood Education (see State
item)...............................................
Page
3
E-rate (crossover with Cultural
Education).................................................
Page 18
Reauthorization Of The No Child Left Behind
Act ......................................
Page 19
Reauthorization Of The Workforce Investment
Act ....................................
Page 20
Higher
Education
Reauthorization Of The Higher Education Act
Page
21
2007-2008 REGENTS PRIORITY
LEGISLATION
JUSTIFICATION FOR 2007-2008 REGENTS PRIORITY
LEGISLATION
Short Title: New York Knowledge
Initiative
Level: STATE
Program Office: Cultural Education
Brief Description: The previous proposal was called New Century
Libraries. It has been recast to feature libraries as knowledge centers and
community spaces providing information. NOVEL (New York Online Virtual
Electronic Library) provides library information resources for innovation,
achievement, workforce development and economic growth, thus helping New York’s
high school, college and university students graduate prepared to take their
place in math, science, medicine and technology fields. NOVEL is like the research and
reference departments in a local library but online. Students, business people,
faculty, researchers and the general public use NOVEL to get full-text books,
journals, magazines, newspapers, encyclopedias and R&D information tools
such as peer-reviewed research journals, web databases and math, science,
medicine and technology reference materials. SED gets a small amount of federal
temporary funds for NOVEL but needs $10 million in the 2007-08 state budget.
This money will buy quality R&D and K-16 knowledge databases and science,
technology, engineering and medicine resources and provide grants to public and
school library systems for the latest Internet connections and high-speed
network access.
In addition, the $14 million the legislature
appropriated for library capital construction projects and the $3 million for
library system aid in the 2006-2007 budget should be made a permanent part of
the state’s annual budget.
Legislative History: 2001-2002: First introduced in the
legislature. Senate bill left in Education Committee. Assembly bill left in Ways
& Means Committee. 2003-2004: Senate bill left in Education Committee.
Assembly bill left in Ways & Means Committee. 2005-2006: Senate bill left in
Education Committee. Assembly bill left in Library & Education Technology
Committee. 2007-2008 budget includes funding for library construction and system
aid.
Justification:
New York’s colleges and universities often are unable to provide
state-of-the-art information resources to attract top faculty and students and
support research, innovation and economic growth. At the same time, the achievement gap
continues to impact the ability of New York’s students to take their place in
the global workforce and economy.
Both of these factors challenge New York at a time when states must
compete more intensely than ever to retain jobs and attract business.
Libraries deliver
resources directly to universities, schools and communities and have skilled
staff to guide students, faculty, researchers and the general public in their
use. Other states fund online
library programs and have dramatically increased the purchasing power of their
participating institutions. Examples: New Jersey, $6 million; Virginia, $13.4
million; Ohio, $6.3 million; Alabama, $3.5 million; and North Carolina, $4.6
million.
A $1.7 billion
statewide need for public library renovation and construction remains. New York
is outranked in state support for public library construction by such states as
Florida ($5.4 million), Georgia ($4.7 million), Illinois ($2.9 million),
Massachusetts ($16.4 million) and Rhode Island ($2.1 million).
Short Title: Museum Education
Act
Level: STATE
Program Office: Cultural Education
Brief Description: $30 million funding request
for standards-based K-12 educational programs by museums, historical societies
and performing arts institutions, either at the institutions or in the schools.
$20 million would be used to fund these entities according to a formula based on
contact hours and to add administrative staff. $5 million would be for
competitive grants targeting initiatives that address areas of particular need,
e.g. science, math and under-resourced schools. An additional $5 million would
fund competitive grants to performing arts institutions for creative initiatives
to expand access and raise the quality of their K-12 educational programs. The
grant program would be administered by the New York State Council on the Arts.
To be eligible for support, the
applying institutions would have to have their curricula certified for quality
and alignment with the learning standards by either the BOCES superintendent or
the school district superintendent or their designated staff. Yearly reports would provide benchmark data to evaluate
this initiative’s impact.
Legislative History: New in 2007.
Justification: Many museums already have aligned their
offerings with the state learning standards and provide pre-visit material and
training for teachers as well as follow-up lesson plans. The range of programs
offered in various areas of science, history, and the arts is vast and adapted
to all age groups. Museum education focuses on object-based learning,
confronting the "real thing", the primary resource from which analysis of
meaning, interpretation and comparisons can be made. The programs are usually
active ones, with students examining and analyzing artifacts, specimens, works
of art or documents. They contrast the characteristics of various species from
skeletal characteristics, identify ancient fossils and create their own artifact
or art in the mode or form of the culture and time they are studying. Performing
arts institutions also promote learning from primary sources: live performances.
They introduce students to the various disciplines through both analysis of form
and substance and attendance at productions after studying the work. The major
arts institutions' programs are already aligned with the standards. The purpose
of this kind of learning is to bring knowledge to life and motivate students to
want to know more. It also introduces them to rich resources and skills for
independent learning that they can use throughout their
lives.
Short Title: Early Childhood
Education
Level: FEDERAL and
STATE
Program Office: EMSC & VESID
Brief Description:
·
Federal: Head Start increases the school
readiness of young children in low-income families. Reading First helps states and school
districts establish high quality, science based K-3 comprehensive reading
programs, provides professional development for teachers and uses ongoing, valid
and reliable screening, diagnostic and classroom-based assessments.
·
State:
Proposal would provide funding for full-day kindergarten and lower the
compulsory school age to 5. This
initiative is included in the state aid proposal for fiscal year
2007-2008.
Legislative History: Federal: Head Start is overdue for reauthorization.
A bill has passed the House but not the Senate. Funding for Reading First
is through the annual appropriations
process in Congress. State: First year for this
proposal.
Justification: How a child reads at the end of first grade
predicts with 88% reliability how the child will read at the end of third
grade. The knowledge and skills
acquired by age 6 correlate positively with later academic success in school and
in life. The National Institute for
Early Education Research found that high quality full-day kindergarten provides
children with a greater degree of academic and social/emotional success. A study by Denton, West and Watson found
that students had higher reading skills when they participated in full-day
kindergarten. Lee and Burkum, from
the University of Michigan, found that children who attended full-day
kindergarten learned more literacy and math than children who attended half-day
classes. Early education has strong economic benefits reflected in lower dropout
rates and less need for special education or remedial programs.
Federal:
·
Reading First
has made resources available to schools for improving young children’s literacy
and provided high quality research to states. Indicators from state programs show
significant increases in students’ levels of literacy and learning.
·
Head Start’s
funding should be made available for state pre-kindergarten initiatives rather
than, as currently, a separate program.
While Head Start has provided needed services to children and families,
the field of early education has changed drastically. Over 46 states now have
pre-kindergarten programs. The
system for delivering early childhood education has changed and Head Start
should be reconfigured accordingly.
State:
·
The Board of
Regents adopted an early education policy in January 2006 on the premise that
providing children with early and high quality early education programs is
essential to meet the needs of a global community.
Short Title: IDEA Reauthorization Conforming
Legislation
Level: STATE
Program Office: VESID
Brief Description: Would amend state law relating to special education
services to conform to final federal regulations implementing the federal
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as reauthorized in 2004. Amendments needed regarding: Committee
on Special Education and Committee on Preschool Special Education; discipline of
students with disabilities; special education services for children placed in
nonpublic schools by their parents; evaluations and eligibility determinations
for special education; due process procedures, including resolution sessions,
mediation, impartial hearings and appeals; Commissioner’s Advisory Panel for
Special Education; interagency dispute mechanisms; and data collection and
reporting.
Legislative History: 2005 & 2006: Legislature passed a bill
each year that extended a statutory sunset by one year and with some exceptions
represented SED’s proposal. The
bills were passed as temporary legislation pending adoption of federal
regulations implementing IDEA. The
2006 bill will expire on June 30, 2007.
Justification: Once the final federal IDEA implementing
regulations are adopted and the federal government clarifies certain provisions
of the amended IDEA, SED must have a permanent amendment to state law that
conforms to the regulations. States’ statutes must be in compliance with IDEA by
July 1, 2007.
Short Title: State Aid
Proposal
Level: STATE
Program Office: EMSC
Brief Description: Creates foundation formula for equitable
distribution of aid based on need.
Legislative History: First proposed in 2004. Not introduced in
either house in 2004, 2005 or 2006.
Justification: The Regents
State Aid Proposal replaces the current state aid system with an easily
understood foundation formula based on what successful school districts spend to
educate children. The foundation amount is adjusted to recognize regional cost
differences and differences in pupil needs.
The formula has four working parts:
· A foundation amount that represents the cost of meeting the standards in successful school districts.
· A regional cost index that adjusts the foundation amount for regional variations in cost to provide the same purchasing power for each dollar of state aid.
· A pupil need index that adjusts the foundation amount to provide more state aid to school districts with concentrations of student poverty.
· An expected local share that recognizes a fair local share of the adjusted foundation amount for each district.
The formula
provides an adequate amount of funding for students to meet state learning
standards and requires uniform tax effort for districts of similar wealth. In
addition, it includes a system of accountability measures to ensure school funds
are spent efficiently and effectively.
Short Title: Streamline School Planning And Reporting
Requirements
Level: STATE
Program Office: EMSC & VESID
Brief Description: Would eliminate, reduce or combine
duplicative and burdensome separate reports and plans that school districts are
required to produce. SED would use a comprehensive data collection and planning
system to satisfy statutory reporting requirements.
Legislative History: 2004: Sent to the legislature but not
introduced. 2005: Passed Senate. Not introduced in Assembly. 2006: Passed
Senate. Introduced in Assembly and left in Education
Committee.
Justification: School districts
are required to submit 150 plans, applications and reports to the State
Education Department each year, primarily as a result of requirements in federal
and state laws and Commissioner’s regulations. Many contain duplicative information and
many do not take advantage of streamlined electronic reporting systems that
improve the quality and accuracy of the information. A few reports are outdated but still
mandated even though they have been replaced by new requirements based on new
laws and systems. This proposal
would provide much needed mandate relief to school districts, freeing them to
use more human and fiscal resources for teaching and learning, and would result
in improved information essential for strong accountability in the use of public
tax dollars.
Short Title: Fee For Accrediting Institutions Of
Higher Education
Level: STATE
Program Office: Higher Education
Brief Description: Would authorize SED to charge fees to meet
the costs of voluntary reviews of
colleges and universities seeking institutional accreditation by the Board of
Regents.
Legislative History: Submitted to the legislature for first time
in 2006. Not introduced in either house.
Justification: The Board of Regents is the only state
entity recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a national
accreditation body for institutions of higher education. Institutional accreditation is necessary
so students can get federal financial aid (Pell grants and guaranteed student
loans). Institutional accreditation focuses on
institutional policies and on the qualitative effectiveness of an institution as
a whole, particularly with respect to promoting student achievement and
development.
The accreditation
process requires that SED staff: conduct peer review visits to the institution
and organize visits by outside experts; prepare reports and other materials;
coordinate and attend meetings of the Regents Advisory Council on Institutional
Accreditation; and work with the institution following the decision on whether
to accredit. SED currently absorbs
the cost for this work.
The Regents provide
the state’s higher education institutions with a cost-effective alternative for
demonstrating to the U.S. Department of Education that they meet the quality
standards for participation in the federal student financial aid programs. The Middle States Association of
Colleges and Schools annual fee can range from about $1,000 to $18,000 a year
depending on the size of the institution. Twenty-six of New York’s colleges
and universities have elected to use the Board of Regents as their accrediting
body instead of Middle States. In some cases, institutions of higher education
will have a specialized mission (e.g. graduate education, theology or business)
and feel the Middle States model may not be appropriate for them. Some
institutions prefer the consistency of standards between New York’s program
registration requirements and its accreditation standards. This is especially
true for institutions newly chartered by the Board of Regents.
SED would charge
less than Middle States’ fees. The fees would correspond with the size of the
institution.
Short Title: Increased Access To College For Students
With Disabilities
Level: STATE
Program Office: Higher Education &
VESID
Brief Description: Would establish a $15 million funding
program in the first year and up to $30 million for the next four years to help
colleges serve students with disabilities. The funds could be used to provide
assistive technology for disabled students, professional development so faculty
could better meet the students’ learning needs, and ensure that appropriate
academic and counseling support services are available to help improve disabled
students’ success in their academic programs.
Legislative History: 2001: Submitted to legislature; not
introduced. 2002: Left in Assembly Higher Education Committee. Not introduced in
Senate. 2003-2004: Senate bill left in Finance Committee. Assembly bill left in
Ways & Means Committee. 2005-2006: Senate bill left in Finance Committee.
Assembly bill left in Higher Education Committee.
Justification:
In 2004 over 40,000 students with disabilities in New York state colleges
and universities identified their disability to their colleges. There are
limited dedicated funds to enable students with disabilities to pursue higher
education. Most disabled students have only the same funding sources available
as students without disabilities.
Yet, the cost of accommodations to level the playing field make it cost
prohibitive for some colleges and universities to actively recruit students with
disabilities. Students are often
forced to choose a college based on the support services it can provide instead
of on academic programs. The result
is that students with disabilities have more limited options than their
non-disabled peers.
The cost for
accommodations and services is not covered by tuition and other student
fees. For example, an
adaptive computer system can cost $3,000. Other accommodations such as
interpreter services for a deaf student can be about $40,000 per academic year.
One campus reports that the cost of captioning services for a deaf student could
be as high as $1,000 per week. An
entire college campus’ disability support budget for the year can be spent on
just a few students. Finally, there
is no funding for professional development to help college faculty meet the
learning needs of students with disabilities on their
campuses.
Representatives
from SUNY, CUNY, the independent colleges and universities and the
degree-granting proprietary colleges in conjunction with the Board of Regents
have made a commitment to remedy this inequity. This proposal would help
colleges improve their ability to serve these students. The funds would be used
to implement the recommendations of the Task Force on Postsecondary Education
and Disabilities (http://www.suny.edu/disabilities/taskforce/report)
with an emphasis on helping colleges increase enrollment and academic success of
students with disabilities.
Short Title: Allow Retired Teachers To Teach In
Shortage Subjects Without A Salary Cap
Level: STATE
Program Office: Higher Education
Brief Description: Remove statutory pension salary cap to allow
teachers certified in shortage subjects who have been retired for at least one
year to return to teaching for up to two years (up to 5 years if approved by the
state Commissioner of Education or Chancellor of the New York City Department of
Education) while continuing to receive their retirement
benefits.
Legislative History: 1999-2000: First submitted to legislature. Not
introduced in either house. 2001-2002 & 2003-2004: Senate bill left in Civil
Service and Pensions Committee. Not introduced in Assembly. 2005: Not introduced
in either house. 2006: Modified proposal and resubmitted. Not introduced in
either house.
Justification: There is a current and projected shortage of
qualified, certified teachers in specific subject areas and specific urban and
rural schools and districts throughout New York. Schools under registration review and
other low performing schools with challenging teaching environments have
historically had difficulty attracting qualified teachers. For both urban and rural
hard-to-staff schools, the challenge is to find ways to attract candidates with
teaching certificates to schools that cannot offer the salaries available in
higher wealth school districts. The challenge is also to find enough individuals
with the specialized skills needed in shortage subjects such as bilingual
education, English to speakers of other languages, mathematics, the sciences,
special education and technology education to meet the needs of school districts
statewide.
Other states facing
similar teacher shortages draw on the pool of retired persons who hold teaching
certificates. As many baby boomers
reach retirement age, the number of recently retired teachers will
increase. Many retired teachers
return to work in the private sector or in other state or federal systems where
there are no caps on the salaries they can earn while receiving their retirement
benefits. Many of them would return
to teaching in New York if the salary cap were lifted.
This proposal would
apply only to teachers who are certified to teach in shortage subjects and would
be available only to schools with shortages of certified teachers. Retired teachers would be able to return
to teaching without the salary cap for 2 years. The state Commissioner of Education or the
Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education could extend the
teaching term to 5 years.
Short Title: Enforcing Prosecution Of Illegal
Practice
Level: STATE
Program Office: Professions
Brief
Description: Would give SED authority to charge
licensees a $10 fee
every three years to fund the prosecution of illegal practice.
Legislative History: 2004: Asked legislature to include in
2004-2005 budget. Unsuccessful. 2005-2006: Assembly bill left in Higher
Education Committee. Not introduced in the Senate.
Justification: Illegal practice hurts licensed
professionals, jeopardizes SED’s ability to oversee and regulate the safe
practice of the professions and puts the public at great risk. Chapter 615 of
the Laws of 2003 gave the State Education Department the authority to prosecute
illegal practice. For the first time, SED was authorized to issue cease and
desist orders targeting unlicensed persons. However, the law does not contain any
provision for funding SED’s expense to prosecute. Prior to the law, the Office
of Professional Discipline investigated allegations of illegal practice and if
they were substantiated referred those cases to the attorney general’s office
for further action. Because of the higher standard of proof required in criminal
cases (beyond a reasonable doubt) and stronger resource demands, very few of
those cases were criminally prosecuted successfully. SED has not been able to
hire the staff and buy the equipment it needs to implement the law and so the
Office of Professional Discipline can still only investigate allegations of
illegal practice and refers the most egregious cases to the attorney general’s
office for prosecution.
A $10 surcharge on
each triennial registration and re-registration fee currently assessed on Title
VIII professionals would give SED an adequate revenue stream to implement the
law. The surcharge is supported by a coalition of associations representing
750,000 professionals.
Short Title: Update The Public Accountancy
Statute
Level: STATE
Program Office: Professions
Brief Description: Would revise the public accountancy statute
to: clarify professional services included
in the scope of professional practice; oversee the practice of peripheral
services by licensees within business corporations; require that all licensees
and firms that provide professional services to the public be registered;
provide the authority to conduct firm inspections; and create an enhanced
mandatory quality review program.
Legislative History: 1999-2000: First introduced. Assembly and
Senate bills left in higher education committees. 2001-2002 & 2003-2004:
Assembly and Senate bills left in higher education committees. 2005-2006: Not
introduced in either house.
Justification: The practice of
public accountancy has evolved over the past half century to include
professional services and practices that were not offered when the current
statute was enacted in 1947. Expanding the definition of practice to include all
types of professional services that reflect contemporary business practices,
including tax return preparation, financial planning, management consulting,
investment management and the like, will strengthen public protection. The
general public expects CPAs to be licensed and held accountable for these
important financial services, but the Regents cannot take disciplinary action
when licensees practice in an unethical or incompetent manner because their
services do not fall within the current statutory scope of practice for
accountants. This proposal would include these services within the scope of
practice and licensees practicing in these areas would be subject to
professional discipline by the Regents.
This proposal also
includes a number of other provisions that would increase public protection and
provide adequate oversight, including: removing the continuing education
exemptions for CPAs; making it easier for CPAs in other jurisdictions to become
licensed in New York; requiring that all firms providing public accountancy
services in New York be registered; requiring that all firms that perform attest
or compilation services participate in a mandatory quality review process;
raising the maximum dollar amount of fines for misconduct; establishing
profession-specific fines for professional misconduct; and establishing a public
accountancy oversight unit in SED
to handle misconduct complaints.
Short Title: Funding For The Corporation For Public
Broadcasting
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: Cultural Education
Brief Description:
·
$430 million
2-year advance appropriation (for federal FY2009) for Community Service Grants to public broadcasting stations to
pay Public Broadcasting System dues and program fees, CPB programming
investments and other CPB grant programs.
·
$40 million
for FY2007 for public TV stations to convert to digital broadcasting.
·
$36 million
for FY2007 for the national interconnection satellite systems for public TV
& radio & public broadcasting homeland
security initiatives, which require interconnection.
Legislative History: Annual appropriation process in Congress.
Congress has set appropriation amounts two years
ahead since 1976 to allow for program production lead time, enable local
stations to leverage federal funds and separate programming decisions from
funding issues.
Justification: CPB’s annual appropriation is the “bread and
butter” foundation of public broadcasting in the United States. As a funder,
regulator and investor in programming, CPB ensures the quality of service
citizens receive from their local stations, the Public Broadcasting Service and
National Public Radio. CPB’s programming investments help make possible such
children’s programs as Arthur, Between the Lions and Dragon Tales; adult programs such as Africans in America, Auschwitz and the Nazi
State, and Beyond Affliction: A
Cultural History of Disability in America; and “signature” series like All Things Considered and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. These
programs are unique to public broadcasting and would not find a time slot on
commercial stations.
CPB
funding makes it possible for public broadcasting stations to remain locally
owned. In the vast majority of cases, these stations are the only locally owned
media (broadcasting and print media included) in their communities, which means
they share in and are responsive to their communities’ needs and interests. All
New York stations, television and radio, benefit. CPB funding is an essential
building block in station budgets, allowing stations to use federal dollars to
leverage membership, underwriting and grant dollars. In federal FY2004 (the most
recent data available), CPB provided these funds to New
York:
FY2004 Total...............................................................
$32,001,459
Television Programming..................................................
$6,557,174
Radio Programming........................................................
$2,197,195
Television Community Service Grants.............................
$17,267,285
Radio Community Service Grants.....................................
$3,767,419
Television and Radio Future
Funds and System Support................................................
$790,913
Digital...............................................................................
$451,221
Other System Support.......................................................
$970,252
Short Title: Funding For American History
Grants
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: Cultural Education
Brief Description: The US Department of
Education funds the Teaching
American History grant
program, the US Department of the Interior administers a Save
America's Treasures Program, the National Endowment for the Humanities hosts
the We the People initiative and the National Historical Publications and
Records Commission helps preserve historical records. The Bush administration’s FY2007 budget
proposes to: reduce funding for Teaching American History from $119.8 million in FY2006 to $50
million; eliminate funding for Save America's Treasures from $30 million
in FY2006; fund We the People at $15 million, the same as FY2006; and
eliminate funding for the National Historical Publications and Records
Commission from $7.5 million last year.
Legislative History: Annual appropriation process in Congress.
Justification: Teaching American History supports programs that raise student
achievement by improving teachers' knowledge, understanding and appreciation of
American history. It makes
competitive grants to local educational agencies; they must partner with a
content-rich institution, such as an archives, to design, implement and
demonstrate effective, research-based professional development programs. The State Archives has had three
projects funded; in 2006, projects in seven school districts were
funded.
Save America's Treasures preserves
nationally significant intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures and sites.
The New York State Archives has received three grants since 1998 for
conservation of the Dutch Colonial manuscripts, the Native American treaties and
land papers and papers related to the American Revolution and early
espionage.
National
Historical Publications and Records Commission grants have allowed the State Archives and
over 50 partner institutions to make historical records accessible to teachers,
students, academics, government officials, business people and legal
researchers. In New York, the
NHPRC has awarded $15,493,529 to institutions around the state for 170 projects,
moving the State Archives toward its goal of comprehensive, equitable and
accessible documentation of our history.
Congress should
fund We the People with an
additional $15 million. This program: enhances teaching and understanding American
history through grants to scholars, teachers, filmmakers, museums, libraries and
other individuals and institutions; enables teachers to deepen their knowledge
of American history through summer seminars and institutes; supports reading
classic literature through the We the People Bookshelf, a collection of books
recommended for young readers and made available to schools and libraries; preserves and expands access to our nation's
historic documents, such as newspapers and presidential papers, and supports
scholarly research; explores the lives and deeds of heroic men and women
from America's past through the annual Heroes of History Lecture; disseminates
knowledge of American history through exhibitions, public programs, and
partnerships with the state humanities councils; and encourages students to
reflect on important American principles and events through the annual “Idea of
America" essay contest.
Short Title: Funding For The Library Services And
Technology Act
Level:
FEDERAL
Program Office:
Cultural
Education
Brief Description: The Library Services and
Technology Act (LSTA) provides grants to the states and competitive grants for
technology and networking services, digitization and research and collaborative
projects for libraries.
Legislative History: Annual appropriation process
in Congress.
Justification: New York’s libraries depend on
LSTA funds to sustain the services they provide. The Bush administration’s
budget for fiscal year 2007 proposes $220,855,000 for LSTA. While this is an overall increase,
New York’s funds will be reduced for 2007 and in subsequent years because the
federal grant formula is based on population and New York’s population is not
increasing at the same rate as the population of other states. New York faces a reduction of $500,000
as a result of the 5% cut in aid for libraries in the 2004-05 state budget. The $9 million SED receives from LSTA
supports all the salaries in the Office of Cultural Education’s Library
Development, 50% of the salaries in the Research Library, all of NOVEL (New York
Online Virtual Electronic Library), which is available in 5,000 libraries, and
all of the Statewide Summer Reading Program, which has over one million children
participating this year.
Without LSTA funding or if New
York’s funding is reduced, SED services to the state’s 7,000 libraries,
including the NOVEL program and the Statewide Summer Reading Program, would have
to either shut down or be cut back.
Short Title: Funding For The Public Telecommunications
Facilities Program
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: Cultural Education
Brief Description: Need to continue funding the Public
Telecommunications Facilities Program
(PTFP), which makes grants to public broadcasting
stations and other eligible entities to buy essential transmission and
production equipment. The PTFP is under the auspices of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration of the US Department of
Commerce. From 1967 to 2005 Congress appropriated $757 million to the PTFP. This
has allowed public television to reach 99 percent of television households with
a broadcast signal and public radio to reach an estimated 86 percent of the
population.
Legislative History: Annual appropriation process in Congress.
Justification: The PTFP matches federal dollars with local
support for the construction, repair and replacement of facilities and equipment
(excluding land and buildings). This allows public television and radio services
to reach unserved areas and helps upgrade and preserve services offered by
existing stations. The PTFP also funds satellite networks and local television
networks for distribution of instructional programming. Over the past 25 years
the federal government has contributed approximately 25 percent of the cost of
the public television industry's equipment. While individual PTFP grants may
finance up to 75 percent of equipment costs, federal funds typically constitute
50 percent of the cost for eligible equipment items.
Without PTFP funds
to buy cameras, control boards and editing facilities many stations would not be
able to maintain adequate production or provide the programs their communities
need and want. New York’s stations maintain busy production schedules, including
local public affairs programs. For example, NY Week in Review, a weekly political
news and views program, is produced by WMHT/Albany and broadcast statewide.
WXXI/Rochester produces educational programs like Homework Hotline and Assignment the World. Double Down, an academic competition for
high schools in the Syracuse region, is the product of WCNY. Other stations
create and broadcast programs on health and fitness and how-to, and
documentaries on historic places, people and events.
There is another
great benefit to PTFP funding. By requiring a local match for any PTFP dollar
that a station receives, the PTFP has provided an incentive for stations to
diversify their fundraising practices, resulting in a broader donor base and
greater overall financial stability.
Short Title: Funding for Ready To Learn and Ready To
Teach
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: Cultural Education
Brief Description: Requesting $32 million for Ready To
Learn, which provides programming and
outreach to support early literacy and school readiness and $15 million for Ready To Teach, which funds the
development of digital educational services to improve teacher performance. They
use public television to prepare early learners and teachers for educational
success. The US Department of Education oversees both
programs.
Legislative History: Annual appropriation process in
Congress.
Justification: Ready To Learn and Ready To Teach were authorized as part
of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and support its goals by relying on
scientifically-based methodology and coordination with state and local education
authorities.
Ready To Learn’s central mission is to equip young
children to enter school prepared to become successful learners and achievers,
encompassing all aspects of their cognitive development. The next generation of
services will focus exclusively on building reading achievement for children
aged 2-8 from low-income families. All New York public TV stations broadcast the
programming and provide outreach to teach parents, daycare providers and early
childhood teachers how to use the programs.
Ready to Teach will develop innovative digital curricula
and continue to fund PBS’ TeacherLine, an online professional
development program that improves teacher quality, particularly in the core
areas of reading and math.
TeacherLine, administered in New York by WNED/Buffalo,
creates and delivers curricula that help educators improve student outcomes. PBS
and more than 80 local stations have: created over 90 online research-based and
standards-aligned courses in mathematics, reading/language arts and technology
integration; trained tens of thousands of educators for recertification or
graduate credit; partnered with local and state educational agencies to help
teachers meet NCLB’s Highly Qualified Teacher requirements; and certified more
than 700 facilitators for virtual learning instruction.
Ready To Teach also funds grants to local public
television stations to develop innovative digital content for the classroom and
beyond. Public TV will help raise student achievement by providing interactive
resources and training to teachers. The US Department of Education recently gave
a multi-year grant to Thirteen/WNET (New York City) for its VITAL project that
provides educators with digital video to teach math and English language arts to
help students in grades 3 through 8 succeed in mandated
testing.
Short Title: Funding For US Department Of Agriculture
Rural Utilities Service
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: Cultural Education
Brief Description: Requesting $10 million for grants to
stations in rural areas to support their conversion to digital broadcasting.
Legislative History: Annual appropriation process in
Congress.
Justification: Rural communities depend on their local
public television stations for services ranging from educational course content
in their local schools to local news, weather and agricultural reports. As
stations make the conversion to digital television (DTV), a wide array of new
services will be available through this new broadcast platform. However, a vast
majority of DTV stations serving rural communities have not been able to build
out their full digital facilities, preventing these new services from reaching
their rural constituents.
With the deadline
of February 17, 2009 to shut off analog television, public television stations
serving rural communities are in greatest need of funding to ensure continued
service to their full coverage area. The Rural Digital Program is one of the few
sources of funding for converting digital translators and repeaters: the very
equipment needed to extend a signal to remote areas. Additionally, the USDA has
drafted new rules that could expand the eligible uses of funds to include
equipment for local production and “datacasting” high-end content to PCs and
school servers. The result will be more local content and services to the
communities that rely on it most.
The array of
services that digital public television stations will be able to deliver to
their rural communities is truly exciting. Each station will be able to tailor
its offerings to meet the needs of its local community. Here are some examples
of what is possible:
·
A partnership
with the local school district to datacast advanced placement science, math or
foreign language courses to schools that otherwise do without
them
·
Weather and
other emergency alerts delivered wirelessly to PC or laptops at home, the farm
or the place of business, accompanied by other data such as satellite
imaging
·
Telemedicine
services linking a local clinic to a university hospital hundreds of miles
away.
Short Title: E-rate Program
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: EMSC & Cultural
Education
Brief Description: The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided
that elementary and secondary schools and libraries receive discounts on
telecommunications services, including computer hardware, for educational
purposes. Consequently, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established
the Schools and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, known as the E-rate
program. E-rate is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which charges
telecommunications providers a fee that they in turn pass along to consumers.
Legislative History: The E-rate program was permanently
authorized in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but in 2004 the FCC determined
that the E-rate program should be subject to the Antideficiency Act. The
Antideficiency Act prohibits committing funds not actually accrued, which would
prevent the E-rate program from making commitments to school districts and
libraries for an upcoming fiscal year. Congress has temporarily exempted the
E-rate program from the Antideficiency Act until December 31, 2006.
Justification: E-rate funding is critical for schools and
libraries, especially in rural and low-income areas, to be able to install the
technology that students, educators and library users need to access needed
information. The program provides funding to telecommunications vendors for
discounts of between 20 percent and 90 percent to schools and libraries for
telecommunications, Internet access and internal connections (cabling and
network infrastructure needed for multiple user access). The discount rate for
each school and library depends on its rate of participation in the National
School Lunch Program and its urban/rural status. Each year’s funding is capped
at $2.25 billion but annual requests far exceed the monies
available.
Over the program’s nine years, New York’s
schools and libraries have received from 9.9 percent to 17.7 percent of the
total funds available. New York’s schools and libraries got $384.9 million in
2002, $436.4 million in 2003 and $339.9 million in 2004. Funds are still being
allocated for 2005 and 2006.
Short Title: Reauthorization Of The No Child Left
Behind Act
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: EMSC, VESID & Higher
Education
Brief Description: NCLB governs
elementary and secondary education, mandates educational standards and holds
states, school districts and schools accountable for the performance of all
students. New York receives over $2 billion from the federal government for
NCLB. Concerns with the current law are: funding is inadequate even as more
testing is required; the requirements for measuring Adequate Yearly Progress has
caused some schools to be considered failing because of poor performance by one
or a couple subcategories of students; there are different opinions about how
special education students should be assessed; the definition of "highly
qualified" for special education teachers is not realistic; and provisions for
Adequate Yearly Progress that do not allow enough time for students with
disabilities to graduate are negatively affecting school districts’ graduation
rates. Development of SED’s list of reauthorization
issues will be an ongoing process involving stakeholders, advisory groups and
other sources of input.
Legislative History: NCLB expires in 2007 and must be
reauthorized. Congress intends to hold hearings and gather information in 2007
but it is not certain that the actual process of reauthorization will
begin.
Justification: There are a number of issues that must be
addressed. For example:
·
Congress has
never funded NCLB at the level authorized in law. Yet, states were required to
implement another mandate in the 2005-2006 school year: grades 3-8
testing.
·
Some states,
including New York, are using longitudinal data systems linked to testing to
measure the progress of individual students over the years. However, NCLB does
not permit states to use longitudinal data from the annual grades 3-8 tests to
demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress.
·
States should
have the discretion to allow special education teachers and rural teachers who
are highly qualified in one subject to teach other subjects when working in
consultation with another teacher who is highly qualified in that subject. This would permit increased flexibility
in staffing special education classes and maintain the consultation teacher
model.
·
Accountability
measures should truly assess the achievement of students with disabilities. For
example, those with significant cognitive disabilities should be able to use an
alternate assessment based on alternate learning standards geared to their
individual level of achievement, not to the grade level for their age, and
schools should not be penalized for not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress goals
due to the disparity in special education students’ learning
abilities.
·
Students with
disabilities who need more than five years to graduate should be allowed to be
counted as graduates under states’ Adequate Yearly Progress requirements. This
is currently not permitted, which negatively affects school districts’
graduation rates for reporting purposes. The performance measure should be the
number of years needed to graduate specified in a student’s individualized
education program.
Short Title: Reauthorization Of The Workforce
Investment Act
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: EMSC & VESID
Brief Description: The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) includes
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation
Act. WIA connects
programs for out-of-school youth and adults (vocational rehabilitation, adult
education and family literacy, Perkins postsecondary vocational and technical
education) with workforce development.
Legislative History: Overdue for reauthorization. Congress is
considering reauthorization this year but no guarantee it will be done. The
House and Senate have passed bills and a conference committee must be
formed.
Justification: WIA is needed to help build a New York
workforce with the skills required in the global marketplace. As globalization
accelerates, the unskilled American worker is at a distinct disadvantage and
more likely to be trapped in poverty. New York has seen a sizeable increase in
immigrants without English language and communication skills and recent data
shows more minorities do not have a complete education and are living in
poverty. Globalization has already left them behind. WIA provides education
opportunities for unskilled workers, adults without a high school or
postsecondary education and students and adults with disabilities.
Reauthorization issues include:
·
Support local
youth councils, maintain balance between in-school and out-of-school youth
programs and simplify eligibility determination.
·
More funding
for states to support comprehensive accountability, staff development,
coordination with other agencies, expanded use of distance learning technology
and assessment of research-based instruction.
·
Separate funding
for one-stop delivery centers
·
Maintain
representation by key education and vocational rehabilitation partners on local
workforce investment boards
·
Keep the current
maintenance of effort requirements, which make it easier for states to
comply.
·
More transition
services for youth and more support for independent living
·
Fix the
funding formula so states like New York get the full Consumer Price Index cost
of living adjustment; provide an annual Consumer Price Index cost of living
adjustment for independent living services, similar to what is available for
vocational rehabilitation.
·
Broader
membership on the State Workforce Investment Board to include agencies and
organizations overseeing programs for persons with
disabilities.
·
Separate grant
funding for states with high performing adult education programs that meet or
exceed core performance indicators in the National Reporting
System.
Short Title: Reauthorization of the Higher Education
Act
Level: FEDERAL
Program Office: Higher Education
Brief Description: The Higher Education Act funds student
financial assistance, teacher quality development, and early outreach and
student services and strengthens postsecondary institutions and the workforce.
Issues for
reauthorization: increasing the maximum amount of Pell grants; increasing
funding for LEAP, GEAR UP and TRIO; addressing shortages of qualified teachers;
expanding higher education opportunities for students with disabilities; and
expanding Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Perkins loans and College
Work Study.
Legislative History: Congress reauthorized the majority of the
student loan provisions in HEA this year as
part of the Deficit Reduction Act but action on the remaining provisions is
stalled.
Justification: Each year, New York’s 271 degree-granting
public, independent and proprietary institutions and 356 non-degree
postsecondary vocational schools serve over a million undergraduate and graduate
students and students in their first professional jobs. In 2003-2004, these
students borrowed over $3.6 billion from HEA loan programs and received over
$1.1 billion in HEA grants and work-study wages. Pell grants went to over
385,000 undergraduates—approximately one of every three at four-year colleges
and universities and one of every two at two-year colleges. New York has higher
rates of college participation and completion than most other states. However,
family income is not keeping pace with rising tuition prices, so Pell grants and
federal loans cover a shrinking share of college costs and students increasingly
rely on high cost private loans.
Many of the HEA
programs should be strengthened.
For example:
ü Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program (GEAR UP) serves youth who
would not otherwise prepare for high school graduation and college study. In
federal fiscal year 2005, New York received $7.6 million from GEAR UP for
statewide and partnership projects.
ü The TRIO
programs in New York help low-income and at-risk youth prepare for and succeed
in undergraduate and graduate study. But like GEAR UP, TRIO does not reach all
eligible students.
ü The Title II
teacher quality programs help teachers meet state and federal standards for
preparation, certification, induction and professional development and help
schools recruit highly qualified teachers. Teachers in high poverty schools and
teachers of shortage subjects such as math and science rely on Title IV loan
forgiveness.