|
|
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 |
|
SUBJECT: |
Final Review
of the Regents Federal Legislative Agenda: Federal Legislation and
Education in New York State, 2006 |
|
DATE: |
February 6, 2006
|
|
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 1-6
|
|
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
SUMMARY
Issue for Decision
Should the Regents approve the final draft
federal legislative agenda for 2006?
Proposed Handling
The final draft federal
legislative agenda for 2006 will be discussed at full Board on February 13.
Procedural History
This document summarizes the
federal legislative priorities of the Board of Regents and is brought before the
Board for approval.
Recommendation
That the Regents approve the final
draft federal legislative agenda for 2006.
Timetable for Implementation
Distribution to Congress by end of
February.
Federal Legislation
and Education in New York State 2006
The University of
the State of New York ✦ The State Education Department ✦ Albany, New York 12234
✦ www.nysed.gov
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK
Regents of The University
ROBERT M. BENNETT, Chancellor,
B.A., M.S.
...................................................................
Tonawanda
ADELAIDE
L.
SANFORD, Vice
Chancellor, B.A., M.A., P.D. .............................................
Hollis
SAUL B. COHEN, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.
.................................................................................
New Rochelle
JAMES C. DAWSON, A.A., B.A., M.S.,
Ph.D. ...................................................................
Peru
ANTHONY
S.
BOTTAR, B.A., J.D.
.......................................................................................
North Syracuse
MERRYL H. TISCH, B.A., M.A.
..........................................................................................
New York
GERALDINE
D.
CHAPEY, B.A., M.A., Ed.D.
..................................................................... Belle
Harbor
ARNOLD B. GARDNER, B.A., LL.B.
...................................................................................
Buffalo
HARRY PHILLIPS, 3rd, B.A.,
M.S.F.S.
...............................................................................
Hartsdale
JOSEPH E. BOWMAN, JR., B.A., M.L.S.,
M.A., M.Ed., Ed.D. ..........................................
Albany
LORRAINE
A.
CORTÉS-VÁZQUEZ, B.A., M.P.A.
...............................................................
Bronx
JAMES R. TALLON, JR., B.A., M.A.
....................................................................................
Binghamton
MILTON L. COFIELD, B.S., M.B.A.,
Ph.D. ........................................................................
Rochester
JOHN BRADEMAS, B.A., Ph.D.
...........................................................................................
New York
ROGER B. TILLES, B.A., J.D.
..............................................................................................
Great Neck
President of The
University and Commissioner of Education
RICHARD
P.
MILLS
Deputy Commissioner
for Office of Operations and Management Services
THERESA
E.
SAVO
Director, Office of
Governmental Relations
DIANA M. HINCHCLIFF
Federal Relations
Representative
CYNTHIA
R.
WOODSIDE
The State Education Department
does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, religion, creed, disability,
marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic
predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its educational
programs, services and activities. Inquiries concerning this policy of
nondiscrimination should be directed to the Department’s Office for Diversity,
Ethics, and Access, Room 530, Education Building, Albany, NY 12234. This publication is available on the
State Education Department website, www.oms.nysed.gov/legcoord. This publication
can be made available in a variety of formats, including Braille, large print or
audio tape. Call 518-486-5644.
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction
...............................................................................................
1
No Child Left Behind Act
........................................................................... 5
Workforce Investment Act: An
Overview
.................................................... 8
a) Workforce Investment Act, Title I
..................................................... 9
b) Adult Education and Family Literacy
Act, Title II
.............................
11
c) Vocational
Rehabilitation Act, Title IV
............................................. 12
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act ............................ 15
Higher Education Act
................................................................................. 17
Early Childhood Education
......................................................................... 20
Information and Cultural Resources
............................................................ 22
Introduction
The
Board of Regents, the University of the State of New York and the New York State
Education Department
Established by the New York State
legislature in 1784, the Regents of the University of the State of New York form
the oldest, continuous state education entity in America. The Regents are
responsible for the general supervision of all educational activities within the
state, including presiding over the New York State Education Department. The
mission of the State Education Department is to raise the knowledge, skill and
opportunity of all the people in New York.
The University of the State of New
York (USNY) is the nation’s most comprehensive and unified educational
system encompassing all the institutions, public and private, that offer
education in the state. It consists of the State Education Department as well as
all elementary, secondary and postsecondary educational institutions, libraries,
museums, public broadcasting, records and archives, professions and
vocational and educational services for individuals with disabilities.
The Regents identified six goals
for lifelong education, encompassing infancy through senior years:
• Every child will get a good start.
• Every child will read by the second
grade.
• Every student will complete middle level
education ready for high school.
• Every student will graduate from high
school ready for work , higher education and citizenship.
• People who begin higher education will
complete their programs.
• People of all ages who seek more
knowledge and skill will have the fullest opportunity to continue their
education.
These goals require the partnership
and collaboration of all the USNY members. They also call for a new view of
federal funding—as a linked continuum of support for each person throughout
their life.
The Regents of the
University of the State of New York form the oldest, continuous state education
entity in America.
Importance of the Federal
Role
The Regents believe that the
federal government has a historically defined role in education that should be
maintained and coordinated with state and local activities. Education is a state
responsibility and a local operating function, with most funding properly coming
from state and local sources. Federal funding should be a supplement directed
toward specific needs, particularly to pursue equity and access.
While federal funds comprise a
relatively small proportion of total education spending, they are pivotal and
important resources to support the nation’s learning system. Federal
programs should serve special population groups such as the economically and
educationally disadvantaged, people with disabilities, the gifted and
talented, persons needing occupational education and students in high cost
graduate or professional programs who are being trained for a national
market. Federal programs also should recognize the pivotal role that state
education agencies play in all facets of education nationwide, respect the
rights of states and localities to design and manage education systems within
their jurisdictions according to their own constitution or statute and provide
adequate funding for administrative tasks that states and localities must
complete to meet federal statutory requirements.
Federal Legislation and Education
in New York State 2006, the New York State Board of
Regents and the State Education Department’s federal agenda, outlines the
Regents legislative priorities for the second session of the
109th
Congress. Its
focus is on laws due for reauthorization and includes recommendations for
statutory amendments to other laws to effect improved programs and services. For
more information contact the State Education Department, Office of Governmental
Relations at 202-659-1947 (Washington, DC) or 518-486-5644 (Albany, NY).
The 108th Congress
Congress approved and President
Bush signed into law legislation that reauthorized the federal child
nutrition programs. The new law makes nutritious meals and snacks available
to more children in school and in programs outside of school and in childcare,
and will improve the quality of food in schools. The New York State Education
Department supported expanding the Lugar pilot program for summer food
programs, which Congress included.
Congress also
reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The House and Senate passed
legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act, which includes
the Rehabilitation Act and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. The
bills did not go to conference.
Both chambers attempted to come to
agreement on reauthorization of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the welfare reform law enacted in 1996.
Congress extended the law until March 2005.
Bills were introduced in the House
and Senate to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act but the Senate was unable to bring its bill to the floor.
Work on reauthorizing the Higher
Education Act began in earnest in 2004 but with little progress. The House
introduced and passed several bills that would affect various programs under the
law. The Senate held hearings but did not act on any legislation.
Education Funding in Federal
Fiscal Year 2005
The 108th Congress passed government-wide
$388.4 billion omnibus spending legislation, which included $56.6 billion for
the Department of Education, a $944 million increase over FY 2004. This was
significantly less than the Bush administration’s request and the levels set in
House and Senate bills passed earlier. All non-defense programs except
homeland security took a 0.83 percent across-the-board cut.
Title I and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act received significant increases but ultimately were
funded at levels lower than in earlier House and Senate bills. Limiting the
increases to these programs allowed Congress to restore funding to several
programs that were slated for elimination, including Title V of the No Child
Left Behind Act, which provides grants to states for innovative education
programs. Title V was funded at $200 million, $97 million less than in FY 2004.
Higher education was funded at
$2.13 billion, up from $2.09 billion in FY 2004. Pell grants received a small
increase from $12 billion to $12.4 billion, with the maximum grant amount frozen
at $4,050.
The National Endowment for the Arts
was funded at $123 million, $2 million more than last year’s level. The National
Endowment for the Humanities was funded at $140 million: $5 million more than
the FY 2004 level.
The 109th Congress: First
Session
The House and Senate both
introduced legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. The
House passed its bill. The Senate bill was approved in committee but not
passed by the full Senate.
The five-year reauthorization of
the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was
included in the Deficit Reduction Act that was passed by the Senate chamber in
December 2005 and the House chamber in February 2006. The new law significantly
increases participation rates and grants the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services new authority to determine what counts as work.
President Bush’s fiscal year 2006
budget request proposed eliminating Perkins programs; however, the House
and Senate committees and chambers passed reauthorization bills.
After several years of effort to
reauthorize the Higher Education Act, some progress was made in the first
session. Both the House and Senate committees passed reauthorization measures
and some provisions were included in the Deficit Reduction Act approved by the
Senate chamber in December 2005 and the House chamber in February 2006. Both
chambers extended the remaining provisions in current law through March 31,
2006.
Head Start
child development
reauthorizing legislation was considered in House and Senate commmittees and
passed in the House chamber. However, the Senate companion bill did not reach
the chamber for consideration.
No Child Left Behind Act
Funding for No Child Left Behind in New York State
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Title
I
$1,241,954,420
$1,226,676,199
$1,212,979,524*
Total NCLB programs
$1,920,735,504
$1,871,716,956
$1,791,407,090*
* Estimate
Purpose of the No Child Left
Behind Act
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
mandates educational standards and holds states, school districts and schools
accountable for the performance of all students. While NCLB is not due for
reauthorization until the 110th Congress, the 109th Congress should address allocation
of Title I funds and accountability requirements.
Title I. Title I provides aid to improve
academic achievement for disadvantaged students. Funding allocations are made
according to census data. While New York will receive an overall minimal
increase in its state allocation for fiscal year 2006-2007, 10 percent of the
school districts in the state will lose funding, including New York City, the
largest and neediest, and 75 other districts, some of which are in small cities
and rural areas, according to U.S. Education Department preliminary information
released on December 16, 2005.
Accountability. The New York
State Board of Regents and the State Education Department have historically
required accountability and are strong supporters of NCLB’s requirements. The
mandate that schools demonstrate adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward meeting
the law’s education standards for each of several discrete subgroups of students
(economically disadvantaged, major racial and ethnic groups, students with
disabilities and students with limited English proficiency) creates
differentiated challenges for schools and sometimes results in an inaccurate
picture of true performance. For example, urban schools and districts that must demonstrate progress for
large numbers of disaggregated subgroups can show gains in performance but still
fail to meet AYP goals. Furthermore, the current accountability requirements do
not appropriately assess the progress schools and districts are making with
students with disabilities.
The New York State
Board of Regents and the State Education Department have historically required
accountability and are strong supporters of NCLB’s
requirements.
Regents Priorities
1. Fully fund NCLB. Provide funding
at the level authorized by the law. Funding for educational technology grants,
e.g. Title II-D Enhancing Education Through Technology, should be increased to
keep pace with inflation.
2. Extend hold harmless.
Extend the
four-year grandfather provision to the basic, targeted and education finance
improvement funding grants (concentrated grants are grandfathered) to allow
school districts to adjust to future reductions in funding for these essential
programs.
3. Allow longitudinal data to be used
to demonstrate adequate yearly progress. NCLB Section
1111(b)(3)(B) permits longitudinal data in a state accountability system but not
as a way to demonstrate AYP. Use of longitudinal data for the annual grade
3-8 testing that goes into effect with the 200506 school year will enable
schools and districts to demonstrate success in closing the achievement gap by
measuring the aggregate change in performance of individual students over
time. Districts and schools could use this data as an alternate means to achieve
safe harbor. The U.S. Education Department’s initiative to pilot growth models
in 10 states is a step in the right direction (a growth model tracks the
progress of individual students over time.) However, some of the conditions
required for approval may limit its effectiveness. Building on these pilots,
states should be permitted to use longitudinal data as an alternate means to
give schools and districts credit for achieving safe harbor.
4. Provide a flexible definition of
highly qualified special education teacher. 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 provide increased flexibility in staffing special education
classes and maintain the consultation teacher model.
5. Create accountability measures that truly
assess the achievement of students with disabilities. NCLB does not take into account the
range of instructional levels and abilities of students with disabilities. NCLB
recognizes that there is a small group of students (1 percent of the total
population tested) with “significant cognitive disabilities” who can be counted
as proficient on an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards. Recently proposed U.S. Education Department regulations would take
into account another small group of students with disabilities (2 percent of the
total population) who may take an assessment based on modified standards that
reduce the breadth and depth of material at the same grade level while not
precluding the student from getting a regular diploma. New York applauds the
effort to allow certain special education students to be measured using
modified standards and assessments. However, an alternate assessment for
1percent of the population and an assessment based on modified standards
for 2 percent of the population still does not take into account that within the
2 percent there is a sub-group of students with significant cognitive
disabilities (e.g., those with mild mental retardation) who are not able to meet
grade/age level expectations even with appropriate instructional programs
and supports. It is not reasonable to expect these students to learn at the same
rate or to learn the same level of content as their non-disabled peers. Nor is
it reasonable to penalize schools that cannot meet NCLB adequate yearly progress
(AYP) mandates due to the disparity in special education students’ learning
abilities. Therefore, NCLB should be amended to recognize student results on
assessments that measure performance toward modified state standards at the
student’s appropriate instructional grade level for determining AYP. Achieving
proficiency on these modified standards may not lead to a regular high school
diploma, especially in states like New York where there is a commitment to very
rigorous general education standards for students. Funding should be provided to
help states that wish to develop these assessments or modify their existing
assessments.
6. Allow students
with disabilities who need more than five years to graduate to be counted as
graduates. Some students
with disabilities need more than the standard four years to achieve the learning
standards and meet graduation requirements for a regular high school
diploma. In calculating Adequate Yearly Progress in state plans, allow the
determination of graduation rates to include students with disabilities who
graduate from a secondary school with a regular diploma within the number of
years established by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) team.
7. Oppose any programs that would
divert already limited federal funds away from public schools. President Bush’s
budget proposal requests $100 million for a new America's Opportunity
Scholarships for Kids program. Parents of students attending schools
identified for restructuring under NCLB could receive up to $4,000 per child for
private school tuition, fees, and transportation costs. This proposal would not
strengthen low-performing schools but instead would divert critical funds from
them.
Over the next 20 years,
the number of workers with postsecondary skills is projected to grow only 19
percent compared to a 138 percent increase from 1980 to 2000.
Workforce Investment Act: An Overview
Context for Federal
Investment in Workforce Preparation
Our nation’s workforce
competitiveness is tied directly to the skills, knowledge, credentials and
supports that the education and vocational rehabilitation system provides. The
Workforce Investment Act, enacted in 1998, recognized the need to connect the
parts of the education system that address out-of-school youth and adults
(vocational rehabilitation, adult education and family literacy, Perkins
postsecondary vocational and technical education) with workforce
development. Changes in the economy since 1998 have created new
reauthorization challenges.
Increasingly some postsecondary
education is required for living wage employment and careers.
Over the next 20
years, the number of workers with postsecondary skills is projected to grow
only 19 percent compared to a 138 percent increase from 1980 to 2000. Workers
with postsecondary credentials are more likely to be employed than those with a
high school education or less. This is especially true for African Americans and
women. In 2000, 87.8 percent of workers with a college degree were employed, a
12 percent higher employment rate than for those with just a high school diploma
and a 40 percent higher employment rate than for those with less than a high
school education.
As
globalization accelerates, the unskilled American worker is at a distinct
disadvantage and more likely to be trapped in poverty. Not only are workers with
postsecondary skills more likely to be employed in a knowledge economy, they are
better buffered from job loss due to global competition. A national study of
unemployment trends between 1996 and 1999 found that those with less than a high
school education were unemployed 47 percent longer than college educated
workers and those with only a high school diploma were unemployed almost
23.5 percent
longer than those with at least some college (Built to Last: Why Skills
Matter for Long-Run Success in Welfare Reform, Karen Martinson and Julie
Strawn, April 2003).
U.S.
prosperity depends on a skilled workforce and proactive support andorganization
for innovation. A
higher skilled workforce is only the baseline requirement for global
competitiveness. The bar for skills is rising, a result of competition from
lower wage but increasingly better educated workers overseas and the demands of
rapid technological change at home. Responding to global competition requires
integrating workforce development and education with economic development
efforts to support innovation.
Adult Education
in
Action in New York
Mohammad and
Farida Younus spoke three languages when they arrived from Pakistan but English
was not one of them. Their youngest daughter Nazish is in kindergarten. Farida:
“I knew no English when I came here, not even ‘how are you?’ I took
citizenship classes and I passed citizenship. Now I take regular classes in
reading and writing.” Mohammad: “Reading and speaking English is very
important in the United States. It helps you find a good job. I found a
good construction job. I read blueprints. I understand directions. Before
somebody would speak to me in English but I didn’t know English. Now, they
show me the address and I drive the company truck all over four boroughs. I read
the street signs; I check the maps. “ Farida: “Nazish is going to Public School
7. She wants to be a doctor. Before I couldn’t fill out the forms, I didn’t
know the ABCs. Now I help my daughter with her homework. Before, I cried when a
letter came home with my child. Who will help me read this? Now I’m proud of
myself; I can read the letter. Now I’m a citizen; this is my country. If I don’t
know English, how can I help my country? How can I help my children?”
Workforce Investment Act, Title
I
Purpose of Title I of the
Workforce Investment Act
Title I requires that each of
nearly 600 local workforce investment areas in the nation develop and administer
a one-stop delivery system. Federal adult education, vocational
rehabilitation and postsecondary vocational and technical education
programs administered by the State Education Department are mandatory partners
in every local workforce investment area and expected to contribute to the
shared costs of one-stop delivery centers.
The New York State Commissioner of
Education is a permanent statutory member of the State Workforce Investment
Board. At the local level, district managers from the Education Department’s
Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities
sit on each of the state’s 33 local workforce investment boards as do
agency-designated representatives from funded adult education and family
literacy programs.
Regents Priorities
1. Provide line item funding for
one-stop delivery centers. Create a
discrete funding appropriation to pay for one-stop delivery centers without
diverting essential state administrative dollars from other programs. If this is
not possible where such authority is constitutionally separate from the
governor, as in New York, authorize the chief officer of the state policy-making
entity constitutionally responsible for the administration of adult
education and family literacy, vocational rehabilitation and postsecondary
Perkins vocational and technical education programs to receive and distribute
funding.
2. Maintain representation by key
education and vocational rehabilitation partners designated by the state
education agency on local workforce investment boards. Representatives
can connect Workforce Investment Act planning and system-building with the
educational and vocational rehabilitation system.
3. Support youth councils, maintain
the balance between in-school and out-of-school youth programming and simplify
the eligibility determination. Either
maintain current requirements for youth councils or provide state workforce
investment boards with authority to determine whether and how to establish youth
councils. Enable up to 70 percent of funds to be used for in-school youth and 30
percent for out-of-school youth. Either maintain this split or empower state
workforce investment boards to determine the appropriate percentage. Allow
programs to use school lunch eligibility as a proxy.
4. Support postsecondary skills for
youth and adults. Connect all programming to
postsecondary study so youth and adults obtain the education, credentials and
supports needed for living wage employment. Expand support for Individual
Training Accounts, critical to American competitiveness.
\\
Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act
(Title II of the Workforce Investment Act)
Funding for Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
in New York State
|
FY 2004 |
FY 2005 |
FY 2006 |
|
Adult Education
|
|
|
|
State Grants
|
$33,307,381
|
$33,044,635
|
$32,707,289*
|
|
|
|
|
* Estimate
Purpose of Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act
Title II provides out-of-school
youth and adults over the age of 16 with the literacy, English language and
GED preparation instruction needed to become effective workers, parents,
citizens and community members.
Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act in New York State
Federal funds are combined with
over $100 million in state discretionary grant and state aid funds for adult
education and family literacy administered by the State Education Department to
support approximately 260 programs serving over 140,000 students annually. New
York’s system is the most diverse in the country and includes school districts,
Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), public and private
postsecondary institutions, community-based organizations, literacy
volunteer organizations, unions and library systems.
Regents Priorities
1. Support health literacy. Create a 5
percent set-aside and expand appropriations to help adults who cannot
understand English at least at a high school level obtain and understand the
basic information and services they need to make appropriate health decisions.
2. Reward good performance. Target incentive
grant funds to states with high performing adult education programs that display
exemplary performance in meeting or exceeding core performance indicators in the
National Reporting System.
3.
Expand state leadership funding.
Raise
the ceiling for state leadership activities from 12.5 percent to 15 percent
to support staff development, state coordination with multiple agencies,
expanded use of distance learning and technology, development and
assessment of research-based instruction and program development and technical
assistance targeted to raising performance and accountability.
4. Keep the current maintenance of
effort requirements. This is
important to New York, which uses a contact hour-based state aid formula to
provide support.
Federal and state
funds support 260 programs and over 140,000 students.
Vocational
Rehabilitation Act (Title IV of the Workforce Investment Act)
Funding for the Vocational Rehabilitation Act in New
York State
FY
2004
FY 2005
FY 2006
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants
$135,187,045
$135,944,496
$141,341,255*
* Estimate
Purpose of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act
Title IV empowers individuals with
disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency,
independence and inclusion. Universal access, a main principle of the Workforce
Investment Act, holds promise for ensuring meaningful participation by
individuals with disabilities in the full array of workforce activities.
Vocational Rehabilitation Act in New York State
The
State Education Department’s Office of Vocational and Educational Services for
Individuals with Disabilities (VESID) is the designated state entity for
vocational rehabilitation and independent living services. VESID local
managers participate on all 33 local workforce investment boards. VESID staff is
involved in the over 70 one-stop delivery centers in the state. VESID and its
network of community rehabilitation providers serve more than 60,000
individuals and place over 15,000 people into employment each year.
Regents Priorities
1. Close the employment gap.
Establish a
funding formula for vocational rehabilitation that ensures adequate support
for increased service demand and the need to achieve quality employment
outcomes. The formula must address the inequities in the current formula by
ensuring that no state receives less than a cost of living increase when the
total national appropriation increases.
2. Increase emphasis on transition
services for youth. Improve
transition services without prioritizing students with disabilities over
other eligible individuals. Establish a dedicated funding source for
transition services reflecting a formula that supports the cost of staff and
services required to provide effective transition to post-school employment.
3. Provide more support for
independent living. Increase the
appropriation for the Independent Living Services program based on the Consumer
Price Index to meet emerging service demands, particularly those related to the
Supreme Court’s Olmstead Decision and the executive order for federal agencies
to review their programs and practices in light of this decision.
Vocational
Rehabilitation
“This
is the first time I’ve had a job with benefits!” said Richard Dieu, a data entry
operator at Quest Diagnostic Labin Syosset, Long Island. He is deaf. Mr. Dieu
spent years working at low paying, part-time or temporary supermarket positions
because that was all he could get. VESID provided him with computer skills
training, placement assistance and interpreter services while he
learned his new job. Quest HR Associates says of Mr. Dieu, “He has
great attendance and productivity. Someone’s life
depends on his work. It’s a tough job.”
Vocational Rehabilitation
Funding in Action
Marty Lewis
had a long history of short-term, dead end jobs when he came to VESID. In
recovery, Marty also has a permanent injury to one hand and he has had a heart
attack. Labor market information indicated that Marty’s dream of becoming a
welder was practical and together VESID and Marty started the process.
He successfully completed a stick-welding program. VESID and the Buffalo
one-stop center assisted in placement efforts. Marty entered their on workers
Local #6 apprenticeship program. VESID bought his tools and equipment and paid
his union dues. He is now a proud union welder at the federal building
being built in downtown Buffalo.
Richard
Sicignano loves science. And he loves making other people love it too. He was a
geologist until a motor vehicle accident left him a C7 quadriplegic. He now uses
a wheelchair and has limited upper torso and arm strength. VESID modified his
van so he could work at a part-time job while recovering. Richard really wanted
to get back into science and with VESID’s assistance he got his master’s degree
in education. He had several job offers and elected to teach earth science and
environmental science at Ossining High School. He is earning over $54,000 a
year.
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Technical
Education Act
Funding for Perkins
Vocational Education in New York State
|
FY 2004 |
FY 2005 |
FY 2006 |
|
Total State
|
$64,789,127
|
$65,398,191
|
$64,735,182*
|
|
Basic Grants
|
$59,438,959
|
$60,105,616
|
$59,488,412*
|
|
Tech Prep Grants
|
$5,350,168
|
$5,292,575
|
$5,246,770*
|
* Estimate
Purpose of the Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education Act
Perkins is a significant assist to
the overall goal of creating a workforce preparation system that can
strengthen this nation’s ability to face the challenges of today’s and
tomorrow’s world economy. The federal government has a vital interest in the
quality and availability of career and technical education (CTE), not only to
address the workforce needs of the 21st century but because CTE brings
relevance to learning. From middle and secondary students who want to know why
they need to learn math, science and other core academics to postsecondary
students seeking employment skills, CTE helps educators at every level achieve
education reform goals.
A strong financial investment by
the federal government is necessary to maintain quality CTE programs. While New
York state invests heavily in CTE programs, federal Perkins funds allow programs
to innovate and improve program quality. This has continued even though CTE has
shared little in the overall increase in education funding.
Perkins in New York State
The
State Education Department administers the Perkins Act and provides
quality, relevant and rigorous CTE programs in schools, Boards of
Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) and
postsecondary institutions as a first choice option for students to achieve
state performance standards. Perkins funds both secondary and postsecondary
programs. Thirty-two percent of all secondary diplomas and 30 percent of all
postsecondary degrees and certificates earned at less than the baccalaureate
level are CTE credentials.
Even prior to the passage of the No
Child Left Behind Act, New York had made great strides in raising
academic standards for all students. That progress continues at the
secondary level with Perkins funding, providing opportunities for
students to achieve high academic standards. In the 2005-2006 academic
year, the State Education Department awarded $36.2 million to 79 education
programs to support approximately 325,000 students, including the seven special
population categories: disabled; economically disadvantaged; individuals
preparing for non-traditional careers; single parents; displaced homemakers;
educationally disadvantaged; and individuals with limited English proficiency.
Recent data shows that 70 percent of students served by Perkins funds were
members of one or more of these special populations.
At the postsecondary level,
Perkins funds support a wide range of innovative activities that not only enable
students to reach their career goals but also provide a smooth transition
from the secondary to the postsecondary levels. In the 2005-2006 academic year,
the State Education Department awarded $28.9 million to 62 education
programs to support 200,000 students. Recent data shows that 80 percent of
students served by Perkins funds were members of one or more special
populations.
32% of all secondary
diplomas and 30% of all postsecondary degrees and certificates at less than the
baccalaureate level are career and technical education credentials.
In 2005-06, the State
Education Department awarded a total of $65.1 million to 141 education programs
to support approximately 525,000 secondary and postsecondary
students.
Regents Priorities
1. Do not include Career and Technical
Education (CTE) funding as part of an education block grant. Target Perkins
funds to struggling students to help them achieve high academic standards.
2. State education agencies must
continue to be the administrative entities for CTE funds.
3. Provide separate funding for
secondary and postsecondary CTE. CTE remains an
important strategy for ensuring academic success for many students across
the K-16 system. Maintaining two funding formulas ensures that appropriate
resources are made available at all levels.
Higher Education Act
Selected funding for the Higher Education Act in New
York State
|
FY 2004 |
FY 2005 |
FY 2006 |
|
Pell Grants
|
$1,018,300,000
|
$938,800,000
|
$950,100,000*
|
|
Perkins Loans –
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Contributions
|
$9,708,312
|
0 |
0*
|
|
Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants |
$73,967,722
|
$71,224,969
|
$70,512,719*
|
|
Federal Work Study
|
$107,582,550
|
$97,061,692
|
$96,091,075*
|
|
Leveraging Educational
Assistance Partnership |
$6,922,300
|
$6,759,562
|
$5,489,786*
|
|
Byrd Honors Scholarships
|
$2,532,000
|
$2,479,500
|
$2,473,500*
|
* Estimate
Purpose of the Higher
Education Act
The Higher Education Act (HEA)
supports states’ efforts to extend educational opportunity and maintain a highly
skilled workforce and citizenry. It funds: student financial assistance;
early outreach and student services; teacher quality development; and
strengthening postsecondary institutions and the workforce.
Higher Education Act in New
York State
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, graduate and first-professional students. 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 1 of every 3 at four-year colleges and
universities and 1 of every 2 at two-year colleges. New York has higher rates of
college participation and completion than most other states. But, 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 rely increasingly on
high-cost, private loans.
HEA’s 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. The HEA’s TRIO programs in New York help low-income and
at-risk youth prepare for and succeed in undergraduate and graduate study.
But TRIO and GEAR UP do not reach all eligible students.
The HEA’s 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.
In 2003, New York
students borrowed over $3.6 billion from HEA loan programs and received over
$1.2 billion in federal grants and work-study wages.
Regents Priorities
1. Make college accessible for all.
Title IV programs
should be strengthened. Increase the maximum Pell grant to help low-income
students go to college. Pell grants should: provide an enhancement of up to
$750 for students with negative expected family contributions; be available
for year-round study at all institutions; be reduced, when shortfalls occur,
only with Congress’ approval; and not be limited to a four-year period after the
first award so that students who enroll part-time and receive prorated awards
can complete their studies. Maintain Family Education Loans, Direct Student
Loans and loan consolidation. Raise annual and aggregate limits for subsidized
loans for all undergraduate, graduate and first professional students.
Raise authorizations for the Leveraging Educational Assistance Program (LEAP) to
support need-based state grant programs such as New York’s Tuition Assistance
Program (TAP). Continue Title IV campus-based programs. Streamline the student
aid delivery system to enable students to use a state-specific, online
application for both federal and state aid. Raise authorization levels for GEAR
UP and TRIO to serve more eligible low-income and first-generation college
students. Need-based grants should not be reduced to fund merit-based grants.
2. Support public school teachers,
librarians and school leaders. Title II should
support states and institutions of higher education that help public schools
prepare, recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, professional librarians
and school leaders. Title IV loan forgiveness programs should be extended and
amounts forgiven should be increased. Title VII graduate education programs
should be aligned with Title II to address serious shortages of qualified
teacher educators and enhance the qualifications of teachers in such
hard-to-staff areas as mathematics, the sciences, special education and
bilingual education.
3. Expand higher education access for
students with disabilities. Students
with disabilities are increasingly seeking postsecondary education. HEA Title IV
early intervention and student assistance programs should address their
needs and institutions
of higher education should receive support for making reasonable
accommodations.
4. Strengthen higher education’s
capacity to serve all students. Enable the National Center for
Education Statistics to create a national, student-level system to track
individual student progress and completion across postsecondary
institutions and states. Reduce reimbursements that colleges must make to the
federal government when students withdraw so that colleges have the resources
they need to provide services to students without the threat of losing them.
Maintain a limited federal role in tuition policy. Provide additional funding
for public higher education institutions serving large populations of recent
immigrant students. Increase financial support for older students. Expand
campus-based programs such as Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants,
Perkins loans and College Work Study.
New York
State’s HEA Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant supports New York’s Teacher
Recruitment Project. The project has enabled independent colleges and
universities to place approximately 750 new teachers in New York City
public schools in the past two years through the Teaching Fellows Program.
Without HEA funds, these colleges and universities would not be able to help New
York City meet its need for teachers in hard-to-staff subjects and schools.
HEA in Action in New
York State
Quality early childhood
education has been correlated with positive development of language and
mathematics skills in young children and subsequent success in academic
performance.
Early Childhood Education
Purpose of Early Childhood
Education
Successful academic achievement for
children in prekindergarten through grade 12 is linked to participation in
high-quality early care and education activities. Four-year-olds who participate
in high quality, developmentally appropriate prekindergarten programs are better
prepared for and do better in school. Quality early childhood education has been
correlated with positive development of language and mathematics skills in
young children and subsequent success in academic performance. The Board of
Regents will revise its early childhood education policy paper in 2006 to
reflect recent research and to be consistent with new program initiatives.
Early Childhood Education
Programs in New York
New York has been viewed as a
national leader in its implementation of universal prekindergarten. When
New York’s statute was enacted in 1997, fewer than 10 states had similar
programs. Forty-six states now have some type of prekindergarten program. As a
nation, we are moving toward an educational system that includes three and
four-year olds.
Regents Priorities
1. Provide universal access to
prekindergarten. All
four-year-olds, regardless of economic and social background, can benefit from
an early start. Universally available prekindergarten ensures they have
opportunities for quality early education experiences that result in enhanced
readiness and greater potential for future academic success. Disadvantaged,
low-income and other at-risk children especially need extra help to prepare them
for general education.
2. Ensure an available and qualified
workforce. Require that
early education programs, regardless of location and sponsorship, be staffed by
certified teachers whose preparation has included instruction relevant to the
education of very young children (birth through age 5).
3. Provide early literacy instruction.
Align early
literacy instruction with states’ Reading First initiatives, ensuring that
educational institutions have strong collaboration from other service providers.
4.
Create continuity of
education. Align
all components of early education programs, from child-focused practice to
scientifically based reading initiatives, with the kindergarten and early
elementary programs that children will be entering. Continuity between
prekindergarten and kindergarten is especially important. Provide adequate
funding for full day programming.
5. Meet the needs of families.
Ensure
collaboration between child care and early education programs in ways that
respond to the varied and multiple employment and care needs of students’
families.
6. Allow flexibility to build on
current efforts. This flexibility
should include the authority for states to decide where the administration of
the prekindergarten and early education programs will reside. Ensure that when
states place the administration in other than the state education agency there
are strong links between the state and local education agencies and the entities
providing prekindergarten and early education programs. Extend flexibility to
funding options. Allow states continued options to contract for services within
the full continuum of the early education and care service delivery system.
7. Provide adequate
funding. Funding must
be sufficient to support and sustain the implementation and expansion of quality
programs. The funding must be predictable, thus allowing program administrators
to engage in long-term, realistic and meaningful planning.
8. Align requirements for standards,
curriculum, assessment and data reporting.
New York has
successfully established a state funded prekindergarten program. One hundred
ninety-three districts throughout the state have implemented prekindergarten
programs. The state has designed a program that flows funds through school
districts and requires funded collaboration with community-based providers and
that all teachers regardless of setting meet teacher education
certification requirements.
Improved
scores on statewide testing, increased curriculum alignment regardless of
setting, improved quality of instruction in community-based programs and
shared professional development among collaborative providers are evidence
of success. Additionally, the prekindergarten programs have been ideal settings
for integrating preschool children with special needs. A longitudinal study
by the Rochester Children’s Project found that prekindergarten programs
closed the achievement gap for four year-olds.
Early Childhood Education
in New York State Millions of books, serials, manuscripts, archives and other
documents residing in New York state libraries, historical societies, museums
and other repositories are at risk due to their physical instability, poor
storage environment, use and exposure to disasters.
Information and Cultural Resources
Purpose of Information and
Cultural Resources in New York
The Office of Cultural Education
(OCE) comprises the State Library, the State Museum, the State Archives and the
Office of Educational Television and Public Broadcasting. These institutions are
responsible for increasing the knowledge and information resources of state and
local governments, businesses and individuals.
OCE supports research, operates
programs and develops collections that serve the long-term interests of the
State’s institutions and residents. The State Library, the State Archives and
the State Museum provide services directly to individuals and government. OCE
distributes aid to libraries and library systems, holders of historically
important records, local governments and public broadcasting stations and
provides instructional television services through its Public Broadcasting
Program.
E-RATE PROGRAM
Purpose of the E-rate Program
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
required that elementary and secondary schools and libraries be offered
discounted access to telecommunications services for educational purposes.
Consequently, the Federal Communications Commission established the Schools
and Libraries Universal Support Mechanism, popularly known as the E-rate
program. E-rate is funded through the Universal Service Fund supported by a fee
charged to telecommunications providers that they in turn pass along to
consumers.
The E-rate program provides funding
to telecommunications vendors to support discounts of between 20% and 90% to
schools and libraries for telecommunications, Internet access and internal
connections (cabling and network infrastructure needed for access by
multiple users). The discount rate for each school and library depends on their
rate of participation in the National School Lunch Program and their urban/rural
status. Each year’s funding is capped at $2.25 billion and unused fund
balances can be rolled over to following years. Annual requests for E-rate
funding far exceed the monies available.
The FCC in 2004 determined that the
E-rate program should be subject to the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency
Act prohibits committing funds not actually accrued, so E-rate could not
make funding commitments to school districts and libraries for the upcoming
fiscal year. Late last year,
Congress temporarily exempted E-rate from the Antideficiency Act until December
31, 2006.
The E-rate Program In New
York State
New York’s schools and libraries
received $384.9 million in E-rate funds through discounts for services in 2002,
$436.4 million in 2003 and almost $339.9 million in 2004. Without
continued, uninterrupted E-rate funding schools and libraries, especially in
rural and low-income areas, will not be able to install the technology that
students, educators and library users need to access critical information.
Regents Priority
Exempt the E-rate program
permanently from the Antideficiency Act. Without this exemption, the program
could once again be unnecessarily disrupted causing schools and libraries
to delay or eliminate education technology needs.
USA PATRIOT ACT
Purpose of the USA Patriot
Act
The Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT) amended more than 15 federal statutes,
including laws governing criminal procedure, computer fraud and abuse,
foreign intelligence, wiretapping, immigration and privacy of student records.
This law expanded the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other
law enforcement agencies to gain access to business, medical, educational
and library books, records, papers, documents and other items, including stored
electronic data and communications (Section 215). It also enhanced the
government’s surveillance capabilities, including wiretaps and phone devices to
include Internet and electronic communications.
The USA PATRIOT Act was due to
expire at the end of 2005. Lack of agreement between the House and Senate over
reauthorization legislation resulted in two temporary measures to extend the law
until March 10.
Since its inception in
1998, the New York State Archives has been awarded three grants for conservation
treatment of the Dutch Colonial manuscripts, the Native American treaties and
land papers and papers related to the American Revolution and early espionage.
The USA PATRIOT Act in New
York State
Libraries served with a search
warrant issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act may not disclose
the existence of the warrant or the fact that records were produced as a result
of the warrant. Patrons may not be told that their records were given to the FBI
or that they are the subject of an FBI investigation.
Regents Priority
Any bill to reauthorize the USA
PATRIOT Act must require law enforcement to demonstrate probable cause before
obtaining business, medical, educational and library books, papers, documents
and other records. The FBI should be required to
obtain court approval for any search warrant. A reauthorized law should sunset
no later than four years from the date it takes effect.
Information and Cultural
Education Programs in New York State
The Museum and Library Services
Act, reauthorized in 2003, is composed of the Library Services and Technology
Act (LSTA), Museum Services Act competitive grants and librarian recruitment.
The LSTA provides formula grants to the states and competitive grants for
advancing technology and networking services, digitization and other
leadership, research and collaborative projects. The Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS) offers national competitive grants for recruiting
librarians. Six library organizations received grants totaling $2.1 million
in 2005 under the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program. In
addition, IMLS supports the education and training of persons in library and
information science, particularly in areas of new technology and other critical
needs, including graduate fellowships, institutes, or other programs.
The 34-year-old Corporation for
Public Broadcasting is being transformed through the transition to digital
television. Stations are migrating to digital broadcasting on a schedule
mandated by the Federal Communications Commission. The public broadcasting
system is implementing the extraordinary promise of emerging digital
technologies while addressing the daunting challenge of funding them.
Libraries, museums and archives
receive support from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) for
research, education, preservation and public programs. We The People
is a two-year old NEH initiative to encourage and strengthen the teaching,
study and understanding of American history, culture and civics. Millions of
books, serials, manuscripts, archives and other documents residing in New
York state libraries, historical societies, museums and other repositories are
at risk due to their physical instability, poor storage environment, use
and exposure to disasters. New York institutions receive over $2 million a year
in state funds to preserve and make their collections accessible. Many use these
funds to leverage federal monies for preservation efforts.
The New York State Archives has
received more federal support than any other archives in the nation. The Save
America’s Treasures program preserves nationally significant
intellectual and cultural artifacts and historic structures and sites. Since its
inception in 1998, the New York State Archives has been awarded three grants for
conservation treatment of the Dutch Colonial manuscripts, the Native American
treaties and land papers, and papers related to the American Revolution and
early espionage. Within the National Archives, National Historical Publications
and Records Commission support has been the main source of funding for statewide
strategic planning for New York’s historical records.
The National Science Foundation
(NSF) funds science research and education programs. The State Museum has a long
history of NSF funding for research and collections projects. NSF’s role in
funding scientific research is a critical component of a healthy scientific
community in New York.
Regents Priorities
1. Reauthorize the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting (CPB) to continue the digital conversion
mandate. Harnessing the
greatly expanded capacity of public broadcasting to support educational
programming at all levels requires a strong CPB with predictable and consistent
funding.
2. Continue and strengthen the U.S.
Education Department’s Teaching American History Grant Program, the
multi-agency’s Save America’s Treasures Program and the NEH “We the People”
initiative. Many studies
have indicated a dismal lack of knowledge about American history among students
and the need for a firm grasp on American history and government in order to
function responsibly in our democracy.
3. Fund the Library Services and
Technology Act at its full authorization level to allow more libraries to
improve their services to underserved communities and implement new
technologies.
4. Fund the National Historical
Publications and Records Commission at its full authorization level.
NHPRC, the
grant-making arm of the National Archives, provides critical funds that greatly
expand the capacity of the State Archives and over 50 partner institutions to
make historical records accessible for use by teachers, students,
academics, government officials, business and legal researchers and others with
a host of historical information needs.
