|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
____________ Kagan on Chapter 2 (6/8/10) AZ Choice Case (6/1/10) Duncan's Favorite Teacher (5/7/10) Florida School Choice (4/30/10) HR 4247 (3/3/10) DC Vouchers (2/4/10) President Signs Spending Bill (12/17/09) Math Results: Are Reforms Working? (11/16/09) "Let Me Rise" Video (10/22/09) Federal Technology Funds (7/31/09) Career Satisfaction in Private Schools (5/20/09) ARRA Guidance (4/1/09) Obama Signs Stimulus Package 2/18/09 Obama-Biden Report on Inner-City Schools ___________ |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
June 8, 2010 -- When she worked in the White House as an aide to President Clinton, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan recommended that the administration support an appeal to uphold the constitutionality of Chapter 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provided educational materials and equipment to public and private schools. The Supreme Court in 2000 deemed the program constitutional in Mitchell v. Helms. (Chapter 2 ultimately morphed into Title V of ESEA, which has not been funded since FY 2008.)
Mark Walsh, who covers legal issues for Education Week, reported in a blog this week that the initial set of Kagan's papers released by the Clinton Presidential Library showed that “the administration weighed whether to support the appeal of a lower-court ruling that struck down, as a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition of a government establishment of religion, a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that authorized school districts to lend computers, software, and library books to private schools, including religious schools.”
Walsh went on to write: “In the margin of a memo outlining the issues in the case, Kagan wrote: ‘Bruce, I think the President would wish to file in this case. Agree? Elena.’ Then, she added a second notation: ‘(Also, I think he would want the SG [solicitor general] to make the case for overruling—not just distinguishing Meek and Wolman.)’"
The Meek and Woman notation, explained Walsh, was “a reference to two Supreme Court decisions from the 1970s—Meek v. Pittenger and Wolman v. Walter—that dealt with various forms of government aid to nonpublic schools.” Walsh reported that “the Clinton administration did not appeal the ruling itself, but it supported the aid programs when intervening parties brought the case to the high court. In Mitchell v. Helms, the Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the aid to nonpublic schools, and the majority partially overruled Meek and Wolman.”
June 1, 2010 -- The U.S. Supreme Court announced May 24 that it would hear arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of an Arizona statute that provides tax credits for donations to private school scholarship organizations. Enacted in 1997, the law that established the nation’s first scholarship tax credit program served as trailblazer for similar programs that have since been established in six other states: Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island.
“The Supreme Court’s decision to review this case is terrific news for the thousands of families who desperately need scholarship assistance in order to send their children to the school of their choice,” said Tim Keller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Arizona Chapter.
For more on this story, download the June issue of CAPE Outlook. Receive Outlook free of charge each month by subscribing here.
May 7, 2010 -- U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his favorite teacher, Darlene McCampbell, an English teacher at the independent University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, discussed the importance of teaching in a video released today to commemorate Teacher Appreciation Week.
The secretary talked about the impact McCampbell had on his life and the high standards she set. “It wasn’t easy work,” said Duncan. “But there was never talk of limits, or ceilings, or what you can’t do. As good as you thought you were, she was always pushing you to the next level.”
McCampbell, who still teaches at the Laboratory Schools, offered reflections about her vocation. “A reason to go into teaching is that it’s a total joy,” she said. “And yes, it’s hard work…but it’s a gift.”
In a separate video released earlier this week, Duncan offered thanks to the nation’s teachers, calling their work “heroic” and saying they “bring the treasures of freedom to our children.”
Recalling several effective teachers in public and private schools that he’s known over the years, Duncan again put the spotlight on Darlene McCampbell. “She made it clear that in her class, expectations were high,” he said.
The secretary also singled out his own children’s public school music teacher, “who weaves science lessons into songs, and is the closest thing to a rock star in the lives of my kindergartner and second grader.”
Duncan even mentioned his wife and mother as memorable teachers: “I might be a little biased, but I think [my wife] was an extraordinary physical education teacher and coach when we were back in Chicago.” Karen Duncan started her teaching career at the Laboratory Schools in 1992 and was appointed athletic director in 1997. The secretary’s mother founded the Sue Duncan Children’s Center in 1961, a nonprofit after-school tutoring and recreation program that continues to serve disadvantaged children from Chicago’s South Side.
“Every time I talk to a teacher, I learn something,” Duncan said. “To all of America’s great teachers, I say thank you.”
April 30, 2010 -- Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed Senate Bill 2126 on April 22, expanding the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program (FTCSP). Earlier in the month, the Florida House of Representatives approved the measure 95-23, following Senate passage in March by an equally overwhelming 27-11 vote.
“The Florida Tax Credit Scholarship program offers families an invaluable opportunity to choose a learning environment that gives their children the best chance for success,” said Governor Crist in connection with the signing. “I am confident Florida will continue to provide more educational opportunities and options with the partnership of the business community through great programs like this.”
As a prelude to passage, families in Florida made history March 24 by participating in what is reported to be the largest U.S. rally ever in support of school choice legislation. Over 5,000 parents and students came to Tallahassee to rally for the tax credit initiative. The Senate approved the bill the day of the rally.
According to information released by the governor’s office, “Last year, more than 27,000 Florida students benefited from the scholarships in about 1,000 private schools throughout the state.” That number is expected to grow as a result of the new legislation. A government report estimates that the program saves taxpayers $1.49 in state education funding for every dollar lost in corporate income tax revenue. Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability says the program is saving Florida taxpayers an estimated $39 million a year.
The new bill hikes the scholarship amount per student from its current fixed level of $3,950 to a percentage of public school per-pupil funding, moving from 60 percent of what is called the Florida Education Finance Program(FEFP) operating formula to an eventual cap of 80 percent. The cap on contributions eligible for the tax credit also jumps from $118 million this year to $140 million next year, with conditional percentage increases going forward. Further, the new law bumps up the income eligibility levels for voucher recipients.
For more information about the Flordia Scholarship Tax Credit Program, visit www.stepupforstudents.org.
March 17, 2010 -- The Senate last night defeated, 42-55, a bipartisan amendment to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. (See related story.) Click here to see how your senators voted.
March 3, 2010 -- The U.S. House of Representatives today approved (262 to 153) legislation governing elements of a school’s disciplinary policy and practice. (Click here to see how your representative voted.)
If approved by the Senate, the bill (HR 4247), which deals with the seclusion and restraint of students, would affect all public schools as well as private schools whose students or teachers benefit from any federal education program (about 80 percent of Catholic schools, for example). Here are a few of the measure’s troubling provisions:
The bill represents an unprecedented degree of federal control of private schools that threatens their autonomy and puts them between a rock and a hard place: accept the federal intrusion in policies and practices or give up participation in federal programs that benefit students and their teachers. By using even limited involvement in federal programs as the pathway for regulating schools, the bill establishes a dangerous precedent for federal control of private education in the future.
The private school community is unreservedly committed to the safety and well-being of students and supports the bill’s intent to safeguard children from harm. But specific provisions of the bill constitute an unacceptable level of government regulation that could set the stage for rendering private schools indistinguishable from public schools.
Like our nation’s system of higher education, private schools have been largely untouched by federal regulations and, as a result, have flourished as effective, autonomous alternatives to public schools. A step down the road of federal control is a risky step indeed, not only for private schools and their families, but for the nation as a whole.
February 4, 2010 -- Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) announced today at a news conference (view below) that they would attach their proposal to reauthorize the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) as a bipartisan amendment to “legislation that is moving in the Senate,” which Lieberman said could include the job-growth bill the Senate is expected to consider next week.
“At a time when our country is seeking ways to improve education results, we are unfortunately forced to fight to keep alive a program that has proven results.... That is a tragedy and an outrage,” Lieberman said.
He continued: “The great civil rights struggle of our time is the struggle to reform our education system so that all of our children have a chance to achieve the American dream. And the Opportunity Scholarship Program provides a vital opportunity for students in the District of Columbia to achieve the dream -- and win their race to the top.”
December 17, 2009 -- President Obama yesterday signed into law a $447 billion omnibus spending bill that includes funding for a variety of education programs. The House and Senate approved the measure earlier this month.
The following table compares funding levels for key federal programs affecting students in religious and independent schools as provided in the fiscal year 2009 actual appropriation, the FY 2010 budget proposed by President Obama, and the FY 2010 appropriations bill that Congress just passed.
Federal Education Spending Levels |
|||
FY 2009 Actual |
FY 2010 President's Budget |
FY 2010 Actual |
|
| Career Education (Perkins Act) | $1,161 | $1,161 | $1,161 |
| Community Learning Centers (IV-B) |
$1,131 | $1,131 | $1,166 |
| Education Technology (II-D) |
$270 | $100 | $100 |
| English Language Acquisition (III-A) |
$730 | $730 | $750 |
| Even Start (I-B-3) |
$66 | $0 | $66 |
| Innovative Programs (V-A) |
$0 | $0 | $0 |
| Math & Science Partnerships (II-B) | $179 | $179 | $180 |
| Reading First (I-B-1) | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| Safe & Drug-Free Schools (IV-A) |
$295 | $0 | $0 |
| Special Education (IDEA Part B-611) | $11,505 | $11,505 | $11,505 |
| Migrant Education (I-C) |
$395 | $395 | $395 |
| Teacher Quality (II-A) | $2,948 | $2,948 | $2,948 |
| Title I (grants to LEAs) | $14,492 | $12,992 | $14,492 |
December 8, 2009 -- Does the country need yet another school choice advocacy group? Apparently the founders of the American Center for School Choice (ACSC) think so, and November 9 they held a daylong conference at the National Press Club to explain why.
Centered in Berkeley, California, ACSC distinguishes itself by focusing on choice not as a means for improving public education but as a vehicle for empowering families. “While we make common cause with many who see choice as central to education reform, our support for school choice starts with our commitment to strengthening families before moving on to consider collateral benefits for school improvement,” explains Michael Guerra, the group’s executive director.
According to the organization’s promotional materials, ACSC believes that the education of children “is a fundamental responsibility of the family” and that school choice helps families fulfill that responsibility. Expanding public support to provide families with choice serves “the child’s good, the family’s good and the common good.”
Legal Authority of Parents
That theme was echoed in one way or another by an impressive lineup of experts at the organization’s inaugural conference, titled “School Choice and the American Family—A Moral and Civic Imperative.”
John E. Coons (pictured right), professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law, spoke about the “exclusive and unique legal authority” that parents have over children, allowing them to determine not only a child’s diet, residence, pets, clothing, and curfew, but more importantly, “who else shall have access to the mind of [the] child,” a decision that involves the kind of school the child attends. It is not that parents are always good deciders, but that they are “the best, both for the interest of the child and for the good of society.” Why? First, said Coons, the parent “is likely to care about the child as one of a kind, and such personal caring tends to improve both family relations and parental decisions.” Second, the parent “has a peculiar access to [the] child’s mind and heart, hence a distinctive form of knowledge.” The access is gained through day-to-day experiences over time. Finally, the parent, unlike other adults who happen to interact with the child from time to time, is accountable for how the child turns out in the long run and must live with the consequences of that outcome.
Tale of Two Cities
Depending on their income, parents have widely disparate opportunities when it comes to exercising their authority over education, said Coons. Schooling in America has become “a tale of two cities,” with low-income parents having to settle for whatever school the government happens to provide, while people of wealth are able to buy a better education either by paying tuition at a private school or by moving to a suburban school district, with “tuition” represented in the price of the house. Coons asked how schools in Berkeley Hills or similar suburban retreats can accurately be called “public”—a “magic label” and “democratic halo” that implies they are accessible to all. The fact is that government schools in select suburbs are “more private, more exclusive than the inner-city church school.”
Regarding the two-tiered educational system, Coons wondered “how it is that Americans of good will could justify this disenfranchising of ordinary citizens. Where are the egalitarians to invoke the 14th Amendment?”
Coons suggested several arrangements—vouchers and tax credits among them—available to policymakers who want to breakdown economic barriers by allowing all parents, regardless of wealth, to choose their child’s school. “We have long made schooling compulsory; it is time perhaps to make it democratic,” he said.
Moral Pot Luck
Providing parents with greater choice in education would also enable them to choose the brand of values to which their children are exposed. Coons argued that because there is no common values curriculum or detailed vision of the good life informing public education, many public school teachers put forth their own messages to students about a host of disputed matters such as “sex, euthanasia, guns, animal rights, war, the environment, abortion, ethnic histories, gay marriage, health care, Al Gore movies, scientism, Columbus and corporate greed.” Schools, said Coons, “teach a rich lottery of values, and to the extent that this is true, the child of the not-so-rich parent takes moral pot luck.” Choice would allow parents to ensure that what is taught at school about such matters comports with what parents want them to hear.
Antidote for Despair
Finally, Coons advanced the case that empowering parents with school choice would serve to strengthen families and society. “When we treat parents as nobodies, many seem to take that message seriously and act accordingly,” he said. Stripping parents of power over their children’s education helps foster “passivity and despair.” He said the country “has brewed the classic recipe for impotence and withdrawal by the adult, and the child too gets this message: the office of parent obviously carries little social or moral weight.” If we value the institution of family, he said, “our society had better see to it that American parents who are not so rich have real authority over who will have access to their child’s mind.”
In all, the ACSC conference featured more than a dozen expert speakers and discussants covering the moral, civic, legal, and political components of school choice. More information about the conference is available on the ACSC Web site at <www.amcsc.org>.
November 16, 2009 -- The latest national test results in math show that the progress fourth-graders have been making since 1990 has stalled, while eighth-graders continue to post modest gains. Predictably, the results have prompted debate about whether the assessment and accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) are having their intended effect on student achievement.
Against this backdrop, students in religious and independent schools, which are not subject to NCLB, continue to show a substantial performance advantage over students in public schools. According to the report, “In 2009, the average mathematics score for fourth-graders attending public schools was 7 points lower than the overall score for students attending private schools.” Private school fourth-graders had a mean score of 246, compared to 239 for public school students. At eight grade, the private school advantage grew to 14 points (296 to 282). In 2007, the last time the tests were administered, the private/public performance gap was 7 points in fourth grade and 12 points in eighth grade.
Ten points on the 500-point math scale for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, represent about one full grade level. The average math score for all fourth-graders in 2009 was 240, while the average for eighth-graders was 283, a 43-point difference over four grades.
|
||
Grade 4 |
Grade 8 |
|
| Public Schools | 239 | 282 |
| Private Schools | 246 | 296 |
“While the scores for eighth-graders in math continue to be encouraging, the failure of our fourth-graders to make progress nationally is a cause for concern,” said David P. Driscoll, chair of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP. “With a lack of progress at fourth-grade and large achievement gaps that are relatively unchanged, we need to re-examine our efforts to improve student achievement in math.”
Call to Action
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the results “are evidence that we must better equip our schools to improve the knowledge and skills of America’s students in mathematics.” Saying no one should be satisfied with the results, Duncan called for more reforms—“reforms that will accelerate student achievement.” He said the NAEP scores were “a call to action to reform the teaching and learning of mathematics and other related subjects in order to prepare our students to compete in the global economy.”
Achievement Gaps Persist
Achievement gaps among various racial and ethnic groups continued to persist. In eighth grade, the gap between black and white students was 32 points, while the Hispanic/white gap was 26. The eighth-grade gaps showed no significant change in 2009 compared to either 2007 or 1990.
For eighth-graders, both the black/white gap and the Hispanic/white gap were each four points narrower in private schools than in public schools. In addition, black eighth-graders in private schools scored 12 points, or more than one full grade, higher than their peers in public schools, with the same 12-point advantage also holding true for Hispanic students.
Achievement Levels
NAEP results are also reported as percentages of students performing at or above three achievement levels: basic, which denotes “partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills”; proficient, representing “solid academic performance,” and advanced, or “superior performance.”
Among eighth-graders in 2009, 71 percent of public school students and 85 percent of private school students performed at or above basic; 33 percent of public school students and 47 percent of private school students performed at or above proficient, while students at the advanced level included 7 percent of public school students and 13 percent of private school students. The No Child Left Behind Act calls for 100 percent of public school students to be at or above their state’s definition of proficient by the year 2014.
A sample of more than 168,000 fourth-graders and 161,000 eighth-graders took the NAEP math assessment this year, drawn from, and representing, a target population of nearly 4 million public and private school students in each grade.
October 22, 2009 -- Voices of School Choice, a Web site promoting the right of parents to choose their child’s school, now features a powerful, must-see video titled “Let Me Rise.”
Narrated by Juan Williams, the 30-minute film about the profound impact of school choice on particular families and children “offers a compelling look at the future of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as told through the voices of the children whose educational futures continue to hang in the balance.”
The site also features several ad-length videos, including a particularly moving one about the effect that a private school scholarship had on President Obama (pictured right as a young child).
A visit to Voices of School Choice would provide a refreshing and uplifting break from the evening news tonight.
July 31, 2009 -- The U.S. Department of Education has released new guidance for the Enhancing Education Through Technology (Ed Tech) program as funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). ARRA provides $650 million for the Ed Tech program on top of $269 million in the regular FY 2009 appropriation. This unprecedented amount of funding is intended to “help ensure that every student is technologically literate” and to “encourage the effective integration of technology with teacher training and curriculum development.”
Under the Ed Tech program, states and school districts that receive funds must ensure that expenditures for children attending religious and independent schools are equal (taking into account the number of students) to expenditures for children attending public schools.
Officials from the Office of Non-Public Education at the U.S. Department of Education have offered the following advice: "Private school officials interested in the ED Tech program should review this guidance and contact their local education agency (LEA) to inquire about the LEA’s plans regarding the program, the timely and meaningful consultation requirements, and equitable participation of their students and teachers."
Links to further information about the program are available below. The section of the new guidance that relates to private school students and teachers reads as follows:
Equitable Participation of Private School Students and Personnel
G-1. Do the equitable participation requirements in Subpart 1 of Part E of Title IX of the ESEA apply to the Ed Tech program?
Yes. The equitable participation requirements apply to the program, regardless of whether the program is funded by Ed Tech ARRA funds or regular FY 2009 funds. (See ESEA Section 9501(b)(1).)
G-2. What do the equitable participation provisions require LEAs and eligible local entities to do?
LEAs and eligible local entities must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with appropriate private school officials during the design and development of programs and continue the consultation throughout the implementation of these programs. This consultation must take place before the LEA makes any decision that affects the opportunities of eligible private school students, teachers, and other educational personnel to participate in the program. Therefore, for both the regular FY 2009 Ed Tech and Ed Tech ARRA formula and competitive awards, the consultation must begin during the development of the local grant proposals. Eligible LEAs that seek both competitive and formula Ed Tech ARRA funding may engage in consultations that simultaneously involve the competitive and formula grants.
LEAs and local entities must provide, on an equitable basis, special educational services or other benefits that address the needs under the program of children, teachers, and other educational personnel in private schools in areas served by the LEAs and local entities. The services and programs provided by the LEA do not have to be identical to those offered to public school students and teachers.
Expenditures for educational services and other benefits for private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel must be equal, taking into account the number and educational needs of the children to be served, relative to the expenditures for participating public school children.
At all times the LEA remains in control of the funds, maintains title to all equipment and materials purchased with such funds, and makes the final decisions.
G-3. What topics should be discussed during the consultation process between LEAs or eligible local entities and private school officials?
Section 9501(c)(1) of the ESEA requires that LEAs or eligible local entities consult with appropriate private school officials on such issues as:
G-4. May an LEA use Ed Tech funds to purchase computer equipment for use by private school students and teachers?
Yes. An LEA may use Ed Tech funds to purchase computer equipment for use by private school students and teachers, but not to support wiring for computer networks or access to the Internet. The LEA maintains title to equipment purchased with Ed Tech funds and placed in private schools and should be clearly labeled and identified as the district’s property. Furthermore, the equipment may not be used for religious purposes.
G-5. Does the requirement for a grant recipient to use at least 25 percent of its total FY 2009 Ed Tech funds to provide professional development apply to the funds allocated for equitable services to private school students and teachers?
No. The requirement for a grant recipient to use at least 25 percent of its total FY 2009 Ed Tech funds for professional development does not apply to the funds allocated for private school students and teachers. However, the topic of professional development should be addressed during the consultation process with private school officials to ensure that the technology services, materials, and/or equipment will be effectively implemented.
G-6. Must a private school whose students and teachers receive services under the Ed Tech Program develop a school technology plan?
No. A private school whose students and teachers receive services under the Ed Tech Program does not need to develop a school technology plan.
May 20, 2009 -- Private school teachers are more satisfied than their public school counterparts with careers, classroom conditions, and school climate, according to a groundbreaking report released today by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.
The report, titled Free to Teach: What America’s Teachers Say About Teaching in Public and Private Schools, draws on data from the Schools and Staffing Survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education.
"These are eye-opening data on how America's public and private school teachers view their work and their schools," said Greg Forster, one of the authors of the study.
"The results here highlight the professional differences felt by teachers from public and private schools," said Christian D'Andrea, the study's co-author. "While public school teachers are faced with more hassles inside and outside the classroom, private school teachers have much more freedom to teach. These private school teachers report having better working environments and stronger networks of staff support."
According to the report’s executive summary…
"Documenting existing teacher working conditions is a first step in helping the nation's educational system - both private and public schools - improve working conditions and the overall profession," said Robert Enlow, President and CEO of the Friedman Foundation.
April 1, 2009 -- The U.S. Department of Education today released guidance on the use of funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Below are questions and answers from the guidance that relate to services to students and teachers in religious and independent schools. The guidance documents from which these excerpts are taken are available on USDE’s ARRA Web page.
Title I, Part A Recovery Funds
D-6. Do the Title I, Part A requirements that an LEA provide equitable services to eligible private school children and their teachers and families apply to the Title I, Part A ARRA funds?
Yes. As noted in D-1, all Title I requirements apply to the use of Title I, Part A ARRA funds, including those requiring equitable services for eligible private school children and their teachers and families. See ED’s guidance on this topic [available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/psguidance.doc]. Note that ED may not waive the statutory and regulatory requirements relating to providing equitable services to private school children. See section 9401(c)(5) of the ESEA.
D-7. Must an LEA consult with private school officials prior to deciding how to use its Title I, Part A ARRA funds?
Yes. Under section 1120(b) of the ESEA, an LEA must consult with private school officials during the design and development of the LEA’s Title I, Part A programs. That consultation must include meetings of LEA and private school officials and must occur before the LEA makes any decision that affects the opportunities of eligible private school children to participate in Title I, Part A programs.
D-8. If an LEA receives a waiver of one or more of the “set-aside” requirements under D-11, must the LEA include the Title I, Part A funds that are no longer subject to the set-aside in providing equitable services for eligible private school children?
Yes, to the same extent and under the same conditions as regular Title I, Part A funds are used for equitable services for eligible private school children.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B
F-1. How will the ARRA funds be included in the calculation for proportionate share of IDEA funds for services to parentally-placed private school children?
In calculating the proportionate share required under IDEA section 612(a)(10)(A)(i)(I), an LEA must first aggregate the FY 2009 funds received under the Grants to States regular and ARRA awards and apply the formula outlined in 34 CFR §300.133 to the aggregated amount. Similarly, for children aged 3-5, the proportionate share is based on the total FY 2009 funds received under the Preschool Grants regular and ARRA awards.
F-2. If an LEA has completed its consultation required under IDEA section 612(a)(10)(A)(iii), will the LEA have to conduct additional consultation because the IDEA ARRA funds will increase the amount available for equitable services to parentally-placed private school children?
Under section 612(a)(10)(A)(iii), timely and meaningful consultation must occur during the design and development of special education and related services. The consultation process must include discussions of “how the process will operate throughout the school year to ensure that parentally-placed children with disabilities identified through the child find process may meaningfully participate in special education and related services.” An LEA may be able to use the mechanisms developed for the ongoing consultation process to work with representatives of the private schools located in the area served by the LEA and representatives of parents of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities in determining how the proportionate share of IDEA ARRA funds will be expended. In any case, an LEA must ensure that it has engaged in consultation with the private school representatives and representatives of parents of parentally-placed private school children with disabilities about how the additional funds available for services for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities will be used.
F-3. May an LEA spend part of the proportionate share of the IDEA Part B ARRA funds on children with disabilities parentally-placed in private schools in school year 2009-2010 and part in school year 2010-2011?
Yes, subject to certain conditions. Under 34 CFR §300.133(a), each LEA is required to spend a minimum amount of its subgrants under Part B Grants to States and Preschool Grants programs on children with disabilities parentally-placed in private elementary and secondary schools. The ARRA provides a substantial increase in FY 2009 IDEA, Part B funds. As provided in 34 CFR §300.133(a)(3), if an LEA has not expended all of the proportionate share of its Part B subgrant by the end of the fiscal year for which Congress appropriated the funds, the LEA must obligate the remaining funds for special education and related services to children with disabilities parentally-placed in private schools during a carry-over period of one additional year. An LEA must consult with private school representatives and parents of parentally-placed private school students in designing and developing the special education and related services that the LEA will provide for parentally-placed private school children. (34 CFR §300.134) As part of this consultation, the LEA, private school representatives and parents of parentally-placed private school students must consider how the proportionate share of IDEA funds (including the regular and ARRA IDEA Part B funds) should be spent. One option for spending those funds would be to spend some in school year 2009-2010 and some in school year 2010-2011.
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
III-D-15. Is an LEA required to provide equitable services for private school students and teachers with Education Stabilization funds?
No. There is no requirement in the ARRA that an LEA provide equitable services for private school students with Education Stabilization funds, even if those funds are used for an activity authorized by a program that otherwise requires equitable services. However, an LEA may provide services for private school students and teachers to the extent that the activities are authorized by the ESEA, the IDEA, the AEFLA, or the Perkins Act.
IV-6. May a State use Government Services funds to construct, modernize, renovate, or repair a private school facility?
Yes. A State may use these funds to construct, modernize, renovate, or repair a private school facility. However, the limitations referenced in Question IV-3 apply to such uses of funds. For example, a State is prohibited from using Government Services funds for construction, modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (a) that are used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (b) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission. (See generally Section 14004(c) of the ARRA.)
III-D-2. What are the statutory prohibitions on an LEA’s use of Education Stabilization funds?
Section 14003 of the ARRA prohibits an LEA from using Education Stabilization funds for –
In addition, no Stabilization funds (either Education Stabilization funds or Government Services funds) may be used to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools, unless the funds are used to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities as authorized by the IDEA (Section 14011 of the ARRA).
There are also other prohibitions in section 1604 of the ARRA – for example, prohibitions against using funds for an aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool – that apply to the use of Stabilization funds by any entity.
February 18, 2009 -- President Barack Obama yesterday signed into law a massive package to help jump-start the sagging economy through a combination of tax cuts and government spending. The nearly $800 billion legislation, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), involves unprecedented amounts of federal funds for education programs, some of which will affect students in religious and independent schools. (CAPE's analysis of how ARRA relates to private schools is available here.)
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
ARRA establishes a $53.6 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), designed primarily to help states offset their own cuts in aid to education and other services. Despite a strong advocacy effort by the private school community, the act does not include an explicit requirement that SFSF money serve children in private schools in an equitable way. But neither does the act exclude private school students from being served under SFSF. Further, it may be that current provisions in the programs for which SFSF funds must be used (e.g., the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) cover equitability.
School Modernization
The school modernization program contained in the version of the stimulus package originally passed by the House has been rolled into the SFSF component of ARRA by adding “modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities” as an allowable use of SFSF funds by school districts. The explicit “public school” reference excludes the use of these funds for upgrading religious and independent elementary and secondary schools. A separate section under SFSF relating to the use of funds by institutions of higher education allows for the modernization, renovation, or repair of public or private colleges and universities, except for facilities “used for sectarian instruction or religious worship” or “in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”
ESEA, IDEA
ARRA includes $13 billion for Title I grants under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to help disadvantaged students. Of that amount, $10 billion is available for services to students in public and private schools, and $3 billion is targeted for grants to help public schools that have been identified for school improvement.
The act also provides $650 million under Title II-D of ESEA (EdTech) to help public and private schools enhance instruction through technology.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides services to children with special needs in public and private schools, receives an additional $12.2 billion under ARRA, including $11.7 billion for Part B, which includes equitable services to students placed by their parents in private schools, and $500 million for Part C, which serves infants and toddlers with disabilities.
Early Childhood
Early childhood programs also get a boost in ARRA, which provides $1.1 billion for Early Head Start and $1 billion for Head Start, two programs to promote the healthy development of children from low-income families before they attend school. A number of private nonprofit organizations operate both programs. Another $2 billion will go to the Child Care and Development Block Grant program, which helps low-income parents in the workforce cover daycare or after-school program costs at the child-care provider of their choice.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act |
|
Amount (in billions) |
|
| Title I-A, ESEA |
$10.0 |
| Title II-D, ESEA (EdTech) | $0.65 |
| IDEA, Part B |
$11.7 |
| State Fiscal Stabilization Fund | $53.6 |
| Early Head Start | $1.1 |
| Head Start | $1.0 |
| Child Care and Development Block Grants | $2.0 |
December 1, 2008 -- President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden have long and close connections with religious and independent schools. Both men graduated from private schools, sent their children to them, and have sustained strong ties to them.
Obama’s first school was a Catholic school, the St. Francis Assisi Foundation School in Jakarta, Indonesia, where he attended first and second grade. (His family had moved from Hawaii to Jakarta when he was six.) In third and fourth grade, he attended an Indonesian public school, but after returning to Hawaii, he enrolled as a fifth grader at Punahou School, a K-12 college prep school in Honolulu and the largest independent school in the United States. He graduated from Punahou in 1979, having played on the varsity basketball team that won the state championship that year. Other co-curricular activities included the boys chorus in ninth grade and the concert choir in tenth.
Fifth-Grade Memories
In his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, Obama recalls that Miss Mabel Hefty, his fifth-grade teacher at Punahou, had invited his father, a Kenyan, to speak to the class. On the day of the visit, Miss Hefty welcomed the elder Obama eagerly and announced to the class, “We have a special treat for you today. Barry Obama’s father is here, and he’s come all the way from Kenya, in Africa, to tell us about his country.” Obama wrote that his father spoke about “the wild animals that still roamed the plains, the tribes that still required a young boy to kill a lion to prove his manhood”—matters that must have captivated his pre-teen classmates. But his father also described the political struggles in the country and how Kenyans longed to be free. “When he was finished,” wrote Obama, “Miss Hefty was absolutely beaming with pride. All my classmates applauded heartily.” And one fellow student offered what may be the ultimate fifth-grade compliment: “Your dad is pretty cool.”
In an article for the Punahou Bulletin in the fall of 1999, Obama, who had attended the school on scholarship, wrote, “I believe that the carefree childhood I experienced in Hawaii, and the wonderful education I received at Punahou, should not be left to the luck of the draw, but should rather be every child’s birthright.”
Extraordinarily Grateful
In December 2004, then U.S. Senator-elect Obama returned to Punahou to speak to students and faculty. The Punahou Bulletin reported that Obama recalled the school’s effect on his life this way: “There was something about this school that embraced me, gave me support and encouragement, and allowed me to grow and prosper. I am extraordinarily grateful.”
The day Obama was elected president, Punahou School President James K. Scott said, “This is a historic moment for America and the world, and for Hawaii.…At Punahou School, our calling is to foster each student’s potential to reach his or her promise and effect meaningful change in society. President-elect Obama is an inspirational embodiment of that vision.”
Obama’s education in private schools continued well beyond Punahou. He attended Occidental College, a small liberal arts college in Los Angeles, for two years and then went on to earn a B.A. in political science in 1983 from Columbia University and a J.D., magna cum laude, in 1991 from Harvard Law School, where he was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.
Respect for Catholic Schools
Another Obama encounter with private schools came in the mid-1980s when he worked as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) in Chicago. From 1985-88, Obama worked out of an office in the rectory of Holy Rosary Catholic Church in the city’s south side. In a booklet “The Catholic Case for Obama,” Dr. Patrick Whelan reports that about 200 mostly non-Catholic children attended the Catholic school connected with the parish. “Barack did not teach at the school, but he had an opportunity to get acquainted with many of the parents.” One of the priests involved with another nearby Catholic school told Whelan, “Senator Obama certainly had a respect for the Catholic school system, particularly when it was the only alternative for education of the poor. He recognized that Catholic schools became a vehicle by which children could be prepared to compete in life.” Whelan also reports that during the 2004 Senate race, “Barack’s campaign filmed one of its television commercials in a Catholic school, championing the education that the children were receiving there.”
Laboratory Schools
The president-elect’s connection with private schools continues to this day. His two daughters, Malia Ann (10) and Natasha (7), have been attending the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, established in 1896 by John Dewey. According to the mission statement, the Lab Schools “provide an experience-centered, rigorous and well-rounded education for a diverse community” and “strive to exemplify educational practice at its best.” David W. Magill, the schools’ director, writes, “We are more than just test scores and college admissions statistics…. Our academic program is rigorous, but we are as interested in the development of character as we are in scholastic achievement….In short, we are among the leading independent schools in the nation and pride ourselves on creating conditions for a purposeful search for knowledge and truth.” Michelle Obama, who describes herself as “mother-in-chief,” has served on the board of directors for the Lab Schools.
Sidwell Friends
When they move to Washington, the Obama girls will attend Sidwell Friends School, a PK-12 Quaker day school located in Washington and Bethesda, MD. Sidwell’s statement of philosophy describes the school community as “inspired by the values of the Religious Society of Friends and guided by the Quaker belief in ‘That of God’ in each person.” The school, founded in 1883, offers students “a rich and rigorous interdisciplinary curriculum designed to stimulate creative inquiry, intellectual achievement and independent thinking.” Capturing the Quaker respect for the efficacy of quiet, the statement acknowledges that the community draws “strength from silence—and from the power of individual and collective reflection.” It continues, “We cultivate in all members of our community high personal expectations and integrity, respect for consensus, and an understanding of how diversity enriches us, why stewardship of the natural world matters, and why service to others enhances life.”
The school’s Web site explains that the belief that there is “That of God” in each person “shapes everything we do at Sidwell Friends School. It inspires us to show kindness and respect toward one another. It motivates us to recognize and nurture each person’s unique gifts. It teaches us to apply our talents in service to others and to work courageously for peace.”
Chelsea Clinton attended Sidwell in the 1990s, and three grandchildren of Joe Biden are current students.
Michelle Obama spent a few days in November scouting out private schools in Washington. In an interview on CBS News’ 60 Minutes, she talked about the school choice process, saying, “What we have asked people to understand is that the decision that we make will be based on the best interest of the girls.” Once the selection was announced, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Obama, echoed a similar sentiment: “In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now.”
Vice President-elect
Like Obama, Vice President-elect Joseph Biden also has a lifelong acquaintance with private schools. St. Paul’s Catholic School in Scranton, PA, Holy Rosary in Claymont, DE, and St. Helena in Wilmington, DE, all helped shape the vice president during his elementary school years. He writes about the influence of nuns on his life in his autobiography, Promises to Keep: “Wherever there were nuns, there was home. I’m as much a cultural Catholic as I am a theological Catholic. My idea of self, of family, of community, of the wider world comes straight from my religion….The nuns are one of the reasons I’m still a practicing Catholic.”
When it came time for high school, Biden “had [his] heart set on Archmere,” as in Archmere Academy, a Catholic, independent, college preparatory school in Claymont, DE. He attended the school through the help of a work-study program for, as he put it, “students whose families couldn’t swing the tuition,” which was $300 a year at the time. According to its mission statement, Archmere “focuses on the education of the whole student” through “dedication to academic excellence, social development, community service, and faith reflection.” The school “encourages and supports the unique qualities and differences of students in achieving the maximum level of their abilities.”
Biden writes, “I began to grow into myself at Archmere….In almost any group I was the leader.” In senior year he was class president and top scorer on an undefeated football team. But, he adds, “If I was going to be a leader, I meant to lead the right way. I made sure to look out for the kid who was being made fun of. I knew how that felt.” Biden had a stutter as a child, and he describes his “proudest accomplishments at Archmere” as delivering a five-minute public speaking requirement during morning assembly in sophomore year and a welcome to graduates and parents at his commencement ceremony in senior year. “[I]t was the final confirmation that the stutter was not going to hold me back.”
Biden’s connections with Archmere have continued. His adult children—Beau, Hunter, and Ashley—all graduated from the school, and he served as honorary co-chair of the Campaign for Archmere, launched in 2003 to raise funds for capital improvements.
Biden, the country’s first Catholic vice president, connects his elementary and secondary education to the development of his sense of public service. Talking about the election of John F. Kennedy, he writes in his autobiography: “The thing that struck me most about his inaugural address in January 1961 was not the newness of his ideas but how much those ideas rhymed with the lessons I’d learned at Saint Paul’s and Holy Rosary and Saint Helena’s and Archmere—and especially at my home. We have to do good works on earth, Kennedy reminded us, because it is our duty:…‘[H]ere on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.’”
October 3, 2008 -- The White House today issued a report describing the challenges faced by inner-city faith-based schools and offering solutions that engage philanthropy, higher education, new support systems, and public policy. Preserving a Critical National Asset: America’s Disadvantaged Students and the Crisis in Faith-Based Urban Schools examines the rich tradition of religious schools in America and the causes and consequences of their recent decline in inner-cities. The report not only summarizes key points advanced at the White House Summit on Inner-City Children and Faith-Based Schools held last April, but also provides full transcripts of presentations delivered at the summit. Click here to download the report.
Home | News |
Private Schools | Public
Policy | Teaching Jobs | Publications |
NCLB-BRS Program | About
CAPE | Contact Us
Copyright © 2010. Council for American Private
Education.
13017 Wisteria Drive #457, Germantown, MD 20874
E-mail - cape@capenet.org Tel - 301-916-8460 Fax - 301-916-8485
June 22, 2010 -- Students who attended private schools through the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) in the District of Columbia were more likely -- by 21 percentage points -- to receive a high school diploma than a control group that did not take part in the program, according to a