Home AdvocacyPolicyWashington Notes2000 Nov

• End-of-Year Congressional Update
• The Bush Agenda
• Likely Education Vehicles in the 107th Congress
• Congress and White House Agree on HR 4577 Appropriations

End-of-Year Congressional Update

The 107^th Congress and Education

The extraordinary events surrounding the 2000 election made it difficult to predict the course of education policymaking in the 107^th Congress. However, a number of education laws are up for reauthorization in 2001 (including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA], the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], and the Office of Educational research and Improvement [OERI]), and voters have made it clear that they view education as a priority. However, with both Houses of Congress controlled by razor-thin majorities and the new president without a significant mandate, any effort to move education legislation will have to garner the support of moderates in both parties. While bold departures from current law such as block grants may mark the early debates in Congress, we believe that it will be ultimately difficult to move too far from the status quo.

Under the most optimistic scenario, moderates from both sides of the aisle insist on ending the gridlock on education and work together to fashion a “compromise” ESEA bill that can pass Congress. While leaders from both Houses have already noted that the narrow majorities should foster bipartisanship and discourage the intense gridlock that brought down ESEA last year, that remains to be seen. We believe that many in the new Congress believe that they cannot risk a repeat of a debacle on ESEA and will seek to work out differences rather that block ESEA and other critical education laws. Moderates on both sides who were persuaded to stand aside last year and support the “party line” on education are likely to play key roles in drafting legislation. This is particularly true in the Senate, where last year DLC Democrats led by Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) broke rank and offered a “compromise” ESEA bill. With the Senate almost evenly divided, we believe efforts to “split the difference” on a number of issues in order to get an ESEA bill may find a more receptive audience this year.

The wild card in such a scenario is the extent to which the Republican leadership is receptive to Democratic requests for greater power sharing and more committee seats. If that request is ignored, it may be difficult to forge common ground. But with moderate Republican Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) continuing as chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee (HELP), we believe a bipartisan strategy on education is possible.

Another possibility would bode poorly for progress on education in Congress. The bitter partisanship and rancor over the presidency and the slim majorities in both Houses may lead to gridlock and legislative strategies aimed principally on gaining seats in 2002. In the Senate, the key to avoiding such a result may lie in some degree of power sharing. In the House, where control of the body will be up for a vote again in two years, the outlook is less clear. With Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) retaining his position as Speaker of the House and House leaders expressing the hope that the narrow majority will foster bipartisanship, the key to cooperation may depend on who follows Rep. William Goodling (R-PA) as chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. With Republicans abandoning the seniority system, the selection of Republican Rep. Thomas Petri (R-WI), a moderate and a member of the Republican Mainstream Coalition is less than certain. Contenders for the seat, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Thomas Hoekstra (R-MI), are both more conservative than Petri and may be less capable of building a moderate bipartisan coalition.

The future of education policymaking in Congress may also depend on how well moderates are able to come together around an agenda. Currently, most seem willing to do so. Both the Blue Dog Democrats (conservative House Democrats) and the Centrist Coalition (conservative Senate Democrats) have expressed a desire to craft a moderate agenda, and some have reached out to President-elect Bush. In addition, there is a current discussion in the House about the creation of a “Mainstream Coalition” consisting of moderates of both parties. We believe the moderates will capitalize on this opportunity to drive the legislative agenda and that on balance, the first more “optimistic” scenario we have posited will ultimately prevail.

Of course, the signals sent by the new president on these issues may be the most important factor in how education policy is made. If moderation on education policy becomes the order of the day in Congress, it will offer a favorable climate for constructive participation by stakeholder organizations, provided they are willing to be flexible when core principles are not at stake.

The Bush Agenda

President-elect George W. Bush and most Republicans seek a less expansive role for the federal government in education policy than Gore would have, with federal money going directly to local education agencies through block grants for locally determined priorities.

Bush’s Plan:

• Combine all federal ed-tech initiatives, including the E-Rate program and Title III programs, into a single $3 billion ed-tech block grant, with local education agencies receiving the bulk of the funds;
• Provide $65 million for the Department of Education’s Office of Education Research & Improvement (OERI) to identify the most effective ed-tech practices;
• Provide $15 million each year to help develop a national ed-tech clearinghouse of best ed-tech practices;
• Tie all federal funding including ed-tech funds directly to student performance. • Schools receiving federal funding that can demonstrate increased test scores will receive greater flexibility in how they use future funding;
• Provide $80 million annually in matching grants to the Community Development Block Grants Program to establish and maintain more than 2,000 Community Technology Centers (CTCs) each year in high poverty areas.

Likely Education Vehicles in the 107^th Congress

ESEA

Congress and the president will need to reauthorize ESEA, the principal federal vehicle for the authorization of federal education programs. First enacted in the Johnson Administration, ESEA was originally intended to provide targeted funds to underserved and under-resourced schools. During the 106^th, Congress and the president failed to reauthorize ESEA for the first time since its inception. ESEA will only be reauthorized during the next session of Congress if there is a bipartisan working relationship.

The federal government investment in education technology is roughly 30% of the total education technology funds. Title III is the principal title within ESEA that funds education technology. The largest program in Title III is the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, which provides funds to local and state education to expand technology capacities. In addition, funds from Title I, II, and VI also provide a significant amount of funds for education technology.

E-Rate

The narrow working majority in the Senate and House will likely result in no dramatic action on the E-Rate. President-elect Bush has proposed to consolidate the E-Rate program into the Department of Education. This is unlikely due to the makeup of Congress and the broad support for the program.

Education Technology Funding (in Labor HHS Appropriations)

Federal funding of education technology has continued to increase since the last authorization of Title III. It is expected that education technology will receive a funding increase for the 107^th Congress. An issue of contention will focus on the funding allocation for education technology funds. The debate will center on whether funds should be sent directly to the local education agencies, state education agencies, or to the Department of Education.

OERI

Congress will need to reauthorize the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). OERI administers education research and development funds and supports programs that produce new knowledge about learning and teaching. OERI gathers and presents statistics that track the status of education in the nation over time and develops and tests processes and products that allow teachers in local schools to put the best education knowledge to use in their classrooms. OERI has been prominent in funding research on the effectiveness and the availability of education technology. Congress may fold OERI into ESEA, but it is unlikely that Congress will reauthorize OERI during the next session because of the busy education schedule.

IDEA

In the second session of the 107^th Congress, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) will be up for reauthorization. IDEA’s Technology Development, Demonstration, Utilization and Media Services program is funded at $35 million for FY01. This program is the primary education technology program within IDEA. The reauthorization process may be contentious because of several unrelated issues. In addition, there will be a strong push to fully fund IDEA. It is unclear whether IDEA will be reauthorized, but it should be a widely discussed issue during the second session of the 107^th Congress.

Glenn and Web-Based Education Commissions

The Glenn Commission and Web-Based Education Commission reports will play a significant role in the education debate in the 107^th Congress. The Glenn Commission recommended ways to ensure that teachers have the opportunity throughout their career to learn, generate, accumulate, and share knowledge about math and science content and teaching methods. The findings will likely be integrated into a math and science education bill.

In addition, the Web-Based Education Commission released its report, “The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice,” on December 19, 2000 (www.webcommission.org). The report highlights the state of Web-based education and possible legislative items that might facilitate its growth. The Congressional members of the Commission will try to incorporate the recommendations into ESEA. Printed copies of the report will be available after January 2001. Two electronic versions are available:

Plain text: http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/text.htm

PDF: www.hpcnet.org/upload/wbec/reports/WBECReport.pdf

Congress and White House Agree on HR 4577 Appropriations

Congress and the White House finalized the Labor, Health, Human Services and Education Appropriations (HR 4577) funding levels for FY01 Appropriations for Labor, Health and Education programs.

The agreement increases funding for education programs for a total of $42 billion, a $6.5 billion increase. Education technology received a sizeable funding increase. The FY01 funding level is $872 million, an increase of $106 million. The following is a list of programs and proposed funding levels included in the conference agreement relative to last year’s budget figures.

• Technology Literacy Challenge Fund: $450 million, an increase of $25 million
• Technology Innovation Challenge Grants: $136.3 million, a decrease of $10 million
• Teacher Technology Training: (Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology, PT³), $125 million, an increase of $50 million
• Community Technology Centers (CTCs): $64.95 million, an increase of $32.95 million
• Star Schools: $59.3 million, an increase of $8.7 million

The agreement includes a provision that extends the current enhanced deduction for donations of computer technology and equipment through December 31, 2003, expands the enhanced deduction to include donations to public libraries, and increases the age limit to three years. In addition, the conference agreement provides that the Secretary of Education may prescribe according to standards to ensure that the donations meet minimum functionality and suitability standards for educational purposes.

In addition, the agreement includes language that federally mandates Internet filtering for schools and libraries receiving E-rate, Title III, and Library Services & Technology Act funds. An in-depth explanation of the mandate follows

Internet Filtering: Now Mandated by Federal Law

Under a new federal law, passed as part of a large spending package at the end of 2000, most schools and libraries will have to use filtering software on computers with Internet access.

Any school or library that receives:

• discounted rates for telecommunications services under the E-Rate program (Section 254[h][5] of the Communications Act of 1934),
• funding through the Library Services & Technology Act (20 USC 9134[b]) or
• Title III (20 USC 6801 et seq.)

to purchase computers used to access the Internet or to pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet, must comply with the conditions described below.

Schools and Libraries Must:

• Adopt and implement an “Internet Safety Policy” with the following elements included:
• Operation of a “technology protection measure” that “blocks or filters Internet access to visual depictions that are”—
• Obscene;
• Child Pornography;
• Harmful to minors;
• Any other Internet content a local educational agency, elementary or secondary school, or library determines is “inappropriate for minors;”
• Safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications; (e.g., Instant Message services)
• “Hacking” and other unlawful activities by minors online;
• Unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal identification information regarding minors; and
• Measures designed to restrict minors’ access to materials harmful to minors;
• Hold at least one public meeting or hearing on the Internet Safety Policy.

The E-Rate program, Department of Education, and Institute of Museum and Library Services will require certification of compliance with the requirements under their various jurisdictions, in a manner to be determined.

Whose Access Must Be Filtered?

As a general rule, schools and libraries must block or filter all access to “visual depictions” that are obscene, child pornography, harmful to minors, or that the local school or library authority has determined are “inappropriate for minors.” (Text is not affected.) This law applies to both minors and adults. If a school or library can find a filtering software tool that allows them to filter only obscenity and child pornography, but not “harmful to minors” material when adults are using affected computers, they may use it, and allow adult access to “harmful to minors” material.

What is less clear is when, if ever, the filtering software may be disabled entirely. The bill contains several provisions addressing the issue of filtering software being disabled by a school or library administrator “to enable access for bona fide research or other lawful purposes.” (Not all such software functions that way, but if a school or library is able to find and afford such software, they may select it as their “technology protection measure.”)

The question of whether and when to disable filters to access material requested by a library patron or a student is one that will require careful consideration. Those institutions that receive funding from more than one of the covered programs face conflicting requirements. The entire bill requires certification that the school, “is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers by minors” (Emphasis added. Sec. 3601[a][1][A][ii] and Sec. 1712[a][1][A][ii]). The phrase “any use” is repeated in describing the requirements for filtering adult use of the Internet (Sec. 3601[a][1][B][ii] and Sec. 1712[a][1][B][ii]). However, a later portion of the Title III and LSTA sections reads:

The exception for disabling filters in the E-Rate section of the bill differs:

A “minor” is defined as persons under 17 years of age, meaning that different requirements may apply to a school or library based on students’ ages as well as the source of program funds.

Timeline

Not all of the timeline requirements in this bill are clear. We hope that the various federal agencies involved will provide guidance quickly. However, here is what we do know:

• There is one deadline that appears extremely difficult: The substantive Internet safety policy requirements outlined above (excluding the selection of a filtering technology) “shall apply on or after the date that is 120 days after the date of enactment.” (April 14, 2001, although the deadline would likely be the following Monday, April 16, 2001.) These policies must be developed with input from at least one public meeting. However, there does not appear to be a penalty or certification requirement relating to this policy requirement before the E-Rate deadline below.
• Most of the provisions of this law involve requirements for “the first program funding year following the date of enactment of this bill.” For E-Rate recipients, this suggests that July 1, 2001 is the key deadline. For schools and libraries unable to comply that quickly, because of procedural or procurement restrictions, the law allows special certification waivers during the first year, and under more limited circumstances, the second year.
• The definition of “program year” under Title III and LSTA is unclear. We hope it will be defined by the agencies as the same as the fiscal year, meaning that schools and libraries affected will have until October 2001 to comply.

Paying for Filtering

Funds available under Sec. 3134, Part A of Title VI of ESEA, or Sec. 231 of LSTA may be used for the purchase or acquisition of the “technology protection measures” required by this bill. (Filtering and blocking software or services). No additional or new funds are authorized.

Yet Another Study

No later than June 15, 2002, the NTIA shall initiate notice and comment on—

• whether or not currently available technology, including commercial filtering software, meets the needs of educational institutions; and
• the effectiveness of local Internet safety policies, developed with community input.