Home AdvocacyPolicyWashington Notes2003 Nov

• Appropriations Update
• IDEA Reauthorization Status
• DO IT Inititive Progresses in Congress
• E-Rate Update
• Microsoft Class Action Settlement Article Clarification and Update
• Departments of Education and Commerce Launch Inter-Agency Ed Tech Working Group
• Department of Education Awards Grants to Study Technology’s Impact on Student Achievement
• NAEP Assessments Show Significant Improvements in Math
• Digital Divide Has Narrowed in School but Still Exists at Home

Appropriations Update
Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Funding Still Pending

With the upcoming Congressional adjournment date fast approaching, Congressional appropriators are working feverishly to finish action on the remaining appropriations bills including the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill, as many federal agencies continue to operate under a continuing resolution (CR) that funds all programs at last year’s levels. All of the unpassed bills have now been folded into a single omnibus appropriations bill and Congress is currently considering them en bloc. In the past few days, conferees have made substantial progress in reconciling many differences between House and Senate funding levels and late last week the biggest obstacle to passage was overcome when Senator Specter (R-PA) removed his objection to dropping a provision that would have funded the implementation of the Department of Labor’s controversial new overtime rules. The Administration had threatened to veto the entire bill if the overtime rules provision that the Senate had approved and the House had supported in a non-binding motion to instruct its conferees, remained in the final bill. Only a few sticking points to passage remain, including how to offset an additional $1.2 billion in education funding and to what programs these additional funds would be committed. If these problems can be resolved, the House and Senate may pass this bill before leaving for Thanksgiving. If not, Congress could return to finish work on appropriations in early December or pass a long-term CR until Congress returns in January.

The Senate bill provides $55.8 billion for all federal education programs, an increase of $2.7 billion from FY03, with the bulk of funding increases directed to Title I and IDEA programs (each of which received an additional $1 billion in funding). The Senate bill also contains approximately $400 million more for education than the House version approved over the summer.

Although overall education funding will increase, the future of the smaller education technology programs remains up in the air. Whereas the Senate funds the Star Schools and the Community Technology Centers (CTC) programs at levels significantly lower than last year—Star Schools would lose $6.8 million and CTC lose $12.3 million if the Senate version was adopted—the House opts to eliminate both programs entirely. Most disappointing is the elimination of all funding for the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology program by the House and Senate.

Here are some key funding numbers from the House and Senate versions of this bill:

	Senate	House
Title I, State Grants	$12.35 billion	$12.35 billion
Title II, Professional Development	$2.85 billion	$2.93 billion
Title II, Ed Tech Block Grant	$696 million	$696 million
21st Century Community Learning Centers	$1 billion	$1 billion
PT3	$0	$0
Star Schools	$20.5 million	$0
Community Technology Centers	$20 million	$0
State Data Systems	$80 million	$0

IDEA Reauthorization Status

After months of inaction, the Senate has begun the process of moving the Senate version of IDEA Reauthorization to the floor. In the past three weeks the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) filed its report on the IDEA reauthorization legislation that it approved last summer and it also announced that it had reached a unanimous consent agreement on the rules that would govern floor consideration of the bill. Under the terms of the agreement, debate on the Senate version would be limited with the Democratic and Republican sides only permitted to propose a few amendments each on the floor. Most significantly, under the agreement, a highly contentious amendment to add a voucher program would not be offered. Although this agreement will make Senate approval of its version much quicker, it does not guarantee a rapid conference between the Senate and House sides on their respective versions. The Senate’s reauthorization of IDEA will likely hit the Senate floor in early 2004.

The HELP Committee’s report on the bill is noteworthy because it includes language that is designed to foster access to the general education curriculum for children with disabilities through the use of technology and to incorporate the principles of universal design into technology products and services. Additionally, it creates a new research center that will investigate the applicability of universal design concepts to standards, assessments and technology tools. It also authorizes the formation of a new commission to develop a definition of universal design. Finally, it mandates that states adopt the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard in order to ensure that students with print disabilities can more easily make use of print materials.

Throughout the Senate bill, an interest in furthering research on and use of universally designed materials is apparent. The Senate version’s Part B permits states to use IDEA funds to support the development and use of technology (including universally designed technologies and assistive technology devices and services), to enhance learning and maximize accessibility to the general curriculum. Part D of the bill not only includes a new finding that support is needed to improve technological resources and integrate technology, including universally designed technologies, into the lives of children, but allows the new Professional Development grants to be used for, among other things, encouraging and supporting the training of teachers to effectively integrate technology into the classroom. Part D of the Senate bill also contains a new priority for projects that promote the development and use of universally designed technologies, and assistive technology devices and services. Even the new National Center for Special Education Research has a universal design focus, as it is charged with examining and incorporating universal design concepts in the development of standards, assessments, curricula, and instructional methods.

Perhaps the clearest manifestation of the bill’s interest in universal design is seen in the bill’s establishment of the Commission on Universal Design and the Accessibility of Curriculum and Instructional Materials to survey issues related to improving access to the general curriculum and instructional materials and to recommend a definition for universal design. The Commission, as proposed, would contain 21 members, appointed by the Senate, House, Department of Education, and Registrar of Copyrights. The Commission’s duties include providing a detailed cost report to Congress on the availability and accessibility of curricula and instructional materials, the costs and benefits of adopting universally designed curricula, and the impact of adopting a definition for universal design.

The bill also contains new language that ensures that blind students can more easily access print materials through technology. As a condition of IDEA fund eligibility, the Senate bill requires states to adopt a National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS), which is to be published by the Secretary within 180 days of enactment of the reauthorization and adopted by the states within two years. While the Secretary has the discretion to set the standards for NIMAS, it is widely expected that the standard will largely be based on the recent report of the National File Format Technical Panel convened by the Secretary last year to make recommendations on an appropriate NIMAS for providing digital versions of print instructional materials. The bill also directs states and local education agencies as a condition of any contract to purchase print instructional materials, to require publishers to prepare delivery of materials in the NIMAS to a National Instructional Materials Access Center. In addition to the new language in Part B, Part D clarifies the relationship between NIMAS and other laws, and explicitly exempts publishers and authorized entities from copyright law for making or distributing files as directed in NIMAS, expands the definition of specialized formats to include synthesized speech, digital audio and large print, and establishes a national instructional materials access center.

DO IT Inititive Progresses in Congress

The Digital Opportunity Investment Trust (DO IT), a proposal to funnel revenue from spectrum auctions into a trust fund that would be used for a variety of education technology initiatives, made significant progress in Congress this past month. Recently, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet conducted a hearing on the House version of DO IT legislation. Introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) as H.R. 1396, the Spectrum Commons and Digital Dividends Act of 2003, this bill proposes that proceeds from the DO IT Trust fund would subsidize projects such as the digitization of library materials, innovative technologies for schools, and research development for new learning resources. While the witnesses at the hearing and many House members in attendance supported the concept, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) expressed reservations, questioning the wisdom of diverting spectrum proceeds from the federal treasury to support a narrow range of programs rather than using them to support other national priorities, such as defense and health care, that benefit all Americans. Action on the House bill is not likely until next year.

The House hearing followed significant action on the DO IT initiative on the Senate side. On November 12, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) introduced the Senate’s version of DO IT legislation. Under the Senate bill, the US Treasury Department would allocate 30% of funds from all auctions of the publicly owned electro-magnetic spectrum, from now until 2020, to the DO IT trust. A nine-member Board of Directors appointed by the President would direct interest from this trust’s corpus, estimated at around $1 billion per year, towards a variety of education technology projects.

Although both the Senate and House versions of the DO IT legislation agree on the projected use of the funds—namely for education and technology innovation—there remain pronounced differences between the two proposals. Whereas the Senate version provides that 30% of all spectrum sales be diverted to the DOIT Trust, H.R. 1396 does not specify a fixed percentage of spectrum funds that would be diverted to the Trust fund, mentioning only that funds should be adequate to cover basic costs. The House version does provide more detail about the flow of funds than does the Senate’s version, though, stating that the first $5 billion from spectrum sales would go to the Relocated Federal Entities Trust Fund and all remaining funds would then go to the Digital Dividends Trust Fund. While neither the House nor Senate version caps the amount that would be diverted to the trust, Rep. Markey has signaled that he would be flexible in determining a cap on the total amount of funds that can be diverted to the DO IT fund. DOIT proponents have indicated that they would like to see at least $20 billion placed in the trust. Finally, the House version specifies that the Director of the Trust should be the acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce rather than an independent Presidential appointee, as proposed in the Senate’s version.

E-Rate Update

The past month has been marked with new proposals to fundamentally alter the funding sources for the E-rate program. These proposals arrive while the FCC and Congress continue to struggle with developing a new way to fund overall universal service, which supports both the E-rate and the high cost/rural subsidy fund, because the current assessment on portions of telephone company revenues has proven to be inadequate. Rural Senators are particularly concerned with the fund’s stability because many of their constituents would be unable to afford regular telephone service without the high cost/rural fund, which pays subsidies to rural telephone carriers that keep telephone service costs at reasonable levels. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), who has continually expressed concerns that rural telephone service support should not be endangered by E-rate support for schools and libraries, stated at a recent Commerce Committee hearing that the E-Rate should be paid for not through universal service fees, the original intent of which was to support rural telephone service, but through a tax. Senator Stevens’ comments are of particular interest because he will assume the chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee in 2005.

It now appears that Senator Stevens’ statement may have been an expression of support for universal service fund changes circulated by the United States Telephone Association (USTA), which is comprised of rural telephone carriers and incumbent local exchange carriers. Specifically, the USTA proposals advocate removing the E-rate program and the Rural Health Care program from universal service support and paying for them with half of the proceeds of the communications excise tax. This proposal is not new as it was floated several years ago but never pursued successfully. Critics contend now, as they did then, that while the tax proposal would provide sufficient funds to pay for these programs, it does not provide any information about how losses to the general treasury of the United States, to where these funds normally flow, would be offset.

Aside from changes to the E-rate funding structure, the USTA proposal also recommends broadening the base of contributors to the universal service fund beyond the common carriers who currently pay-in. While the proposal does not single out any other types of providers, USTA is believed to be seeking contributions from broadband service providers, among others. USTA also proposes to expand the type of revenues assessed for the universal service from just interstate to interstate and intrastate.

Although it does not appear likely that Congress will consider these proposals this year, observers expect that these represent the beginning of a long struggle over the fate of E-rate funding and universal service.

Microsoft Class Action Settlement Article Clarification and Update

In the last edition of Washington Notes, an article appeared that described the educational components of several state class action antitrust settlements into which Microsoft had entered with plaintiff class members, who had been purchasers of Microsoft products. That previous article was based on an earlier summary of these settlements that now, based on a further of review of pertinent documents and conversations with other parties, appears to have been incomplete. This article is intended to clarify statements made in the earlier article, especially as they pertain to the benefits to schools from these settlements, and to provide an update on new settlements that Microsoft has reached in other states.

Since a federal district court judge in Baltimore rejected a proposal that would have settled all class action antitrust claims against Microsoft in early 2002, Microsoft has been negotiating settlements with class plaintiffs on a state-by-state basis. To date, Microsoft has reached settlements with classes in 10 states—California, Montana, Florida, North Carolina, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, Kansas, Tennessee, and South Dakota. The announced values of these settlements are as follows:

• California -- $1.1 billion
• Florida -- $202 million
• Montana -- $12.3 million
• Kansas -- $32 million
• DC -- $6.2 million
• North Carolina -- $89 million

Although no settlements have yet received final court approval, many have received preliminary approval and the process of providing notice to the plaintiffs has begun.

Although there is variation in each of the settlements as to their overall dollar value, in general, each settlement provides class plaintiffs, those who purchased Microsoft products during the period when alleged antitrust violations occurred, with vouchers that can be redeemed for technology products from any company. The value of each voucher varies and is dependent on the settlement and the type of product for which a voucher is claimed.

Each settlement contains provisions intended to benefit low-income schools by providing them with a percentage of the value of vouchers not claimed by plaintiff class members. Through these settlement agreements, school districts will receive vouchers that they can use to purchase hardware, software, and professional development. In the California settlement, which represents the largest settlement to date at $1.1 billion, two-thirds of any unclaimed settlement proceeds will be provided in the form of vouchers to those schools where 40% or more of their students are eligible for the federal free and reduced school lunch program. Thus, if plaintiffs claim $500 million in vouchers, California schools would be eligible to receive two-thirds of the remaining $600 million, or $400 million. However, there is no way to estimate how much will be available to California schools after the period for plaintiffs to claim their vouchers closes. Under the terms of the settlements in Florida, North Carolina, Montana, Kansas and DC, 50% of all unclaimed settlement proceeds will be provided to districts where 50% or more of their students are eligible for the federal lunch program.

The settlements may further benefit all schools in these states by permitting individuals, organizations or businesses that claim vouchers under the settlement to donate them to local schools. The maximum amount in vouchers that can be donated to any single school is $10,000. Additionally, in some of the settlements, districts may see a second distribution from the settlement of a percentage of vouchers claimed but not redeemed by plaintiffs. This distribution, however, would be years in the future as the plaintiff claimants will have a lengthy period to redeem their vouchers.

When districts in these states will see the proceeds of these settlements is still unclear. Before they begin to see the benefits of these settlements, final court approval must be obtained and plaintiffs must have an opportunity to receive notice and claim their vouchers. If final approval of certain settlements is not obstructed by appeals, money may begin to flow to districts in a year’s time.

Departments of Education and Commerce Launch Inter-Agency Ed Tech Working Group

On October 23, 2003, Phillip Bond, the Department of Commerce Under Secretary for Technology, announced the formation of the Interagency Working Group on Advanced Technologies for Education and Training. The working group, which will be co-chaired by Mr. Bond and John Bailey, the Director of Educational Technology, also includes representatives from the National Science Foundation, the Institute for Museum and Library Sciences, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Interior, the Department of Labor, the Library of Congress, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Security Agency and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This working group was created in response to employers’ growing demand for skilled employees who are prepared to compete in today’s knowledge-based economy and aims to help integrate new technologies in the classroom to prepare students for future employment.

The Department of Commerce has chosen to lead this effort because it is familiar with employers’ emerging needs in the global marketplace. However, this change in education will not be easy. In his opening remarks, Mr. Bond stated: “Exploiting the full potential of these advanced technologies is likely to require fundamental, rather than incremental reforms- a change in the “business model” of our learning enterprise,” stated Mr. Bond. He continued, “Content, teaching, assessment, student-teacher relationships, and even the concept of an education and training institution may all need to be re-thought.”

The working group’s first task will be to conduct an inventory and examine federal investments focused on the development of advanced technologies for learning, and the development of digital libraries and learning resources. The working group will then explore and prioritize barriers to the commercialization, deployment and adoption of these technologies. Throughout the entire process, the working group will convene appropriate stakeholders from the industry, the education community, and government to address these issues. At this point, no new federal funds have been appropriated for this initiative.

Department of Education Awards Grants to Study Technology’s Impact on Student Achievement

Earlier this month, the U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige announced that 9 states were awarded grants totaling $15 million to study how technology impacts student achievement. The grants that were awarded are three-year competitive grants. These awards are part of Title II, Part D, which allows the Department of Education to conduct national technology activities. Grantees will conduct an evaluation of their use of technology in academic subject areas, assess the impact of technology and disseminate the information to other states. The grantees include:

• Arkansas Department of Education
• Iowa Department of Education
• Maine Department of Education
• North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
• Pennsylvania Department of Education
• Tennessee Department of Education
• Texas Department of Education
• West Virginia Department of Education
• Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

NAEP Assessments Show Significant Improvements in Math

Late last week, the U.S. Department of Education released the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which assesses the nation's fourth and eighth graders in mathematics and reading. U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige stated that he is encouraged by the results. The big story in the data was the large gains that students of all backgrounds made in mathematics but the relatively static performance of all students in reading assessments. According to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Rod Paige, these results represented the first fruits of the No Child Left Behind Act. Paige stated, "I am particularly pleased to see that the achievement gap is starting to close as African American, Hispanic and low-income students account for some of the most significant improvements."

According to the data released, the performance of the nation’s fourth and eighth graders on the mathematics assessment reflects significant improvement, with gains in average scores, across most racial/ethnic groups, at every achievement level, in almost every state. Another positive finding in both reading and mathematics assessments is that student groups in early grades who have historically tended to perform poorly were the big gainers in 2003 in mathematics while they maintained the significant increase in scores achieved in 2002 in reading. The 2003 mathematics assessment was the first since 2000, while the 2003 reading assessment was the second in two years.

The significance of the 2003 mathematics scores is highlighted by the fact that fourth and eighth graders achieved higher average scores and a higher percentage of these students scored at or above Basic and at or above Proficient compared to all previous assessment years. At both the fourth and eighth grade level, the gap between Whites and Blacks and Whites and Hispanics narrowed between 1996 and 2003. Maybe the most noteworthy fact from the 2003 assessments is that fourth and eighth graders across every percentile level, from the 10th to the 90th, achieved scores higher than in any of the previous assessment years.

Digital Divide Has Narrowed in Schools But Still Exists at Home
According to two reports recently released by the National Center for Education Statistics, the digital divide has narrowed in schools but still exists at home for minority and poor students.

The first report, entitled “Computer and Internet Use by Children and Adolescents in 2001,” shows that while computer and Internet access has become an important component of schoolwork, poor and minority students trail behind their peers in home Internet access rates. According to the report, as of 2001, approximately 44 percent of students rely on computers and access to the Internet to complete their school work. Of that percentage, White students are almost twice as likely to have computer and Internet access at home than their Black and Hispanic peers. The report also finds that only 30 percent of students from families earning less than $20,000 use computers at home, compared to 89 percent of those from families earning more than $75,000. The report can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004014

The second report, entitled “Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2002,” shows that computer and Internet access in public school instructional classrooms has now reached an all time high of 92 percent, up from 87 percent in 2001. Additionally, the report indicates that schools with high minority populations or large numbers of low income students have almost caught up to the nationwide average for Internet connection rates. The report also shows that broadband is rapidly becoming a major presence in our nation’s education system, with 94 percent of schools now using some form of broadband technology. Lastly, the report reveals that the student-to-computer ratio continues to drop, at 4.8 to 1 in 2002, an improvement from a 12 to 1 ratio when it was first measured in 1998.

Although the figures in the second report demonstrate a significant improvement in school technology access over the course of the seven year study, U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige acknowledged that before we can declare the digital divide closed, we need to address the big disparity that exists in home computer access. States Paige, “We need to address the limited access to technology that many students have outside of school. There is much more we can do. Closing the digital divide will also help close the achievement gap that exists in our schools.”