Federal Policy and Legislative Committee

Barry Furze, Sturgis, S.D., Chairman

Members:
Lavinia T. Dickerson, Mahasset, N.Y.
Benny L. Gooden, Fort Smith, Ark.
G. Larry Miller, Millville, N.J.

Executive Committee Liaisons:
Joseph J. Cirasuolo, President, Wallingford, Conn.
Daniel A. Domenech, Past President, Fairfax, Va.

Legislative Corps Members:
William Adams, Michael Boulus, Billy Ray Carpenter, Russell J. Dever, Robert McCord, Vernon Alexander Pickup-Crawford, Alonzo Hilton Shockley Jr., Roberta Stanley, Brian Talbott, Dan Stuart Thompson

AASA Staff:
Bruce Hunter, Kari Arfstrom, Jordan Cross, Nick Penning,
Karin Vande Water

• The majority of federal programs administered in K-12 schools are governed by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Federal law requires that ESEA, also known as the Improving America’s Schools Act, be reauthorized every four years. With ESEA set to expire at the end of 2000, Congress is working on a bill that would extend most of the programs for another four years.

• The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed several sections of ESEA, and the U.S. Senate hopes to have their bill in the Health Education Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee in February. Because this is a campaign year, legislators have very few legislative days to bring the entire bill to the Senate floor, pass the remaining bills in the House, and conference the bills before the 2000 election. With such a tight schedule, there is a good possibility the reauthorization process will be postponed until next year.

FPL Proposed Positions:

• AASA urges Congress to direct the funds toward poverty by using the Title I formula wherever possible.
• AASA will support using formulas established in federal law to allocate funds to states and to school districts within states.
• AASA urges Congress to direct as much of the possible money to school districts.
• AASA members report unfunded federal mandates are the greatest problem in hampering local operations. AASA supports the current unfunded mandate legislation, but the legislation must be consistently enforced. Federal education programs in existence prior to passage of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995, were therefore left out of the law, and must be included in it.
• AASA urges Congress to require states to implement federal laws and regulations, not state variations of the federal law. States should be required to identify where they have added additional regulations to the federal regulations for every program in ESEA, as well as IDEA and Vocational Education. Where states add to the federal regulations, school districts should be permitted to challenge those regulations to the U.S. Department of Education and receive timely decisions regarding the appropriateness of the state decisions.
• The state role in ESEA formula-based programs should be limited to compliance reviews of local applications and monitoring for compliance with federal regulations. States should be discouraged from adding to federal regulations for programs that distribute funds through sub-state formulas.
• Block Grants- In general, AASA will not support block grants such as the Straight A’s Proposal that result in reduced federal funding and/or dilution of services. Block grants lack a clear focus on specific students for specific purposes, which means that proving the funds are effective is impossible, leading to long-term loss of funds. Block grants also frequently result in local school districts losing control over programs to either state or federal agencies.

1. AASA may support block grant proposals if the proposals include at least the following provisions:
2. Neither IDEA nor Title I are included in the proposal;
3. One hundred percent (100 percent) of the funds must be driven to Local Education Agencies (LEAs);
4. AASA supports the notion of 95 percent to the classroom within the concept of 100 percent to the local level;
5. The block grant must contain a provision that either insures the funding will continue to grow, or that if the funding fails to grow at least by the rate of inflation, the block grant will terminate and revert to the antecedent programs;
6. The block grant must have a specific purpose and serve specific students, with clear accountability provisions, so schools can easily demonstrate program effectiveness;
7. The funds from block grants should be structured to meet local needs, giving flexibility about methods to school districts; and
8. To the extent that other funds from other titles of ESEA involve State Education Agencies (SEAs) in block grants, the state role should be monitoring and compliance review based on federal regulations, without amendment by state action.

• AASA believes that local districts need flexibility regarding education technology because every school district, indeed every school, has different and changing needs regarding implementing and using technology to improve student achievement and to make the teachers and principals more efficient and effective. Training must be included as an allowable expense because some districts have equipment but no training.

1. Background: Accountability/Choice/Charter Schools - Current law requires that states develop challenging content and student performance standards, as well as high-quality student assessments in at least reading and mathematics. States are also required to use those assessments as "the primary means of determining yearly performance of each local educational agency and school" receiving Title I funds. Schools that do not meet the state student-performance standards for two consecutive years must consult with "parents, the local educational agency, and the school support team to develop or revise a school plan in ways that have the greatest likelihood of improving the performance of participating children." If, after a third year no "adequate progress," has been made, local districts may withhold funds from Title I schools, work out collaborative agreements between the schools and health, counseling and social service agencies to "remove barriers to learning." The district may also allow student transfers including cost of transportation to higher performing public schools of their choice.

The House-passed Title I proposal (H.R. 2, The Student Results Act of 1999) would modify existing law by requiring academic achievement gains for each sub-group of Title I students: economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient (subdivided by each language), minority students and students with disabilities. Parents whose children are in schools that have failed to meet state standards MUST be given the option to transfer to another public school or charter school that is not in need of school improvement. Title I funds would be allowed to pay for the transportation costs of students who opt to change schools.

A rider to the Fiscal Year 2000 education funding bill (money for school year 2000-2001) sets aside $134 million in new Title I funds for low-performing schools. However, for a district to be eligible to use such funds, it MUST offer a school choice program.

FPL Proposed Positions:

Accountability

• AASA urges that accountability be based on continued improvement toward achievement of state standards. Such plans should measure gains over time for the same cohort of students and should not be based on a "snapshot" of all cohorts on one test given at one time.
• AASA will support withdrawal of funds for schools that show no improvement after five years. Three years into the improvement plan, an assessment must be made to determine the school’s progress to date, with adjustments made as necessary.
• AASA strongly urges that the money for the new FY 2000 "set-aside" for "low performing" schools should be placed in the regular "part (a)" basic grant formula. Nearly all new money for Title I in FY 2000 is in this account for a few schools with low performance, creating a perverse incentive to do badly to obtain increases in funds to pay for teacher-salary increases and other increased costs.

• Congress should separate the notion of "choice" from "school improvement." Choice is a goal in itself for many that may or may not improve schools. Improvement requires actions on critical elements of schooling, (e.g., teaching, teacher quality, curriculum, parent involvement and leadership), with the goal of raising indicators of learning such as test scores. Emphasis must focus on positive assistance for improving learning, not on punishing a troubled school, by taking steps not designed to increase student achievement.
• To the extent choice is adopted by an LEA (not mandated by state or federal law), such choice must be to another public school in the LEA that has the capacity to absorb the student and is fully equipped to handle all aspects of the child’s learning.
• Charter Schools
• AASA supports using Title I and other ESEA funds in charter schools, if such schools meet all the obligations expected of all schools, (i.e.: must accept and provide for the specific needs disabled children, limited English proficient children, minority children, and children at risk of not attaining achievement gains). The charter school must be held accountable to the LEA for student performance via regular assessments of achievement.

2. Background: Rewarding Performance – Under Title I of HR 2 passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last October was a new provision that rewarded schools based on performance. The bill proposes to set aside 30 percent of new Title I allocations each year and distribute that money in the form of cash rewards to schools that successfully decrease achievement gaps.

FPL Proposed Positions:

• AASA does not support using federal funds to reward high-performing Title I schools. We believe that such rewards are an ineffective motivational tool and are inconsistent with Title I’s purpose of targeting aid to schools with the most disadvantaged children.
• AASA believes that any decision to reward school staff must remain a local decision.

3. Quality Teaching - The U.S. House of Representatives has proposed to increase  the qualifications for teachers and paraprofessionals funded by  Title I. Teachers would have to be certified to receive Title I funding, and paraprofessionals would be required to have at least 2 years of higher education or pass a competency test in reading, writing and math. Additionally the House proposal would freeze the number of Title I paraprofessionals at the current level.

   The role of the paraprofessional would be limited to the following:

   1. to provide one-on-one tutoring for eligible students, if the tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher;
   2. to assist with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other materials;
   3. to provide assistance in a computer laboratory;
   4. to conduct parental involvement activities;
   5. to provide support in a library or media center;
   6. to act as a translator; or
   7. to provide instructional services to students.

   FPL Proposed Positions

• AASA believes that the law should focus on results and not on process such as the minimum education requirements of Title I employees.
• AASA strongly supports professional development to upgrade the knowledge and skills of teachers, administrators and paraprofessionals. We support required plans and timelines to bring paraprofessionals to a minimum level of knowledge and skill.
• AASA believes school districts should hire uncertified teachers only when certified teachers are not available. We therefore oppose the addition of mandates to hire only certified teachers by some certain date. There is a mismatch of supply and demand in teaching that is exacerbated by structural problems such as vast pay differences and the lack of pension portability. The oversupply of elementary education majors and the shortage of special education, math, science and foreign language teachers further exacerbate the mismatch. The unwillingness of state and federal leaders to deal with these issues makes such requirements a sham.
• Given current low unemployment rates and difficulty in hiring aides, AASA opposes the proposed freeze on hiring paraprofessionals to participate in  Title I instruction as impossible to administer at the state level. A hiring freeze when enrollment is growing rapidly in some states may have a negative effect.

4. High-Stakes Testing - Many states, in reaction to negative reports on schools, have developed tests to stand as roadblocks for those students who fail to pass them at certain grade levels. The federal government has created the environment that has encouraged this reaction to school reform.

• AASA can support including high-stakes assessment in federal programs, when more than one measure of achievement is used. However, our support for such testing in federal programs is only for high school graduation.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools – Current law requires that state education departments allocate, 20 percent of federal funds for Safe and Drug-Free Schools to the Governor; the remaining 80 percent is divided between the SEA and local schools. States can hold up to five percent for state technical assistance and another four percent for state administration. Of the remaining funds, 70 percent goes to schools based on enrollment and up to 30 percent to schools based on need.

A proposal being floated in the Senate (Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio) would allow the SEA to determine what "need" shall be in their state; and/or would make the grants to local districts competitive, instead of formula grants. The proposal would also require a local need assessment, measurable goals and use of research-based programs tied to reducing risk and/or increasing protection. Specific mention of the D.A.R.E. program would be deleted. Further, the proposal suggests a U.S. Department of Education grant program for which local districts would compete to recruit, hire and train drug prevention/school safety program coordinators in middle schools "with significant drug and school safety programs."

FPL Proposed Positions:

• AASA believes each school district has its own particular needs in this area. Consequently, we urge that Safe and Drug-Free funds be sent to targeted LEAs based on the degree to which safety and drug abuse are problematic in those districts.
• Funds to targeted LEAs should be allocated through a poverty formula, from Washington, D.C., to the LEA, via the SEA, which may keep no more than five percent of the total grant for administering the program. No funds from this program should be distributed to the state governor’s office.
• Each LEA receiving funds should have an evaluation plan that shows improvement in meeting local program goals in order to keep receiving funds. School authorities are urged to work with the entire community to diminish all violations, both in and out of school. However, program evaluations should take into account the total environment in which students study and live; schools should not be held accountable for the nonschool-related violations.

• Small, Safe and Successful High Schools - In 1999, Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.)  initiated a new smaller high schools program in the FY’00 budget (school year 2000-2001) for $45 million. The White House has called for that program to be increased to $120 million in FY’01. These competitive grants to local school districts can be used to create smaller schools or break up larger schools by funding innovative strategies such as autonomous schools-within-schools, career academies, restructured school days and other initiatives, to help ensure every student receives personal attention and academic supports. Funds can be used for planning and implementation costs, including costs to reorganize schools, train teachers, renovate facilities and provide extended learning time and support service for students.

  Since the end of World War II, the number of schools nationwide has declined 70 percent, while the average enrollment has grown 500 percent. There are more than 12,400 3- and 4-year high schools in the United States. More than 70 percent of students in these schools attend a school with more than 1,000 students and enrollments of 2,000 to 3,000 are common.

  This program was passed in the last-minute appropriations (funding) process and not the authorizing (where programs are supposed to be initiated) process, thus we did not have the opportunity to take a position last fall.

  FPL Proposed Positions:

• AASA believes school districts should offer high school environments that focus on inspiring young people to feel "connected" to the school by offering them a wide range of courses and activities like those often found in smaller schools. School size is not the most compelling factor in student learning and student success. This need is not evenly distributed and funds aimed at creating inspired connectivity should be targeted to schools with the greatest need.
• With those caveats, AASA supports the thrust of Rep. David Obey’s(D-Wis.) "Small, Safe and Successful High Schools" proposal.
• AASA believes that funds from this program should be made available to small high schools that are being forced to consolidate with other high schools. If small schools are a priority, and if smaller size has proven benefits, we must work to preserve the already existing small schools.

3. Impact Aid -- One of the first bills to be dealt with in coming weeks will be the reauthorization of the Impact Aid program. As part of that legislation, the House Republicans plan to include a proposal for $50 million worth of school construction grants. The grants would be divided among impacted schools and would require a matching grant from the state or local level.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA supports this Impact Aid construction proposal, and remains committed to the Impact Aid program.

4. Rural Education Proposal – AASA strongly supports the AASA-initiated Rural Education Initiative. The Proposal has passed the House, with a commitment from Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-Vt.) that the corresponding Senate legislation (S. 1225) will be included in the Republican draft of the reauthorization of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act. We are currently waiting to hear from the U.S. Department of Education whether or not they will endorse the bill.

With close to 200 national, state and local groups supporting the proposal, we are confident that not only can we get the bill signed into law, but get it funded as well.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA continues to strongly support this initiative.

5. Lieberman ESEA Program Consolidation Proposal - Sen. Joseph Lieberman, (D-Conn.), has proposed a bill that would consolidate similar programs into separate titles and would drive nearly all funds through a poverty-based formula to school districts. The proposal has very strong test-based accountability provisions leading to both unfunded mandates and incentives to states and school districts to provide parents more choice among public schools, including charter schools.

Title III-- Technology Literacy: Technology Innovation Grants; Regional Technology Consortia; Star schools; Ready-to-learn Television; Telecommunication Demonstration Project for Mathematics

Title X-- 21st Century schools; Inexpensive Book Distribution Program; Arts and Education; Ellender Fellowships; Fund for the Improvement of Education; Javits Gifted and Talented; National Writing Project; Civic Education.

Title IV-- Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Title V-- Goals 2000.

The U.S. Department of Education is opposed to the Lieberman proposal. In the past AASA has supported similar efforts to consolidate smaller programs as have most Democrats on the authorizing committee.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA is unsure of the effect of consolidation of some technology programs and of the extensive school choice in the Lieberman proposal. We will take a position on this when we better understand the effect of the proposal on current state and local reform efforts.

6. 21^st Century Learning Centers

The administration has proposed two changes in the 21^st Century Learning Centers program. First, the administration has proposed raising the funding authorization from $600 million to $1 billion. Then to improve the reach of the program, the administration proposes a formula (based on Title I allocations) to drive funds to the state level. Then funds would be competitive at the state level.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA strongly supports both the increase in funds and the addition of a formula to the states to expand after-school activities for children with no place to go because parents are not home when school gets out.

7. Additional House Proposals—The House has suggested several other changes that might occur in the upcoming reauthorization bill, but we have little detail at this point. Those changes include:

1. Transferability—Allowing districts to transfer funds from one formula program to another. For example, if a school didn’t have a strong need for their Safe and Drug-Free schools allocation, they could put the money toward Title I or Professional Development.
2. Consolidate Star Schools and Ready-to-Learn Television.
3. Add several new allowable uses for Title VI Innovative Strategies grants including, School Choice, Entrepreneurial programs, and Economics Education.
4. Authorize a new lifelong literacy bill for $500 million.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA is generally supportive of the above proposals as long as total overall funding for the existing programs is not affected, and provided that proposals give AASA staff latitude to take positions on various aspects, as they develop in Congress.

8. Points of serious disagreement between the White House and Congress: Class Size Reduction and School Construction—The White House and Congress each have vastly different priorities for the upcoming year. Class Size Reduction will continue to top the White House agenda, followed closely by School Construction. Clinton has proposed a school construction package that consists of interest-free bonds and more immediate assistance in the form of emergency renovation and improvement grants.

On the other hand, both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate have prioritized accountability and professional development as their highest priorities. In several programs they intend to offer a trade: greater flexibility in exchange for higher accountability.

Congress has been extremely resistant to school construction over the last several years; it is unclear whether this year will be any different. Members on the Hill have suggested that Clinton does not have any real expectations of passing a construction bill, rather he is just proposing a popular plan that he knows Congress will not adopt. Republicans on the Hill have even stronger feelings about the Class Size program. The last couple of years the President has managed to push the Class Size Reduction program through the appropriations process, in spite of strong opposition from congressional leadership. This year Clinton will try to officially authorize the program during the ESEA reauthorization process.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA urges that the Class Size Initiative be retained, with the proviso that it allow flexibility for LEAs to focus on instructional class size: e.g., small groups for reading, larger groups for social studies. Given the shortage of classrooms and the vast construction needs, instructional class-size reduction is a much more viable goal.
• AASA supports the administration’s proposal to pay the interest on school bonds or other debt instruments through tax credits for investors.
• AASA supports raising the small issue exemption from arbitrage from $10 million to $25 million of debt that can be arbitraged for construction, and the time from two to four years.
• AASA supports extending the period for construction from two years to four years.
• AASA also supports the proposed initiation of a revolving, no-interest loan fund through the U.S. Department of Energy to make school facilities more energy efficient.

In the current zero-tolerance atmosphere, the question has arisen of how LEAs should deal with the expulsion of special education students and alternative placement. Congress has toyed with the idea of mandating alternative placement for regular education students who have been expelled for being violent or a threat to others. However, Congress was only considering the idea with the assumption that the cost of placement in alternative settings would be paid by the local district.

FPL Proposed Positions

• AASA is opposed to a dual code of discipline and believes that all students should be subject to the same disciplinary code.
• AASA supports the development of alternative settings for students who commit infractions that merit expulsion or long-term suspensions.
• AASA believes local school officials must be empowered to preserve a productive and safe learning environment free of undue disruption and violence.
• AASA supports consistent discipline requirements and procedures.
• AASA opposes current federal laws that address student discipline because they create a contradiction that Congress must address. Section 14601 of the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 (Elementary and Secondary Education Act) and Section 615 of the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 contradict one another. The Gun Free Schools Act calls for mandatory expulsion for one year when any student carries a firearm to school. While Section 615 of IDEA only permits schools to move students to alternative settings for up to 45 school days for possession of firearms, but expressly forbids expulsion that would cease services.
• AASA would support legislation that would address this contradiction and provide funding for alternative settings for all students.

A. E-Commerce and State Sales Tax Revenue--Impact on Schools - In most states, a portion of sales tax revenues is distributed to schools. As E-commerce grows and more sales will escape taxation, many associations are staking out positions on this issue. We need to use our influence to highlight the consequences of allowing a sales tax haven for Internet purchases. This will require federal action.

FPL Proposed position:

• AASA favors the adoption of a collectable tax on all sales transactions made via the Internet, because schools depend heavily on state and local sales taxes for major proportions of their revenue.

B. Medicaid Reimbursement - Schools faced a close call last year as Congress tried to significantly limit Medicaid reimbursements for school-related claims. The Ticket to Work Bill would have eliminated bundling claims for Medicaid, exempted managed care organizations from liability for school-related services, eliminated transportation reimbursements unless a child was brought to school on a "special bus," and would have given the Health Care Financing Administration complete authority to determine future reimbursement procedures. This issue will undoubtedly reappear this year.

FPL Proposed Positions:

• AASA supports continuing the ability of schools to claim Medicaid reimbursement for qualified services to Medicaid-eligible special education students.
• AASA urges that the practice of bundling claims for Medicaid be continued as a way to reduce administrative overhead and paperwork.
• IDEA/Medicaid-related transportation should continue to be reimbursable.
• The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) should urge state Medicaid administrators to work cooperatively with local school districts on all reimbursement matters.

C. Pension Portability - This is a long-standing issue for educators, teachers and, especially, superintendents. Representatives Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) have a proposals to make qualified retirement annuities (401k, 403b, and 457) more portable when people move from the private to public sectors and when public sector employees move from state to state.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA supports portability of pension plans for all educators and we specifically support the provisions in the Portman/Cardin proposal.

D. Pesticides in Schools - Legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Senate (S. 1716, the School Environment Protection Act of 1999) requiring school districts to implement "integrated pest management systems designed to minimize the use of pesticides in schools." Such systems would include integrated pest control methods such as: sanitation, structural repair, mechanical or biological controls, combined with site inspections, monitoring and other evaluations to mitigate and eliminate health, economic and aesthetic damage caused by pests using the "least toxic pesticides." This appears to the school environment mandate of the moment.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) held a press conference on Jan. 4, 2000 to release a General Accounting Office report, which showed there is "no comprehensive, readily available national or state-by-state data on the amount and kinds of pesticides being used in schools today." GAO also noted little information is available about illnesses related to pesticide exposure and no standard criteria are established for identifying such illnesses. Despite having no evidence to act on pushing S. 1716 forward, Lieberman said the report revealed a "troubling information gap," and called for an Environmental Protection Agency review of the use of pesticides in schools.

In an informal AASA survey, we found many states have regulations as strict as or more strict than the federal proposal.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA opposes this proposed new federal mandate. This issue is being handled successfully at the state and local government levels.

E. Water Wells and Radon Testing -- Proposed EPA rules are open for comments and AASA wishes to respond.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA believes regulation of this issue should take place at the state level. We endorse the AASA letter (headed "Radon – 222"), dated Jan. 26, 2000, expressing AASA’s position.

F.  Reauthorization of OERI – The Educational Lab

The Office of Educational Research and Information must be reauthorized this year, either as a standalone bill or part of ESEA. The Regional Educational Laboratories are under the direction of OERI. Their funding and charters expire in early December 2000. All the labs underwent rigorous evaluations this past summer, but AASA has not been successful in getting copies of the reports.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA will support continued funding for OERI research labs only if 100 percent of their emphasis is on elementary and secondary education, and only if those research results are shared with local school districts to assist with improved student learning.

G. School Lunch Regulations – Beverage Sales – The American School Food Service Association has circulated information regarding its initiative to further regulate campus beverage sales and related issues.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA opposes federal efforts to regulate campus beverage sales and other food-related sales. Such issues should be subject to local decisions.

H. Occupational Safety & Health Administration Rule – We recently become aware that OSHA is proposing an ergonomics rule which would mandate continuation of wages for anyone claiming injury, (i.e. carpal tunnel, etc.) on the job. This appears to go far beyond the usual state worker's compensation rules. A need is seen to work with the manufacturers on this issue, since every secretary, or food service worker, or other employee could conceivably claim this benefit.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA believes this proposal is outside the jurisdiction of worker’s compensation and should be strongly opposed.

I.  E-Rate Update - Applications for year 3 were due to the Schools and Libraries Division by midnight Jan. 19, 2000. While the overall amount allotted for this year won’t be confirmed until later this spring, the amount is expect to be the same as last year--$2.25 billion. Applications received outside this window will be treated in the order they are received.

More than 36,000 applications were received for year 3, most electronically; this figure is up from 32,000 last year. Funds for year 2 have been allocated to schools and libraries with a few applications still pending decisions for special circumstances. Almost all applications were funded for tiers one and two needs; in year 1 the funds for tier two only went as far as the 60 percent level.

A few bills are floating around the Hill to kill or maim the E-rate program. However, now that funds are paying for successful programs, there is not much of a threat. The 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a favorable decision in July that benefits schools and libraries. Although an appeal is still outstanding, things look promising. The Universal Service Fund, from which E-rate draws its funds, has many detractors. E-rate only accounts for a small portion of the Universal Service Fund, but we need to keep a careful eye on the entire pot of money to ensure that E-rate will continue to receive funds.

Additionally, a bill will be introduced to eliminate the federal excise tax (FET) on phone bills. A move was made to shift the FET to fund the E-rate, but in a typical Washington mood swing, the new thought is to eliminate the FET altogether.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA strongly supports continuation of the Universal Service Fund and its funding mechanism. We will send a message to the telecommunications industry that we will support their tax-cutting proposal only if the industry and its collective companies drop their appeal of the 5^th Circuit’s decision, and as long as the tax cut is not used to diminish the Universal Service Fund.

J. Immigration Impact and Funding – Immigration, both legal and illegal, is soaring in Sunbelt states and in many other jurisdictions across the nation. The problem is not isolated among Border states as might be expected; there are huge numbers of new, non-English speaking immigrants throughout the Midwest and Central states as well. The impact on local school systems in these areas can be staggering. School districts are compelled to educate every young person who presents her/himself at the schoolhouse door. School districts need assistance if they are expected to adequately accommodate sudden influxes of new students and provide them with the best possible education.

FPL Proposed Positions:

• AASA believes that responsibility for immigration policy and, consequently, for the educational services they receive rests with the federal government.
• Therefore, we believe the federal government must supply immigration-affected school districts with a form of impact aid to ensure an equal educational opportunity for quality education for each student in those districts. Payments would be based on the degree of the impact, with funds distributed by formula and 100 percent of these funds flowing directly to local school districts.
• Existing "Immigrant Education" and "Bilingual Education" should be consolidated to help pay for this program. However, the funds are necessary no matter what the source; as long as no other K-12 program is tapped to pay for immigration impact aid.
• AASA also supports—in light of current teacher shortages—easing the restrictions on hiring foreign teachers.

K. Unemployment Compensation for Family Leave

The U.S. Department of Labor proposal has been made requiring employers including, school districts, to pay unemployment compensation for leave taken by school employees after the birth or adoption of a child.

FPL Proposed Position:

• AASA opposes the proposed regulations and any proposed legislation to enact them.

L. Mandatory Social Security and Medicare Coverage

Although there are no specific threats now to the states and school districts that did not elect to enter the Social Security system during the time when they had that option, the states and school districts not in the social Security system remain vigilant on the issue.

FPL Proposed Position:

• The decision to include school employees in Social Security and Medicare is a state or state and local issue depending on state decisions. Therefore AASA opposes federal legislation to force state decisions.

FPL Proposed Positions:

Tier 1 – AASA’s Top Concerns for 2000:

• Maintain strong focus for fully funding Title I and IDEA.
• School Construction Assistance (arbitrage & grants)
• Instructional Class Size Reduction

Tier 2 – Second-Level Priorities:

• Funds for hiring and professional development of technology educators
• Title VI – Innovative Programs (Educational Block Grants)
• Reading Excellence
• Eisenhower Professional Development
• Vocational Education
• Title I Concentration

Tier 3 – Programs Supported by AASA, But Not Actively Pursued:

• Goals 2000
• Safe & Drug-Free Schools
• Even Start
• Impact Aid
• Bilingual Education
• Migrant Education
• Immigrant Education