Republicans Block Education Amendment to Fully Fund the NCLB Act

Senate May Act on IDEA Bill

FY 2005 Budget Update

Press Release: Republicans Block Education Amendment to Fully Fund the No Child Left Behind Act

New, Flexible Policies Help Teachers Become Highly Qualified

Senate Democratsí Letter to Secretary Paige Raises Concerns about NCLB Implementation, Funding

White House Reports Progress on New Freedom Initiative

Federal Register Documents

Senate May Act on IDEA Bill

Within the next three weeks, the Senate may consider its bill (S. 1248) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). During several meetings that CEC has had with Senate staff, we have heard that IDEA will be on the Senate floor during the week of March 29. Although thereís no guarantee that this will happen, we are being told that the Senate wants to complete action on IDEA reauthorization before its next recess, which is the week of April 11.

If the Senate passes its bill then, we have heard that Senate conferees will be assigned quickly. However, CEC has also heard that Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, has said that he will not go to conference on IDEA during the 108th Congress. We suspect that IDEA will go to the Senate floor before the week of April 11, but it is unlikely that the House and Senate bills will be conferenced this year. That means we will have to start all over again next year, when the 109th Congress convenes.

If the Senate bill does reach the Senate floor, senators will have the opportunity to vote for an amendment introduced by Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) that would mandate full funding of IDEA by providing increases of $2 billion per year for eight years. Although President Bush's FY '05 budget proposal asks for an increase to IDEA funding of $1 billion, that amount would not provide all students with the services they need, and at that rate full funding would not be attained until 2035.

The Senate amendment, if passed, would finally allow Congress to fulfill its 29-year-old promise to provide 40 percent of the national average per-pupil expenditure for every child in special education. In the FY '04 budget, it was only funded at 18.6 percent, and the president's FY '05 budget proposal funds IDEA at 19.7 percent. A companion bill, H.R. 3803, was introduced in the House by Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH) and would amend Part B of IDEA to provide full federal funding.

CEC supports mandatory full funding for IDEA, and we will continue to ask you to help advocate in support of this issue. Please go to CECís Legislative Action Center and send a message to your Representative, urging him/her to co-sponsor IDEA full-funding legislation. Simply enter your zip code at: http://capwiz.com/cek/issues/alert/?alertid=5091656&type=CO

The absence of full funding for special education impacts all students, especially now when many state and local governments are faced with budget shortfalls, because school districts are required to take money from their general education budgets to meet the requirements of IDEA.

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Update

SENATE. The Senate passed S. Con. Res. 95, the FY '05 Budget Resolution early March 12 by a vote of 51-45. Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) was the only Republican who crossed party lines and voted no. Senator Miller (D-GA) voted with the Republicans. Senators Edwards (D-NC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA) and Reid (D-NV) did not vote. A number of education amendments were offered.

Amendments Approved:

* Mikulski (D-MD) Amendment to provide a deficit neutral reserve fund for the HOPE tuition tax credit. Passed by voice vote.
* Coleman (R-MN) Amendment to provide $1.9 billion to increase the Pell Grant maximum award from $4,050 to $4,500 by reducing spending in other Federal Government programs, except education programs, by a commensurate amount. Passed by voice vote.
* Conrad (D-ND) Amendment to express the sense of the Senate regarding tribal colleges and universities.
* Dorgan (D-ND) Amendment to increase budget authority and outlays in Function 500 and to repay up to 50 percent of college loans (up to $10,000) for recent graduates who live and work in high out-migration rural counties for five years.
* Sense of the Senate on expanding the summer foods program (child nutrition).
* An Agreement based on Nickles (R-OK) and Specter (R-PA) proposal to remove the Pell Grant scoring language from the budget resolution.

Amendments Rejected:

* Murray (D-WA) and Kennedy (D-MA) NCLB Amendment to fully fund NCLB in FY '05 offset by closing tax loopholes failed by a vote of 46-52. Miller (D-GA) was the only Democrat to cross party lines and vote against the amendment. Senators Johnson (D-SD) and Kerry (D-MA) did not vote.
* Kennedy (D-MA) Amendment to create a reserve fund to increase the Pell Grant maximum award from $4,050 to $5,100 offset by closing tax loopholes failed by a vote of 44-53. Senator Chafee (R-RI) voted with the Democrats. Miller (D-GA), Baucus (D-MT), and Nelson (D-NE) voted with the Republicans. Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA) and Reid (D-NV) did not vote.
* Dodd (D-CT) Amendment to increase funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers by $1 billion offset by closing tax loopholes failed by a vote of 42-54. Breaux (D-LA), Carper (D-DE), and Miller (D-GA) voted with the Republicans. Senators Edwards (D-NC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA) and Reid (D-NV) did not vote.
* Dayton (D-MN) Amendment to provide full mandatory funding for IDEA part B grants over five years by reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers.
* Reed (D-RI) Amendment to create a reserve fund to increase funding for college and student financial aid programs and lower the debt by closing tax loopholes.

Senator Feingold (D-WI) introduced an amendment to fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement, which passed by a vote of 51-48. Four Republican moderates crossed party lines to amend the Budget Resolution. The amendment was introduced during the Senate Budget Resolution markup, but was defeated on a party line vote. It is unsure weather Republican leadership will keep the budget reform provision in conference.

HOUSE.- The House Budget Committee passed its FY '05 Budget Resolution Wednesday on a party line vote of 24-19. While the House Committee-passed version would assume an $80.5 billion discretionary funding total for Function 500 Education, Training, Employment and Social Services (a $2.8 billion increase over what was provided for Function 500 in FY í04), the Senate would assume an $81.1 billion discretionary funding total for Function 500, or a $3.1 billion increase over the FY '04 level.

Aggregate discretionary spending ceilings for the House and Senate are $819 billion and $821 billion, respectively. The House's Budget Resolution contains no specific education assumptions, but the Senate Budget Resolution assumes a $1 billion increase each for Title I and IDEA and an $800 million increase for the Pell Grant program. Neither assumes the $1.4 billion in program terminations in the President's FY '05 budget.

The House Budget Committee rejected all Democratic amendments. Last week Representatives Hooley (D-OR), Moran (D-VA), and several other Democrats' "Improving Education for All Students Amendment," which would have added a total of $6.2 billion for education, failed by a party line vote of 16-22. It would have added $3 billion for No Child Left Behind Programs, raised the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,500, and included an additional $1.2 billion for IDEA over the President's FY '05 funding level. The additional funding would have been offset by reducing the tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

Yesterday, Representatives Kind (D-WI), Hooley (D-OR) and Baird (D-WA) offered an amendment to increase Vocational and Technical Education funding. This failed by a vote of 17 to 21.

Representatives Emanuel (D-IL) and DeLauro (D-CT) also offered an amendment to extend higher education tuition deduction. This failed by an 18 to 24 vote.

DeLauro (D-CT) and Emanuel (D-IL) also offered a Sense of the House amendment regarding unfunded mandates on the states. It was defeated by a 19 to 23 vote.

A separate Budget Reform bill was marked up prior to the passage of the FY '05 House Budget Resolution. The "Spending Control Act of 2004" would impose statutory caps on all discretionary spending through FY '09. If spending caps were breached, across-the-board cuts in discretionary spending would take effect. The actual caps would be set by the final Budget Resolution numbers. The same would also apply to mandatory spending with the exception of Social Security. However, House Budget Chairman Nussle (R-IA) would not apply the "pay-as-you-go" rules to existing tax cuts.

Apparently, there are schisms in the Republican Party on budget reform and the budget resolution. Reportedly, some members want to expand the bill's enforcement provisions. Appropriators, on the other hand, oppose the five-year caps. Because of the disagreement among Republicans, it is uncertain how soon either the House Budget Resolution or the "Spending Control Act" will come up for a floor vote.

The Senate included pay-as-you-go rules for the costs of new mandatory spending and tax cuts in its budget resolution, S.Con.Res. 95.

********************************************************

Following is a Press Release issued by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. To read the entire release online, go to: http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/108-2-061.html

Republicans Block Education Amendment to Fully Fund the No Child Left Behind Act

Senate Democrats are committed to strengthening public schools for the nearly 50 million American children who attend them by providing the resources necessary to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which was signed into law over two years ago. Senate Democrats are working to raise education standards, provide a quality teacher in every classroom, and close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and advantaged children.

Democrats believe federal resources should be targeted to help communities address critical issues including recruiting and training well-qualified teachers; reducing class size; and expanding after-school programs.

The Republican Budget Resolution provides inadequate resources for education. Over two years ago, parents and teachers watched President Bush and Republicans and Democrats in Congress work together to enact the bipartisan public school reforms in the NCLB.

We committed to raising education standards, providing a quality teacher in every classroom, and closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and advantaged children. Unfortunately, since then, the Bush Administration has retreated from its commitment to adequately fund school reform ‚ potentially undermining children's academic success. The Republican Budget Resolution reflects the wrong priorities by providing trillions in tax cuts, while underfunding public education. The Republican Budget Resolution moves in the wrong direction and undermines public education in the following ways:

v Shortchanges NCLB programs. The Republican Budget Resolution falls $8.6 billion short of authorized funding for NCLB;

v Underfunds Title I by $7.2 billion below the NCLB authorized level. At current funding levels, Title I can fully serve only 40 percent of eligible low-income children. The Republican Budget Resolution would prevent more than 4.6 million low-income children from receiving the help they need to succeed in school;

v Underfunds the after-school program by more than $1 billion, denying services to more than 1.3 million children; and

v Freezes teacher quality programs.

The Murray-Kennedy amendment. The Murray-Kennedy amendment to the Republican Budget Resolution, which was defeated by a vote of 46-52, would have added $8.6 billion to fully fund NCLB. The amendment also included $8.6 billion for deficit reduction. The education and deficit reduction funding were offset by closing tax loopholes. This amendment would have lived up to the commitments made to our students when NCLB was passed. More than two million additional needy children would have been served by Title I, as promised in NCLB; children would have received smaller classes, specialized instruction in reading and math; and other services to help turn around 27,000 schools that have not met the accountability requirements under NCLB. After-school opportunities would have been extended to an additional 1.4 million latch-key kids, without cutting any of the children currently being served.

New, Flexible Policies Help Teachers Become Highly Qualified

U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige on March 15 announced three new policies giving teachers greater flexibility in demonstrating that they are highly qualified under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) while also ensuring that every child in America is taught by a teacher who knows his or her subject.

These new policies, which take effect immediately, will address the particular challenges of teachers who teach more than one subject, especially those in rural districts and science teachers.

States are now preparing to meet the 2005-06 deadline for ensuring all of their teachers are highly qualified. Ahead of that deadline, the Department is providing three new areas of flexibility for teachers to demonstrate that they are highly qualified. This flexibility will benefit teachers, local and state administrators, and most importantly--students.

I. Rural Teachers
Approximately one-third--or almost 5,000--of all school districts in the United States are considered rural. As Department officials have traveled the country listening to teachers and state and district officials, they frequently have heard that the highly qualified teacher provisions of the No Child Left Behind law don't adequately accommodate the special challenges faced by teachers in small, rural districts. Often, the teachers in these areas are required to teach more than one academic subject. This new flexibility is designed to recognize this challenge and provide additional time for these teachers to prove that they are highly qualified.

Under this new policy, teachers in eligible, rural districts who are highly qualified in at least one subject will have three years to become highly qualified in the additional subjects they teach. They must also be provided professional development, intense supervision or structured mentoring to become highly qualified in those additional subjects.

II. Science Teachers
Science teachers, like rural teachers, are often needed to teach in more than one field of science. Some states allow such science teachers to be certified under a general science certification, while others require a subject-specific certification (such as physics, biology or chemistry). In science, where demand for teachers is so high, the Department is issuing additional flexibility for teachers to demonstrate that they are highly qualified.

Now, states may determine--based on their current certification requirements--to allow science teachers to demonstrate that they are highly qualified either in "broad field" science or individual fields of science (such as physics, biology or chemistry).

III. Current Multi-subject Teachers
Current teachers do not have to return to school or take a test in every subject to demonstrate that they meet highly qualified requirements. No Child Left Behind allows states to create an alternative method (High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation or HOUSSE) for teachers not new to the field--as determined by each state--to certify they know the subject they teach. But, for multi-subject teachers, this alternate process could become unnecessarily protracted and repetitive as they go through the HOUSSE process for each subject.

Under the new guidelines, states may streamline this evaluation process by developing a method for current, multi-subject teachers to demonstrate through one process that they are highly qualified in each of their subjects and maintain the same high standards in subject matter mastery.

The Secretary said he will soon be unveiling additional efforts to support America's teachers and the implementation of the highly qualified teacher provisions. These will include a new Web site--www.teacherquality.us --to share information about initiatives at the state and local levels, summer institutes for teachers to be held across the country, and a National Teacher Summit later this year.

To read more about the three new policies, go to: http://www.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2004/03/03152004.html
and
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html


Senate Democratsí Letter to Secretary Paige Raises Concerns about NCLB Implementation, Funding

On Wednesday, March 10, the Democratic Senators on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee sent a letter to Education Secretary Rod Paige, outlining their concerns about the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Senators ‚ including Sens. Kennedy, Dodd, Harkin, Mikulski, Bingaman, Murray, Reed, Edwards, Rodham Clinton, and Miller ‚ had sent an initial letter to Paige in January, which raised specific questions related to teacher quality, supplemental services and school choice, the adequacy of assessments, accountability and graduation rates, parental involvement, and the lack of funding for the law.

A full discussion of these concerns was not conducted at a February 24th meeting the group had with the Secretary, and the Senators opined that Secretary Paige has demonstrated ìa failure to fully appreciate the scope of these concerns or the importance of addressing them in the law's implementation.î

ìSuch a mischaracterization does a grave disservice to our efforts,î the Senators stated in their March 10 letter, ìand to the efforts of millions around America who work hard each day to improve public education for our children. Moreover, we believe the Department has yet to acknowledge the full impact of its policies on the challenges associated with carrying out the law. It is critical that these reforms are implemented well for the good of our nation's children, not in the interest of partisan politics.î

Following are the concerns that the Senators expressed in their letter to Secretary Paige:
Questions and Concerns
NCLB Implementation

TEACHER QUALITY

1) Recent accounts indicate that several states have yet to implement the HOUSSE (High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation) for purposes of reviewing the skills of veteran teachers and recognizing them as highly qualified. Some accounts indicate that states have constructed the HOUSSE standard in such a broad manner that the quality of the standard may be compromised.
ÿ What action has the Department taken to ensure that every state implements a HOUSSE standard?
ÿ What steps have been taken by the Department to ensure the consistency of the HOUSSE standard across states?
ÿ Has the Department made efforts to provide guidance and direction to the states in the interest of maintaining the rigor of the HOUSSE standard? If so, what efforts have been taken?

2) NCLB requires paraprofessionals to be provided with the option of taking a state-designed test to demonstrate their skills and fulfill the lawís requirements for qualification by January, 2006. Reports indicate that, to date, several states have yet to provide paraprofessionals with this option.
ÿ What actions has the Department taken to enforce this provision?

3) Recent reports indicate that teacher quality data reported by states fails to meet a minimum standard of reliability, thus compromising the integrity and real facts on the quality of teachers in the field.
ÿ What actions has the Department taken to ensure that the ìhighly qualifiedî provisions under NCLB are enforced, including requirements to accurately report data regarding teachers at the state level?

SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES

1) Weíve raised several concerns about the misapplication of civil rights laws with respect to supplemental services. We appreciate your indication to provide for further review of the Department's supplemental services policies by your General Counsel. Among our concerns regarding the quality of supplemental services, we are also particularly interested in two issues: (1) discrimination in the provision of services to students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient; and (2) the ability of providers to discriminate in employment hiring practices and decisions.
ÿ What conclusions has your General Counsel reached with respect to these provisions?
ÿ In light of the Departmentís guidance released in August of 2003, do you plan to take further steps or action to ensure more equitable access to supplemental services by children with disabilities or limited English proficient children?
ÿ To date, what information has been collected by the Department regarding the specific populations of students making use of supplemental services under the law?

ACCOUNTABILITY and AYP

1) The law requires schools to consider graduation rate as an indicator in calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP), defined as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years. Compliance with this requirement is critical, especially in light of recent reports that indicate only half of all African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students graduate with a high school diploma.
ÿ What action has the Department taken to enforce the graduation rate requirements in NCLB, with specific regard to the inclusion of graduation rates in AYP? How have states defined graduation rates in their state plans?
ÿ Please explain the Departmentís policy and rationale for permitting an 'interim graduation rateí or 'other academic indicatorí to substitute as a proxy for graduation rates.
ÿ What action has the Department taken to ensure that states are increasing their graduation rates, as defined in NCLB, in order to close the achievement gap?

ASSESSMENT

1) NCLB requires the assessment of limited English proficient children in a valid and reliable manner, and further requires each state to identify and indicate languages (other than English) for which assessments are needed. States are further directed under the law to make every effort to develop such assessments.
ÿ There is some indication from the Department that states are not required to develop native language assessments. Please explain the Departmentís policy and rationale for such a decision.
ÿ Has the Department defined a standard for the enforcement of the requirement that limited English proficient children be assessed, to the extent practicable, in a language and form most likely to yield accurate data?
ÿ How has the Department assisted states in developing valid and reliable assessments in the academic content areas to measure the achievement of students with limited English proficiency?

2) Three months after the Department issued regulations on assessing and including students with disabilities in adequate yearly progress, schools have not received training or technical assistance regarding the implementation of such regulations. Although the Department has corresponded with states regarding the 1% rule for children with disabilities, more progress in implementing these regulations is critical as many schools rapidly approach a new round of assessments. Moreover, parents, educators, and IEP teams make decisions daily regarding how children with disabilities meet adequate yearly progress.
ÿ Does the Department plan to release formal guidance that details these new regulations, including direction on the development of alternate assessments and appropriate accommodations for children with disabilities? If so, when may schools and parents expect such guidance?

PARENT INVOLVEMENT AND CHOICE

1) NCLB requires every school district to reserve at least 1% of its Title I funds to support programs and activities related to parent involvement. In our meeting last week, we raised concern about the lack of implementation of NCLB's parental involvement provisions. In the course of the discussion, the Department referenced forthcoming information on the Title I monitoring process, which would address parental involvement.
ÿ To date, what guidance has the Department provided related to carrying out parental involvement provisions? Have best practices related to parental involvement been distributed and disseminated to the states?
ÿ Historically, Title I monitoring has largely been insufficient in providing meaningful direction and support to states, districts, and schools on parental involvement issues. What parental involvement areas will the forthcoming Title I monitoring process address?

2) Recent accounts suggest that the Department has chosen to focus disproportionately on aspects of public school choice and supplemental services in the implementation and enforcement of parental involvement provisions under NCLB.
ÿ How else are the Departmentís funds being used to provide guidance in this area?
ÿ For example, how has the Department ensured that parents are aware of the lack of a ìhighly qualifiedî teacher in their childís classroom?
ÿ Please describe the type and amount of resources, to date, that the Department has expended to enforce the supplemental services and school choice provisions of NCLB.

3) The Departmentís guidance on school choice expressly prohibits school districts from denying public school choice transfer options to any student because of capacity constraints. In fact, guidance instructs school districts to create additional capacity or space in other schools. Such guidance poses a practical challenge to school districts with limited facilities and few resources to expand capacity in existing schools.
ÿ Does the Department plan to provide targeted and sustained training and technical assistance to school districts that are operating at capacity and struggling to implement the public school choice transfer provisions of NCLB?
ÿ NCLB directs school districts to grant priority to the lowest achieving children from low-income families in implementing public school choice provisions. The Departmentís regulations, however, dictate that every child be given simultaneously the choice to transfer. Please explain how the Department reconciles these two policies.
ÿ Federal aid for school construction and renovation could provide critical assistance to further implementation of NCLBís public school choice provisions. Why is the Administration opposed to such solutions?
ÿ Some rural school districts are required to set aside the equivalent of 5 percent of their Title I funds for transportation, in the event that students decide to take advantage of public school choice options, even if such options in the district do not exist. Do you plan to review such requirements and provide greater flexibility to rural districts in their use of these funds?
ÿ NCLB includes a provision that requires a study by the Department of Education on the relationship between the condition of school buildings and student academic performance, to be completed by December 2002. What is the status of this study, to date?
ÿ The Departmentís latest guidance on this subject implies that consideration should be given to transferring public school students to private schools when no capacity exists in the public school system. Under such a situation, the public school system would no longer be held accountable for children transferring to private schools. NCLB provisions clearly provide only for public school choice ‚ please explain the Departmentís policy and rationale for the guidance. How does the policy help close the achievement gap?

4) NCLB defines parental involvement as a new term, requiring meaningful, 2-way communication between schools and parents, among other key things. Your document, ìCharting the Course,î solely refers to parental involvement in the terms of 'parental notification.í
ÿ Can we expect the Department to take action to further define parental involvement in the context of the law?
ÿ Does the Department plan to issue regulations on parental involvement?

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

1) As the number of schools identified as needing improvement under NCLB continues to rise, school districts are increasingly in need of additional funding, staff, expertise, and effective improvement strategies essential to turning around low-performing schools.
ÿ Please describe the type and amount of resources, to date, that the Department has dedicated to assist schools in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
ÿ Schools in need of improvement often suffer from a lack of resources to improve student performance, especially the performance of those students in greatest need. Does the Department plan to request funding to support the school improvement fund under the law? Why has the Department failed to request funding for the dropout prevention program authorized under NCLB?

The Senators asked the Secretary for a written response to each of these items.

CEC will continue to report on issues surrounding NCLB implementation in upcoming Policy Updates, including any response to these issues from Secretary Paige.


White House Reports Progress on New Freedom Initiative

The White House has issued a report on progress regarding President Bush's New Freedom Initiative. In 2001, President Bush announced his initiative as a comprehensive program to promote the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, and promoting increased access into daily community life.

Below is information contained in the Executive Summary of the 2004 Progress Report that relates to the education of students with disabilities. This Progress Report highlights accomplishments under the New Freedom Initiative since the issuance of the May 2002 Progress Report.

EXPANDING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

A quality education is critical to ensure that individuals with disabilities can work and fully participate in their communities. The President has done the following to ensure that no child with a disability is left behind by our Nation's education system:

* Secured more than $3.7 billion in additional annual funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B State Grants program since FY 2001 (for a total of nearly $10.1 billion in FY 2004), and proposed an increase of $1 billion in FY 2005; and

* Established the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, which issued a report in July 2002 emphasizing, among other things, the importance of accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act for the educational outcomes of students with disabilities.

Additionally, agencies are advancing the New Freedom Initiative's goal of ensuring a quality education for youth with disabilities.

* The Department of Education, alone and in collaboration with other agencies, has recently funded a number of grants and studies to determine what strategies best enable students with disabilities to access the general education curriculum and what kinds of early interventions promote the best results for students with disabilities.

* Several agencies have supported activities that reach out to youth with disabilities who are making the transition from high school education to other life goals, including post-secondary education and work.

The full text of the report is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/toc-2004.html


Federal Register Documents

Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities--Projects for Children and Young Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004
Source: Federal Register - March 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 50)

Purpose of Program: This program provides technical assistance and information that (1) support States and local entities in building capacity to improve early intervention, educational, and transitional services and results for children with disabilities and their families; and (2) address goals and priorities for changing State systems that provide early intervention, educational, and transitional services for children with disabilities and their families.

Text of Priority: This priority supports projects to build the capacity of SEAs and LEAs, parents, and professionals to improve outcomes for children and young adults who are deaf-blind and their families, by providing technical assistance, information, and training on early intervention, special education, related services, and transitional services.
Applications Available: March 16, 2004
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 19, 2004
Additional information is available online at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2004-1/031504i.html

Technology and Media Services For Individuals With Disabilities--Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Students with Disabilities; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004
Source: Federal Register: March 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 50)

Purpose of Program: To: (1) Improve results for children with disabilities by promoting the development, demonstration, & use of technology; (2) support educational media activities designed to be of educational value to children with disabilities; & (3) provide support for some captioning, video description, & cultural activities.

Applications Available: March 16, 2004.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 23, 2004.
Additional information is available online at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2004-1/031504j.html

Demonstration & Training Programs -- Braille Training Program
Source: Federal Register: March 12, 2004 [CFDA# 84.235E])

Purpose of Program: This program offers financial assistance to establish projects that will provide training in the use of braille for personnel providing vocational rehabilitation services or educational services to youth & adults who are blind.

Applications Available: March 12, 2004.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 26, 2004.

Additional information is available online at:
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2004-1/031204b.html

State Flexibility Demonstration Program and Local Flexibility Demonstration Program
Source: Federal Register, March 18, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 53

Purposes of the Programs: To give selected State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) greater flexibility in the use of Federal funds to (1) improve and be accountable for the academic achievement of all students, especially disadvantaged students; (2) improve teacher quality and subject-matter mastery, especially in mathematics, reading, and science; (3) better empower parents, educators, administrators, and schools to address effectively the needs of their children and students; and (4) narrow achievement gaps between the lowest- and highest-achieving groups of students so that no child is left behind.

Applications Available: March 18, 2004.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: There is no specific application deadline. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis as they are received until the maximum number of State-Flex and Local-Flex proposals authorized by the statute have been approved. We anticipate that we will complete the review of an application within 60 days of its receipt by the Department.

Additional information is available online at: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04-6139.pdf