The SAFRA Act: Education Programs in theFY2010 Budget Reconciliation

Cassandria Dortch, Coordinator
Analyst in Education Policy

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

Shannon M. Mahan
Specialist in Education Policy

The FY2010 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 13) included two reconciliation instructions directing the House Committee on Education and Labor to report changes in laws within their jurisdictions to reduce the deficit by $1 billion each for the period of fiscal year (FY) 2009 through FY2014. The reconciliation instructions specifically noted that $1 billion of the reduction from the House Committee on Education and Labor should be related to education. 

On October 7, 2009, in response to the FY2010 budget reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Education and Labor submitted H.R. 3221 to the House Budget Committee as education-related reconciliation instructions. Certain provisions of H.R. 3221 were incorporated into H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA). On March 30, 2010, President Obama signed H.R. 4872 into law (P.L. 111-152). 

The SAFRA Act, Title II, Part A of the law, terminates the authority under the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended, to make loans under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program after June 2010. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this will reduce mandatory spending by $29 billion over the FY2010-FY2014 period, and by $61 billion over the FY2010-FY2019 period. These savings are sufficient to achieve the $1 billion reduction in spending specified in S.Con.Res. 13, while offsetting an increase in mandatory spending as a result of expanding other HEA programs. 

A significant portion of the savings estimated to result from enactment of the SAFRA Act offsets additional mandatory appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program. The SAFRA Act also makes the following changes to several HEA programs: the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program is amended to accommodate the termination of the FFEL program; and existing HEA programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority- Serving Institutions and the College Access Challenge Grant (CACG) program are extended with mandatory appropriations. The law also amends the income-based repayment (IBR) plan. Overall, CBO estimates that the SAFRA Act reduces mandatory spending by $5 billion over the FY2010- FY2014 period, and by $19 billion over the FY2010-FY2019 period. 

Title I of the HCERA contains provisions regarding health coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, and various tax revenues. Title I, Part F amends and funds the Department of Labor's Community College and Career Training Grant Program (CCCT). 

This report begins with a brief legislative history of the education-related provisions in P.L. 111- 152. It then identifies and describes selected amendments made to the HEA and other laws by P.L. 111-152.


Date of Report: April 14, 2010
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41127
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The No Child Left Behind Act and “Unfunded Mandates”: A Legal Analysis of School District of the City of Pontiac v. Secretary of the United States Department of Education

Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

In 2008, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in School District of the City of Pontiac v. Secretary of the United States Department of Education. In its decision, the court held that the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act failed to provide the required "clear notice" to states and school districts regarding the requirements they must fulfill as a condition of receiving federal funding. The case was subsequently reheard, but the en banc Sixth Circuit divided evenly, meaning that the judgment of the district court to dismiss the case was affirmed. This report discusses some of the practical and legal implications of the Sixth Circuit decisions.


Date of Report: April 8, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22839
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Public Schools: The Legal Issues

Nancy Lee Jones
Legislative Attorney

Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

Seclusion and restraint have been used in various situations to deal with violent or noncompliant behavior. Because of congressional interest in the use of seclusion and restraint in schools, including passage of H.R. 4247 and the introduction of S. 2860, 111th Congress, first session, this report focuses on the legal issues concerning the use of these techniques in schools, including their application both to children covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and to those not covered by IDEA. 

Several reports have documented instances of deaths and injuries resulting from the use of seclusion or restraints in schools but, until the Department of Education (ED) issued reporting requirements in March 2010, there was no general reporting requirement. On May 19, 2009, in conjunction with a hearing by the House Education and Labor Committee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a study examining the use of seclusion and restraint in the education setting, finding hundreds of cases of alleged abuse and death due to the use of seclusion and restraint. On July 31, 2009, the Secretary of Education sent letters to Chief State School Officers noting the problems identified by the GAO report and in the May 19 congressional hearing, encouraging each state to review its current policies, and stating that the Chief State School Officers would be contacted by ED by August 15, 2009, to discuss relevant state laws, regulations, policies, and guidance. The results of these discussions are posted on ED's website. 

Federal law does not contain general provisions relating to the use of seclusion and restraints, and there are no specific federal laws concerning the use of seclusion and restraint in public schools. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities, and an argument could be made that some uses of seclusion and restraint would violate this requirement. In addition, certain procedures may violate constitutional rights or state laws. Although there are some judicial cases, they do not provide clear guidance on when, if ever, seclusion and restraint may be used in schools. H.R. 4247 and S. 2860, 111th Congress, first session, would establish minimum safety standards in schools to prevent and reduce the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion. H.R. 4247 was passed by the House on March 3, 2010. .


Date of Report: April 15, 2010
Number of Pages: 26
Order Number: R40522
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The SAFRA Act: Education Programs in theFY2010 Budget Reconciliation

Cassandria Dortch, Coordinator
Analyst in Education Policy

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

Shannon M. Mahan
Specialist in Education Policy

The FY2010 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 13) included two reconciliation instructions directing the House Committee on Education and Labor to report changes in laws within their jurisdictions to reduce the deficit by $1 billion each for the period of fiscal year (FY) 2009 through FY2014. The reconciliation instructions specifically noted that $1 billion of the reduction from the House Committee on Education and Labor should be related to education. 

On October 7, 2009, in response to the FY2010 budget reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Education and Labor submitted H.R. 3221 to the House Budget Committee as education-related reconciliation instructions. Certain provisions of H.R. 3221 were incorporated into H.R. 4872, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. On March 30, 2010, President Obama signed H.R. 4872 into law (P.L. 111-152). 

The SAFRA Act, Title II, Part A of the law, terminates the authority under the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended, to make loans under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program after June 2010. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this will reduce mandatory spending by $29 billion over the FY2010-FY2014 period, and by $61 billion over the FY2010-FY2019 period. These savings are sufficient to achieve the $1 billion reduction in spending specified in S.Con.Res. 13, while offsetting an increase in mandatory spending as a result of expanding other HEA programs. 

A significant portion of the savings offsets additional mandatory appropriations for the Federal Pell Grant program. The William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program is amended to accommodate the termination of the FFEL program. Existing HEA programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority-Serving Institutions and the College Access Challenge Grant (CACG) program are extended with mandatory appropriations. The law also amends the income-based repayment (IBR) plan. Overall, CBO estimates that the SAFRA Act reduces mandatory spending by $5 billion over the FY2010-FY2014 period, and by $19 billion over the FY2010-FY2019 period. 

Title I of the law contains provisions regarding health coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, and various tax revenues. Title I, Part F amends and funds the Department of Labor's Community College and Career Training Grant Program (CCCT). 

This report begins with a brief legislative history of the education-related provisions in P.L. 111- 152. It then identifies and describes selected amendments made to the HEA and other laws by P.L. 111-152. 

For additional resources see: http://pennyhill.net/?p=60

 

Date of Report: April 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41127
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.

The SAFRA Act: Amendments to Education Programs through Budget Reconciliation in the 111th Congress

Cassandria Dortch, Coordinator
Analyst in Education Policy

David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy

Shannon M. Mahan
Specialist in Education Policy

The FY2010 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 13) includes two reconciliation instructions directing the House Committee on Education and Labor to report changes in laws within their jurisdictions to reduce the deficit by $1 billion each for the period of fiscal years (FY) 2009 through 2014. The reconciliation instructions specifically note that $1 billion of the reduction from the House Committee on Education and Labor should be related to education. 

On October 7, 2009, in response to the FY2010 budget reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Education and Labor submitted H.R. 3221 to the House Budget Committee as education-related reconciliation instructions. On March 21, 2010, the House passed H.R. 3590, the health care reform measure as passed by the Senate, and H.R. 4872, the House version of health care and education reconciliation. H.R. 4872 would change several controversial elements in H.R. 3590 and otherwise amend the underlying legislation. The Senate is expected to consider H.R. 4872. 

Several of the provisions in H.R. 3221 were deleted or amended in H.R. 4872. Title II, Part A of H.R. 4872 would terminate authority under the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as amended, to make loans under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program after June 2010. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this would reduce mandatory spending by $28.6 billion over the FY2010-FY2014 period, and by $61.0 billion over the FY2010-FY2019 period. These savings would be large enough to achieve the $1 billion reduction in spending specified in S.Con.Res. 13, while offsetting increases in mandatory spending that would result from the expansion of other HEA programs. Overall, CBO estimates that Title II, Part A of H.R. 4872 would reduce mandatory spending by $5.1 billion over the FY2010-FY2014 period, and by $19.1 billion over the FY2010-FY2019 period. 

In addition to terminating the authority to make loans under the FFEL program, Title II, Part A of H.R. 4872 would fund expansions of existing HEA programs and benefits, including the Federal Pell Grant program, the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, programs serving Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority-Serving Institutions, and the College Access Challenge Grant program. It would also amend the income-based repayment (IBR) plan. 

Title I of H.R. 4872 contains provisions regarding health coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, and various tax revenues. Title I would also amend and fund the Department of Labor's Community College and Career Training Grant Program. 

This report reviews and briefly describes the proposals contained in H.R. 4872, particularly those which amend programs authorized under HEA.

For Further Information: http://pennyhill.net/?p=60

 

Date of Report: March 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R41127
Price: $29.95

Document available electronically as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail sales@pennyhill.com or call us at 301-253-0881.