Erin D. Lomax
Analyst in Education Policy
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 108-446) both require all students with disabilities to participate in district and state assessments. Because student achievement on state assessments is used to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in state accountability systems mandated by NCLB, schools are now held accountable for the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities. The authorization for NCLB expired at the end of FY2008, and the 111th Congress is expected to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA. One focus of reauthorization may be reexamining how students with disabilities are included in accountability systems.
The current NCLB focus on accountability for the achievement of students with disabilities has led educators, administrators, and policymakers to reexamine the appropriateness of the general state assessment for measuring the achievement of certain students with disabilities. Although many students with disabilities are able to participate in the general state assessment, either with or without accommodations, other students with disabilities may not be able to participate fully in the general state assessment because of the nature and severity of their disability. These students may need an alternate assessment that is tailored to their needs and allows them to more accurately demonstrate what they know and can do.
There are currently five assessment options for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities: (1) general state assessment, (2) general state assessment with accommodations, (3) alternate assessment based on grade-level standards, (4) alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), and (5) alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). The first three assessment options (general state assessment, general state assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessment based on grade-level standards) result in scores that may be counted in AYP calculations in the typical manner, as determined by a state’s accountability system. Scores from the second two assessment options (AA-AAS and AAMAS) have restrictions on the way they may be counted in AYP calculations. These restrictions are outlined in regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and have numerous implications for state accountability systems.
The purpose of this report is to describe the ED regulations that allow states to use scores from alternate assessments for AYP calculations in accountability systems. This report also describes the current status of state implementation of alternate assessments and examines some of the challenges states have encountered in developing and implementing these assessments. The final section of this report discusses other policy proposals for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities and including them in accountability systems.
Date of Report: January 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: R40701
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
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.
David P. Smole
Specialist in Education Policy
The William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (DL) program, authorized under Title IV, Part D of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, is the primary federal student loan program administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The program makes available loans to undergraduate and graduate students and the parents of dependent undergraduate students to help them finance their postsecondary education costs. Several types of loans are offered through the DL program: Subsidized Stafford Loans and Unsubsidized Stafford Loans for undergraduate and graduate students; PLUS Loans for graduate students and the parents of dependent undergraduate students; and Consolidation Loans through which borrowers may combine their loans into a single loan. For FY2011, ED estimates that 24.3 million loans (not including Consolidation Loans) totaling $116.4 billion will be made to students and their parents through the DL program.
Until July 1, 2010, Subsidized Stafford Loans, Unsubsidized Stafford Loans, PLUS Loans, and Consolidation Loans were also available through the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, authorized under Title IV, Part B of the HEA. The SAFRA Act, part of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA; P.L. 111-152), terminated the authority to make new loans under the FFEL program after June 30, 2010. While new loans may no longer be made through the FFEL program, approximately $450 billion in FFEL program loans are outstanding and are due to be repaid over the coming years.
Under the DL program, which has effectively replaced the FFEL program, loans are made with capital provided by the federal government. Under the FFEL program, loans were made with capital provided by private lenders, and the federal government guaranteed lenders against loss through borrower default, death, permanent disability, or, in limited instances, bankruptcy. When both programs were authorized and making available essentially the same types of loans, institutions of higher education (IHEs) were permitted to select the program of their choice.
The loans made through the FFEL and DL programs are low-interest loans, with maximum interest rates for each type of loan established by statute. Subsidized Stafford Loans are unique in that they are only available to students demonstrating financial need. The Secretary of Education pays the interest that accrues on Subsidized Stafford Loans while borrowers are in school, during a six-month grace period, and during authorized periods of deferment. Unsubsidized Stafford Loans and PLUS Loans are available to borrowers irrespective of their financial need; and borrowers are responsible for paying all the interest that accrues on these loans.
FFEL and DL program loans have terms and conditions that may be more favorable to borrowers than private and other non-federal loans. These beneficial terms and conditions include interest rates that are often lower than rates that might be obtained from other lenders, opportunities for repayment relief through deferment and forbearance, loan consolidation, and several loan forgiveness programs.
In recent years, numerous changes to the terms and conditions of FFEL and DL program loans have been made under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (P.L. 110-84), the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act (P.L. 110-227), the Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L. 110-315), the 2009 technical corrections to the HEA (P.L. 111-39), and the SAFRA Act. This report describes the terms and conditions of loans currently available to borrowers through the DL program and of loans made in recent years through the FFEL and DL programs. It will be updated as warranted to reflect programmatic changes.
Date of Report: January 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 66
Order Number: R40122
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
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.
Jeffrey J. Kuenzi
Specialist in Education Policy
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110) established the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) under Title VI, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). Congress created this program to address the unique needs of rural schools that disadvantage them relative to nonrural schools. To compensate for the challenges facing rural schools, REAP awards two types of formula grants; one goes directly to eligible school districts, or local educational agencies (LEAs), and a second grant goes to states, which then award subgrants to LEAs.
To be eligible for REAP funds, an LEA must be designated rural and must meet one of three additional requirements involving enrollment size, population density, and poverty status. The program was appropriated $175 million in FY2010; it provided awards to over 5,500 LEAs (out of a total of about 14,000 nationwide).
The authorization for REAP, along with the rest of the ESEA, expired at the end of FY2008. However, these programs continue to operate as long as appropriations are provided. The 112th Congress is expected to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA programs, including REAP. This report will discuss the challenges facing rural schools, the manner in which REAP addresses these challenges, and reauthorization issues that may arise as Congress takes up the ESEA.
Date of Report: December 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R40853
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
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.
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
Currently, federal law prohibits states from granting unauthorized aliens certain postsecondary educational benefits on the basis of state residence, unless equal benefits are made available to all U.S. citizens. This prohibition is commonly understood to apply to the granting of “in-state” residency status for tuition purposes. Legislation to amend this federal law has routinely been introduced in each of the last several congressional sessions, although such legislation has never been enacted. Meanwhile, some states have passed laws aimed at making unauthorized state residents eligible for in-state tuition without violating this provision. This report provides a legal overview of cases involving immigrant access to higher education, as well as an analysis of the legality of state laws that make in-state tuition rates available to illegal aliens. For a policy analysis of this issue, see CRS Report RL33863, Unauthorized Alien Students: Issues and “DREAM Act” Legislation, by Andorra Bruno.
Date of Report: December 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: RS22500
Price: $19.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
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.
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
In 2010, 24% of families with children (under age 18) were maintained by mothers. According to some estimates, 60% of children born during the 1990s will spend a significant portion of their childhood in a home without their father. Research indicates that children raised in single-parent families are more likely than children raised in two-parent families (with both biological parents) to do poorly in school, have emotional and behavioral problems, become teenage parents, and have poverty-level incomes. In hopes of improving the long-term outlook for children in singleparent families, federal, state, and local governments, along with public and private organizations, are supporting programs and activities that promote the financial and personal responsibility of noncustodial fathers to their children and increase the participation of fathers in the lives of their children. These programs have come to be known as “responsible fatherhood” programs.
Sources of federal funding for fatherhood programs include the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, TANF state Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) funding, welfare-to-work funds, Child Support Enforcement (CSE) funds, and Social Services Block Grant (Title XX) funds.
Beginning with the 106th Congress, the House, but not the Senate, passed bills containing specific funding for responsible fatherhood initiatives (in the 107th and 108th Congresses as part of welfare reauthorization bills). Moreover, from the start, President George W. Bush was a supporter of responsible fatherhood programs; each of his budgets included funding for such programs. In the 109th Congress, P.L. 109-171 (the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005) was enacted. It included a provision that provides up to $50 million per year (FY2006-FY2010) in competitive grants to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community groups (including religious organizations) for responsible fatherhood initiatives. In the 110th Congress, bills were introduced but not passed that would have, among other things, increased federal funding of responsible fatherhood programs. There were several responsible fatherhood bills introduced during the 111th Congress. In addition, the Obama Administration’s FY2011 budget included a proposal to substantially increase funding for responsible fatherhood programs under a proposed new Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. Under the proposal, the new fund would have received $500 million for FY2011 (this proposal was not passed by either the House or the Senate). Instead, P.L. 111-291 (enacted December 8, 2010) extended funding for the Title IV-A Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants for an additional year (i.e., through FY2011). For FY2011, it appropriated $75 million for awarding funds for healthy marriage promotion activities and $75 million for awarding funds for activities promoting responsible fatherhood.
Most fatherhood programs include media campaigns that emphasize the importance of emotional, physical, psychological, and financial connections of fathers to their children. Most fatherhood programs include parenting education; responsible decision-making; mediation services for both parents; providing an understanding of the CSE program; conflict resolution, coping with stress, and problem-solving skills; peer support; and job-training opportunities (skills development, interviewing skills, job search, job-retention skills, job-advancement skills, etc.).
The federal government’s support of fatherhood initiatives raises a wide array of issues. This report briefly examines the role of the CSE agency in fatherhood programs and discusses initiatives to promote and support father-child interaction outside the framework of the fathermother relationship.
Date of Report: December 21, 2010
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: RL31025
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
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.
Posts
