The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA): A Legal Analysis

Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney

The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) would prohibit discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in public elementary and secondary schools. The bill, which was introduced in both the 111th and 112th Congress, is expected to be reintroduced in the 113th Congress. The stated purpose of the legislation is to ensure that students are free from discriminatory conduct such as harassment, bullying, intimidation, and violence. SNDA appears to be patterned on Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs or activities, although SNDA does differ from Title IX in several important respects.


Date of Report: April 1, 2013
Number of Pages: 9
Order Number: R42652
Price: $19.95

To Order:

R42652.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA): A Primer

Benjamin Collins
Analyst in Labor Policy

Enacted in 1998, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) is the primary federal legislation that supports basic education for out-of-school adults. Commonly called “adult education,” the programs funded by AEFLA typically support educational services at the secondary level and below, as well as English language training. Actual services are typically provided by local entities using a combination of federal and non-federal funds. Specific curricula vary based on the needs and objectives of the local student population.

In FY2012, approximately $606 million was appropriated for AEFLA. Of this sum, approximately $22 million was set aside for national activities and incentive grants. The remaining $584 million was allocated to the states via formula grants. To receive a federal grant, states are required to provide a match so that non-federal resources account for at least 25% of the total resources dedicated to adult education. Many states contribute well beyond their required match, though there is substantial variation among the states.

The statute specifies that 82.5% of each state’s grant must be subgranted to local providers of educational services. These local providers are most commonly local education agencies (typically school districts) or institutions of higher education (typically community, junior, or technical colleges). Nonprofit agencies, correctional institutions, and other entities may also receive grants.

Adult education activities provided at the local level are divided into three broad categories:

• Adult Basic Education (ABE), which includes instruction for adults whose literacy and numeracy skills are below the high school level; 
• Adult Secondary Education (ASE), which includes instruction for adults whose literacy skills are approximately at the high school level, including adults who are seeking to pass the General Education Development (GED) test; and 
• English literacy (EL), which includes instruction for adults who are not proficient in the English language. 

In program year 2011-2012 (the most recent year for which complete data are available), approximately 1.8 million individuals participated in state adult education activities for an average of 124 hours each. A plurality of the students (47%) participated in ABE while a smaller share (40%) participated in EL activities. The remaining share of adult education students (13%) participated in ASE activities. Non-federal funds accounted for the majority of spending on these activities.

The authorization of appropriations for AEFLA expired at the end of FY2003, though the programs it supports have continued to be funded through the annual appropriations process. AEFLA was enacted as Title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and AEFLA reauthorization debate has also been part of broader efforts to reauthorize WIA.


Date of Report: April 8, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R43036
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R43036.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

A Call to Action: Changing the Culture of Drinking at U.S. Colleges

Every year as spring break approaches or when another promising young student dies in an alcohol-related tragedy, college drinking becomes a national issue. Although excessive drinking by college students is accepted as a rite of passage by many, alcohol-related tragedies never fail to shock us and to prompt calls for immediate action. When schools respond with well intentioned programs, but the problem persists, it is natural to wonder how much we really understand about excessive, college student drinking. Is it inevitable? Can we take steps to prevent it or reduce its consequences? Why have efforts to date proven ineffective?   The fact is that since 1976, when the newly created National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) issued its only report on abusive drinking by college students, research advances have transformed our understanding of alcohol abuse and related problems. For example, we now know that a broad array of factors affect college student drinking behavior. These include an individual’s susceptibility to alcohol, campus norms related to drinking, and conditions within the larger community that make alcohol readily accessible and fail to penalize inappropriate use. Together these influences contribute to a culture of drinking that is more damaging and deadly than previously recognized.

This report, developed by the NIAAA-supported Task Force on College Drinking after 3 years of intensive discussions, describes our new understanding of dangerous drinking behavior by college students and its consequences for both drinkers and nondrinkers. Rather than debate how many drink how much, the Task Force focused on the consequences. What it found challenges many common assumptions about the size and nature of the problem. Not only do some 1,400 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die every year as a result of hazardous drinking, but a half million suffer unintentional injuries under the influence of alcohol. Another 600,000 are assaulted by fellow drinking students and more than 70,000 are sexually assaulted. The data on academic achievement, damage to facilities, and health problems are equally alarming. The nature of existing data leads to the inference that some college students meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol dependence as currently specified by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV), but are not receiving treatment. Although most students who exhibit dangerous drinking behavior during their college career mature out of heavy drinking, this behavior and its consequences are nonetheless cause for concern.

In its report, the Task Force outlines a series of recommendations for colleges and universities, researchers, and NIAAA. What distinguishes this guidance from others is its firm reliance on scientific evidence and its call for collaboration between academic institutions and researchers. In response to the information and recommendations in this report, NIAAA is committing an additional $8 million over the next two fiscal years to the issue of college drinking. It also is collaborating with several college presidents to determine the effectiveness of policies aimed at reducing the problem.

The chancellor of a university that recently suffered the alcohol-related death of one of its students said, “Our children’s lives are at real risk, and universities need to make every effort to prevent any more lives from being wasted.” This report underscores the wisdom of that advice and urges us to join forces in changing the culture of drinking on our Nation’s campuses from one that fosters destructive behavior to one that discourages it.

Date of Report: March 18, 2013
Number of Pages: 59
Order Number: G1334
Price: $5.95

To Order:

G1334.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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 District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) Program

Alexandra Hegji
Analyst in Social Policy

The District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-98) was enacted on November 12, 1999, creating the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) program. The program provides grants to District of Columbia residents for undergraduate education. Grants for study at public institutions of higher education (IHEs) nationwide offset the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition and fees, up to $10,000 per year and a cumulative maximum of $50,000. Students may also receive grants of up to $2,500 per year and a cumulative maximum of $12,500 for undergraduate study at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) nationwide and private IHEs in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.


Date of Report: March 22, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R41313
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41313.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

Ann Lordeman
Specialist in Social Policy

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is both a grants statute and a civil rights statute. As a grants statute, IDEA provides federal funding for the education of children with disabilities and requires, as a condition for the receipt of such funds, the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (i.e., specially designed instruction provided at no cost to parents that meets the needs of a child with a disability). In FY2012, $12.6 billion was appropriated for IDEA. In the fall of 2009, 5.9 million children ages six through 21 received educational services under IDEA.

As a civil rights statute, IDEA contains procedural safeguards, which are provisions intended to protect the rights of parents and children with disabilities regarding the provision of FAPE. These procedures include parental rights to resolve disputes through a mediation process, and present and resolve complaints through a due process complaint procedure, and through state complaint procedures. IDEA’s procedural safeguards also address disciplinary issues. In general, a child with a disability is not immune from discipline, but the procedures are not the same as for nondisabled children.

To be covered under IDEA, a child with a disability must meet the categorical definition of disability in the act, and the child must require special education and related services as a result of the disability in order to benefit from public education. Once a child meets IDEA’s eligibility criteria, FAPE is implemented through the Individualized Education Program (IEP), which is the plan for providing special education and related services by the local educational agency (LEA). The IEP is developed by an IEP team composed of school personnel and parents. IDEA requires that children with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment. That is, to the maximum extent appropriate they are to be educated with children who are not disabled. In 2008, over 50% of all children with disabilities served by IDEA spent 80% or more of their time in a regular classroom.

To implement IDEA, states and other entities (i.e., the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Bureau of Indian Education, the outlying areas, and the freely associated states) receive grants based on a statutory formula. Most of the federal funds received by states are passed on to LEAs based on a statutory formula. IDEA also contains state and local maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and supplement, not supplant (SNS) requirements aimed at increasing overall educational spending, rather than substituting federal funds for education spending at the state and local levels.

Originally enacted in 1975, IDEA has been the subject of numerous reauthorizations to extend services and rights to children with disabilities. The most recent reauthorization of IDEA was P.L. 108-446 enacted in 2004. Funding for Part B, Assistance for Education of all Children with Disabilities, the largest and most often discussed part of the act, is permanently authorized. Funding for Part C, Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, and Part D, National Activities, was authorized through FY2011. Funding for the programs continues to be authorized through annual appropriations.


Date of Report: January 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: R41833
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41833.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.