Bruman Legislative Office: 2007

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Forum on Teacher Quality

On Tuesday, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) held a forum on teacher quality. The panelist included:

• Beatrice Briman, Managing Research Scientist at AIR;
• Dan Goldhaber, Research Associate Professor at the University of Washington;
• Susan Moore Johnson, the Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr. Professor of Teaching and Learning at Harvard University;
• Michele Rhee, the Chancellor for the District of Columbia Public Schools;
• Brad Thomas, Professional Staff Member for the House Committee on Education and Labor; and
• Alice Johnson Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor to Chairman George Miller in the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Lynn Olson, the Managing Editor of Special Projects at Education Week moderated the discussion.

The conversation made two issues clear. The first point was that human capital is critical, but the federal effort to improve teacher quality has not proven particularly successful. According to research conducted by Professor Dan Goldhaber, it is clear that state certification is not a reliable measure of teacher effectiveness as measured by student academic outcomes. Often teachers who have failed their certification exams have produced tremendous student academic outcomes, while teachers who have passed their certification exams have produced awful results, Goldhaber found. The current proxy for teacher quality and effectiveness, most agreed, needs to be more sophisticated.

The second point of clarity was the disagreement on the proper federal role in this debate. Alice Johnson Cain made a strong defense of George Miller’s Teach Act. The bill, which Chairman Miller partially incorporated into the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) House Discussion Draft, seeks to improve the recruitment, professional development and career development of teachers through a variety of innovative approaches such as merit pay and teacher career academies. But the economist (and Republicans) in the room cringed at the prescriptive approach and the researchers lamented about the lack of reliable research and data underlying such plans. They argued that the current and proposed federal policies, intended to serve as an assurance of basic quality instruction, have the detrimental effect of focusing educators on compliance and not academic outcomes.

The most evident consensus of the event was that those working on teacher quality policy have ample obstacles to tackle as Congress works on the reauthorization of the ESEA.

Resources:
American Institutes for Research, http://www.air.org/.
Dan Goldhaber, Research Associate Professor of Public Affairs, http://evans.washington.edu/fac/Goldhaber/
Author: DAD

President Signs Head Start Bill

On Wednesday, President Bush signed H.R. 1429, the Head Start Reauthorization bill, into law. Congress made a big push last month to send the bill to the President, in lieu of other education-related reauthorization bills. The reauthorization of Head Start had been pending since 2003.

The new bill authorizes increased spending for the program, starting at $7.35 billion for fiscal 2008. The bill seeks to improve the quality of Head Start teachers, tighten program accountability and update the current system of standards and assessments. Under the final bill, the income level at which families become eligible for Head Start will increase from 100% of the federal poverty level to 130%, but the neediest children receive priority. The measure will also require that half of Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or a related field by 2013.

The President signed the bill, despite Congress’ failure to add a provision he sought regarding faith-based Head Start providers. The President pushed for a provision that would allow faith-based providers to discriminate in their hiring practices based on religion. The Republican majority of the 109th Congress attempted to add the provision when they tried to pass a reauthorization bill, but their efforts failed. The current Democratic majority threw out the President’s proposal at the outset of its work on the bill. However, despite the lack of consideration for his priorities, the President applauded the efforts to reauthorize an important early education program.

Resources:
“Head Start Extended Five Years,” Associate Press, December 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Rural Schools Funding In Danger Again

Rural school funding is becoming an issue once again as Congress winds down for the year. Last year, Congress labored on various proposals to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act, also referred to simply as county payments. In lieu of a long-term proposal, Congress passed a brief one-year extension of the program. Congress is now working on a three-year proposal, but is hitting a few roadblocks along the way.

The county payment program provides funding for more than 700 counties in forty-one states for operating schools in hard to reach rural areas. California, Oregon and Washington are the biggest beneficiaries of the program, a point which has drawn some ire from the other 38 states who participate. Congressional leaders have created a new proposal that would restructure the funding formula, directing funding to the neediest counties. However, because rural school districts in the big three states depend heavily on the government funds, the new proposal includes a transition period that will slowly redistribute the funding, in hopes of preventing a hard financial hit to districts that currently receive more funding than they will under the new formula. The extension would run through 2011.

The proposal is part of H.R. 6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN Energy) Act. The House passed the bill last January, and the Senate initially passed its version in June. Currently, the House has signed off on certain Senate changes, but the bill has to get through the Senate a final time before it can move forward. Yesterday, even after a failed cloture vote in the morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NY) was able to get the bill through by a vote of 86-8, after dropping certain provisions that Republicans opposed. So, because of the changes Reid was forced to make, the bill will head back to the House next week before it can be sent to the President.

Resources:
Sarah D. Sparks, “Rural School Support Hangs on Energy Bill,” Education Daily, December 14, 2007.
Geof Koss, “Pared-Back Energy Bill Clears Senate,” Congress Now, December 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Moratorium Language Caught in the Veto (Again)

This week, Congress sent a slightly revised State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill to the President and, as expected, he vetoed it. Like the prior SCHIP bill that the President vetoed in October, this also contained moratorium language in section 616. The section would prevent the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (a part of the Department of Health and Human Services) from implementing proposed rules relating to reduced federal financial participation for rehabilitative services and for administrative and transportation costs related to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act services. Having failed to override the veto in October on nearly identical legislation, the Democratic leadership chose not to consider an override until January 23.

So what is next for the moratorium? According to Congressional staffers, there is broad bi-partisan agreement to include the moratorium in some bill before the close of the year, but the viable bills are few and the prospects are dim.
Recognizing the diminishing opportunities and the importance this may play in the upcoming elections, Representative John Boozman (A-AR) introduced H.R. 4355, a bill to impose a moratorium on certain Medicaid payment restrictions on December 11th. The bill places a moratorium on the restriction of payments for a year after the date of the enactment of the law. Yet, this bill will not move until January, if at all, and when it does it will face opposition from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On December 4th, HHS Secretary Leavitt wrote to Senator Max Bacus (D-MT), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, regarding the agency’s opposition to the moratorium language. In the letter, Secretary Leavitt wrote that “the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto of any bill that… undermines efforts to promote fiscal solvency in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. For example, legislation should not repeal the Medicare funding warning or erode the programs' fiscal integrity by overturning regulatory policies developed by the Administration.” Secretary Leavitt, it appears, is ready to fight Congress on this issue.

If Congress is unable to pass moratorium legislation in a timely manner, it will still have a final opportunity to act under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C 801-808). According to the act, an agency must submit final rules to both houses of Congress and the General Accounting Office before they can take effect. Although rarely used, action by Congress and the President could have an impact on the rule. We will continue to monitor the issue as it develops.

Resource:
“Secretary Leavitt Letter to Congress on Medicare Physician Payment Legislation,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, News Release, December 4, 2007, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2007pres/12/pr20071204b.html
Author: DAD

Senate Passes the Farm Bill

The Senate finally passed H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill today, by a vote of 79-14. Despite the bill’s passage, months after the House passed their version, interested parties will still have to wait for a finished Farm Bill. The House and Senate bills now head to conference, where lawmakers will have to work out considerable differences. Congressional leaders do not expect a finished bill until late January.

Currently, the Senate version expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) into every state. This program provides fresh fruits and vegetables for public school children, part of continuing national efforts to fight childhood obesity. The bill directs $225 million for the program in fiscal year 2008, if the funding is available. From there, it calls for annual appropriations to dictate the spending levels. Senator Harkin claims it will lead to about $1.1 billion over five years. Each year, each of the 50 states will receive 1% of the available funds for the program, with the remaining funds allocated based on states’ proportion of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch Program.
State educational agencies (SEAs) are directed to allocate the funds to schools where at least 50% of their students are eligible for free or reduce price lunches. Per student spending at an individual school must be between $50 and $75. If there is an insufficient number of schools that meet the 50% requirement, SEAs are directed to give priority to schools with higher proportions of students eligible for free or reduced price lunches. SEAs are also directed to give priority to schools that combine efforts under the FFVP program with additional nutrition and healthy living programs.

The House bill authorizes $70 million for expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) into 35 schools in each state. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would then distribute additional funds, as necessary, to states based on population. Unlike the Senate version, the House funding is fully authorized and is not contingent on available funds. However, in both versions, actual annual funding is subject to the politics of the appropriations process. The House version also reserves 5% of state grant for state administrative uses. The Senate bill does not provide for administration.

Senator Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) amendment imposing national standards on the foods sold on public school campuses never came to the Senate floor for a vote. The standards would apply to any elementary and secondary schools that receive funding from any national school lunch or other food-related programs and they would carry over into competitive foods that are sold outside of the school cafeteria, including vending and soda machines. The proposal would also trump any state standards already in place, whether they are weaker or stronger than the federal mandate.

Sen. Harkin and his supporters spent the last month publicizing the amendment, including articles in the New York Times, attempting to get support from the public. Despite the amount of work that Harkin and his staff put into the amendment, he was unable to get a vote on the issue. Because of the agreement limiting number of amendments under consideration, Harkin’s proposal may simply have fallen too low on the priority list. However, Harkin continues to state his commitment to passing the national standards, possibly as a rider on a different piece of legislation.

Resources:
Catharine Richert, “Farm Bill Headed for Senate Passage,” CQ Today, December 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Appropriators Close to Omnibus Deal

Congress may finally come to an agreement regarding fiscal year 2008 (FY08) spending. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) plans to introduce an omnibus spending package that he and his colleagues drafted on Monday. The omnibus bill includes funding for the eleven appropriations bills for FY08 that have yet to pass. The new deal, which brings total spending down nearly to the President’s request of $933 billion, signals Democrat’s willingness to submit to Republican demands for lower spending in order to avert a government shutdown.

Although the newest proposal is closer to the President’s request, Democrats are working to make sure this does not translate into significant program cuts from their original proposal. Instead, Chairman Obey is removing a majority of earmarked spending projects, in order to bring spending down to the levels desired by the President and his supporters in Congress. Nevertheless, many programs may still receive less funding than they would have under the Democrats’ original proposed levels. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with losing their spending projects, but most are still willing to support any deal that will avoid a government shutdown. Senate leaders have yet to confirm their assent to such a proposal, though the time crunch may not leave them with much of a choice.
The government is currently operating under a continuing resolution (CR), funding agencies at FY 2007 levels. That CR runs out at midnight tonight. On Thursday, Congress passed an additional CR to run through Friday, December 21, giving them a week to get the omnibus bill through both Houses of Congress and onto the President’s desk. The president signed the CR today. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) hopes to be able to adjourn next week, allowing members to go home for Christmas, but the adjournment date will rely heavily on whether or not Congress can pass the omnibus. If negotiations falter, Congress may pass a fourth CR, carrying over until January, preventing a government shutdown over the holidays.

The debate centers over the President’s unwillingness to compromise on his proposed total discretionary spending level of $933 billion. The Democrats in Congress originally came out with over $955 billion in discretionary spending, more than $22 billion over the President’s request. Under those spending levels, the Defense appropriations bill is the only one that became law. The President vetoed the Labor-HHS-Education bill, the largest domestic spending bill, back in November. After a failed override attempt, appropriators decided to “meet the President halfway” by bringing the total spending level down to about $944 billion. Over the weekend, after a series of failed negotiations with Congressional Republicans and the White House, Chairman Obey dropped the proposal, claiming that the other side was not proceeding in good faith.

This debate is largely one of political impression. The President is trying to prove that he is relevant and a true fiscal conservative. He has the support of Congressional Republicans that can either claim a victory by getting the $933 billion cap or cite the fiscal mess as evidence of poor Democratic leadership. The Democrats loath the capitulation but they have few options at this point. They cannot fail to pass their appropriations as the Republicans did in 2006, nor can they tolerate a government shutdown. Historically, government shutdowns reflect more negatively on Congress than the White House. These political obstacles make it difficult for Democrats to negotiate with any authority, which is why they are now proposing the lower spending level. The lack of earmarks may simply be Chairman Obey’s way of trying to retaliate at Republicans who support the President.

Although neither the President nor Republicans in Congress have openly supported the new proposal, opting to wait until Obey shares the bill with the public this weekend, the White House has hinted that it would support the bill, so long as it comes in, at, or close to the $933 billion cap. Republicans criticized the Democrats for taking so long to compromise on spending. Democrats held to their initial proposals for months, trying to make political statements regarding priorities for programmatic spending. Possibly holding on a bit too long, Democrats have left themselves only a week to reach a deal before the holiday recess. Meanwhile, Democrats contend that Republicans are to blame for their refusal to negotiate at all. Regardless of which side bears the blame, the White House will reap the benefits as it can claim a victory over Congress, assuming the $933 billion cap holds.

Resources:
David Clarke and Liriel Higa, “Lawmakers Edging Toward Final Deal on Year-End Appropriations Plan,” CQ Today, December 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Growth Model Pilot: Another Round

Now that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has stalled in Congress, it is certain that piecemeal legislation and regulatory work will begin to address the critical issues left unchanged by the delay. Changes to sections 1111 and 1116 are sure to come as thousands of schools across the nation begin to march down the seven year cascading consequences of the current law. What those bills or regulation will be is not certain, but the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) opening of the growth model pilot may be the first of many new “bridge” initiatives. The “bridge” initiatives are those actions that carry the current law from now until the time the reauthorization is completed, which may be, as mentioned above, in early 2009 or later.

On Friday, ED sent a letter to the chief state school officers inviting them to submit yet another round of growth model proposals. The 10 state pilot program now has 9 state participants. ED will remove the 10 state cap and accept all states that meet the pilot’s bright-line principles. Yet, it is those rules and not the cap that has constrained the pilot. Those principles require that the applicants, at least:

• Ensure that all students are proficient by 2014 and set annual state goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students;
• Set expectations for annual achievement based upon meeting grade-level proficiency and not upon student background or school characteristics;
• Hold schools accountable for student achievement in reading/language arts and mathematics;
• Ensure that all students in tested grades are included in the assessment and accountability system, hold schools and districts accountable for the performance of each student subgroup, and include all schools and districts;
• Include assessments, in each of grades 3 through 8 and high school, in both reading/language arts and mathematics that have been operational for more than one year and have received approval through the NCLB standards and assessment review process for the 2005-06 school year. The assessment system must also produce comparable results from grade to grade and year to year;
• Track student progress as part of the state data system; and
• Include student participation rates and student achievement as separate academic indicators in the state accountability.

In addition to meeting these principles, states must also be raising overall achievement and closing the achievement gap, ensuring that parents have timely and accessible information regarding choice and supplemental educational services and are improving teacher quality and providing parents and the public with accurate information on the quality of the local teaching force. All proposals are due by February 1.
Author:
DAD

Four more years!

Four years after it was due for reauthorization, the Head Start Act is finally on the President’s desk for signature. Congress presented the bill to the President on December 5th and he has 10 business days to sign it into law. Unlike the appropriation bills heading his way this December, this will be signed by the President. There is no veto threat.

The bill, HR 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, makes a number of changes and clarifications to the current law including a renewed focus on the quality of teachers, increased eligibility thresholds, more funding to expand programs for younger children, migrant and Native American students, and more. For additional details please refer to the summary attached to the November 16th Federal Update.
These changes took difficult negotiations, but they are nothing compared to the scope of work that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) will require; and the treacherous politics will make it more difficult. So, if Head Start took four years what does that mean for ESEA? That is a popular question in Washington these days.

Education pundits are hedging their bets from 2009 to 2011. Those leaning toward 2009 realize that politics has to give way to practical needs, and soon. While this law is too important not to be a rhetorical centerpiece of the 2008 elections, the fact that thousands of schools are cascading along the sanctions of section 1116 imposes a practical urgency on the reauthorization. A set of “Washington Insiders” made such a prediction in January and it looks like that estimate remains valid. (Disclosure: Brustein & Manasevit was part of that insider survey). Those leaning closer to 2011 have likely been in Washington much longer than the rest of us and have seen the political polarization accentuate the sclerosis of such large and technical bills. Four years of rancor is not unforeseeable.

Yet, as noted in previous Updates, the time line must not breed complacency. The language that will emerge in 2009 is a product of today’s advocacy and, considering the debate that surrounds the current House Discussion Draft, much advocacy and analysis remains ahead.

Resource:
Crystal Apple: Education Insiders’ Predictions for No Child Left Behind’s Reauthorization (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation: January 8, 2007) January 4, 2007, http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/publication/publication.cfm?id=365.
Author: DAD

Senate Reaches Amendment Agreement on Farm Bill

Senate leaders were finally able to come to an agreement this week regarding the amendment process for the 2007 Farm Bill. Last month, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) failed to pass a cloture motion that would have limited debate on the bill, he removed the legislation from the Senate floor until a deal could be worked out over the more than 200 amendments. As of yesterday, Senate leaders agreed that each side can to bring 20 amendments to the floor for a vote. Although there were no votes today, debate went on regarding various amendments.

One possible amendment from Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) would create national nutrition standards for food sold in public schools. The amendment would apply these standards both to cafeteria foods sold in schools participating in the National School Lunch Program, as well as to competitive foods sold outside of the cafeterias, such as in vending and soda machines. The proposed standards would supersede any state standards already in place.

At this point, neither party has released a full list of the 20 amendments they plan to offer, so it is unclear if Harkin’s amendment will come to the Senate floor. If his amendment is not included in the bill, Harkin expressed his desire to attach the amendment to another piece of legislation, possible the omnibus appropriations bill. Although debate could carry past next week, Sens. Harkin and Reid are hoping to have the bill ready for conference with the House as soon as possible, though they do not predict final passage until January.

Resources:
Kim Severson, “Effort to Limit Junk Food in Schools Faces Hurdles,” New York Times, December 2, 2007.
Catharine Richert, “Deal to Consider Amendments Could End Long Gridlock on Senate Farm Bill,” CQ Today, December 6, 2007.
Geof Koss, “Harkin Sees January Completion of Farm Bill,” Congress Now, December 7, 2007.
Author: SAS

Congress Ready to Push Forward with Omnibus

Congress is moving forward on a large omnibus spending bill that will include funding for fiscal year 2008 (FY08) for every government agency except for the Department of Defense, whose appropriations bill was signed into law last month. The omnibus will contain more than $520 billion in discretionary spending, bringing the total spending for FY08 to about $944billion, just $11 billion over the President’s request. This constitutes an $11 billion cut from the Democrats preferred spending levels, a sign that Democrats are much more willing to compromise now that time is short for completing appropriations work. Despite these concessions, the White House shows no sign of backing down from its threat to veto any spending bill that is above the president’s request.

The decision to move forward on an omnibus bill is somewhat risky. Although Congress has only two weeks before the targeted adjournment date, the President has said that he will not sign any omnibus bill. Instead, with the support of some Republicans in Congress, the President continues to advocate for passing each individual spending bill. However, since FY08 officially began over two months ago, Democratic leaders are more concerned with getting the bills passed, and are less concerned with the methods they use to pass them. However, appropriators are working to sweeten the deal, both for the President and Republicans in Congress.

Attempting to meet the President and his supports halfway, Democrats are now proposing total spending for FY08 at just $11 billion over the President’s request. Through the joint budget resolution, Congress had originally decided on levels that came in $22 billion above the President. The omnibus bill, which will make its way through the House by next week if Democrats have their way, also contains about $30 billion for war funding, and up to $7 billion in emergency funding for programs favorable to Republicans. Appropriators are hoping this will keep the President from vetoing the omnibus bill, which would leave the government without any funding authority, causing a government shutdown. The House Appropriations Committee is currently working on their proposal, scheduled for release next week.

Appropriators are using a somewhat interesting tactic for proposing the bill. Rather than proposing it as a standalone bill, they plan to attach the omnibus to H.R. 2764, the State-Foreign Operations bill, which has already passed both the House and the Senate. Now, the House can vote on the Senate-passed bill, and attach the omnibus as an amendment. From there, the Senate can debate and amend the bill. Normally, there are no amendments to conference reports, but this tactic allows for a quicker process. Once the Senate amends the bill, the House can vote solely on the amendments from the Senate. This allows Congress to bypass the normal process where each House passes the bill, goes to conference with each other and then passes it again through each house.

The government is currently operating under a continuing resolution (CR) that runs through next week. The CR is funding government agencies at the fiscal year 2007 (FY07) levels. A CR usually provide short term funding, to prevent a government shut down despite Congress’ failure to pass the fiscal year’s appropriations bills on time. Last year, Congress passed a long-term CR to run for the duration of FY07. Democrats, blaming the decision on the former Republican majority’s inability to finish their own work, promised during the 2006 midterm elections that such drastic measures would not be necessary if they were in the majority. As such, leaders are hesitant to pass another CR, even if it is intended to run only through January. However, both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have conceded that another CR may be required if the President vetoes an omnibus bill with enough Republican support to sustain it.

Throughout the entire appropriations process, the White House has maintained that the President will veto any spending bill that is too far above his budget request. Democrats promised fiscal responsibility in the last elections, and the President seems intent on enforcing that promise. This year, he vetoed both the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill, as well as the FY08 Labor-HHS-Education bill because of excessive spending. In both cases, Congress was unable to override the veto because at least 145 Republicans in the House voted with the President. Those same Republicans will decide the outcome of this standoff.
Politically, President Bush has no reason to compromise with Democrats since he does not have to worry about another election. Therefore, the Democrats’ only leverage lies with Republicans in the House who do have an election to get past next year. That is not to say that the President does not have a stake in the deal, but Democrats are not likely to withhold war funding over the standoff. No one wants to be accused of withholding money from troops because of political reasons. Therefore, Democratic leaders are working hard to win over their Republican colleagues, in hopes that passing an omnibus by a veto-proof majority will prevent the President from following through on his threats. If not, Democrats will still have additional time to get the votes they need to override a veto.
Resources:\
David Clarke and Liriel Higa, “Democrats Come Up With a Procedural Gambit to Complete Fiscal 2008 Spending,” CQ Today, December 6, 2007.
Ashley Roque, “Democratic Leaders Raise Prospect of Another CR as Spending Stalemate Continues,” Congress Now, December 5, 2007.
Author: SAS

Final Regulations on Direct Grant Programs

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) posted final regulations regarding Direct Grant Programs today in the Federal Register. Through these regulations, ED’s prior regulations governing the determination and recovery of indirect costs by grantees are amended to address procedural aspects related to the establishment of temporary indirect cost rates.

The final regulations specify the temporary rate that will apply to grants generally and clarify how indirect costs are determined for a group of applicants that apply for a single training grant. These regulations are effective January 7, 2008.
According to ED, these final regulations impose no additional burdens on applicants for discretionary grants or recipients of those grants. The final regulations merely specify the rate at which grantees can recover indirect costs during a temporary period when the grantee does not have an indirect cost rate recognized by the Federal Government and establish procedural requirements regarding temporary indirect cost rates. While these final regulations prohibit a grantee from recovering indirect costs if the grantee has not submitted its indirect cost proposal within the 90 days after the date ED issues the Grant Award Notifications, the burden and timing of submitting an indirect cost rate proposal under the procedures in the Federal cost principles do not change at all.

You can view the Federal Register notice at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2007-4/120707a.html.

Higher Education Bill Still Not Ready for President

In addition to appropriations work, Congress still must prepare a Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization bill for the President. The Senate passed their version earlier this year, but the House Education and Labor Committee finally passed their own version just before the Thanksgiving break. The bill, H.R. 4137, still needs to get through the House floor before the bill can go to conference with the Senate.

Following previous efforts in Congress this year, H.R. 4137 looks to help rein in the rising cost of higher education, making it more affordable for middle and low-income families to send their children to college. The bill increases the maximum authorized Pell grant for low-income college students to $9,000 per year, from $5,800, and would allow the grants to be used year-round. The bill will also:

• Streamline the federal student financial aid application process;
• Make textbook costs more manageable for students by helping them plan for textbook expenses in advance of each semester;
• Strengthen college readiness programs;
• Increase college aid and support programs for veterans and military families;
• Improve safety on college campuses and help schools recover and rebuild after a disaster;
• Ensure equal college opportunities and fair learning environments for students with disabilities; and
• Strengthen the nation’s workforce and economic competitiveness by boosting science, technology, and foreign language educational opportunities.

It is unclear how quickly Congress will move on the bill, but momentum picked up last month when Congress decided not to move forward on reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. House and Senate leaders want to push at least one major education reauthorization package through before the end of the year, but the time constraints may force lawmakers to carry efforts over into next year.

Omnibus Bill Likely for Final Appropriations Measure

With only three weeks before the current continuing resolution (CR) runs out, Congress has very little time to complete work on a final appropriations for fiscal year 2008 (FY08). Under a time crunch like this, it is likely that appropriators will choose to move forward with an omnibus package, covering various government agencies and programs. Meanwhile, President Bush continues to issue a veto threat to any omnibus package sent to his desk. If the two sides cannot reach an agreement in by the end of the month, the country may face a government shutdown.

The President already vetoed the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill last month. Congress originally allocated about $10 billion more that the President requested for those agencies. Overall, Congress is calling for $22 billion more for FY08 appropriations that the president requested in his budget proposal. Due to what he deems as “excessive spending,” Bush continues to levy veto threats at any bill that comes in too far above his budget requests.

Appropriators in both chambers have already offered to “meet the president halfway,” by bringing the total appropriation levels to just $10 billion over the president’s request, but the White House has not shown any sign of compromising. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, and if the final omnibus package is not passed by a veto-proof majority, then Congress will either have to pass a CR or face a possible government shutdown.

Meanwhile, appropriators plan to attach a new state children’s health insurance program (SCHIP) proposal into the omnibus bill. Within that proposal, lawmakers intend to include language that would place a two-year moratorium on any changes to payments for school-based services under Medicaid. A similar provision made it through with the first SCHIP proposal, but died when Congress failed to override the President’s veto.

The final showdown will come towards the end of month, with various possibilities determining the outcome. Politically, vetoing an omnibus bill that funds multiple government agencies is more difficult than killing individual bills. However, since the president does not need to seek reelection, his personal political concerns are not as complicated as they have been in previous years. If he chooses to veto the bill, Congressional Republicans will have to decide if they will back his veto, possibly hurting their own chances at reelection. If a veto is not possible, Democrats will have to decide if they will risk a government shutdown by making a stand against the president, or if they will let down their own constituency by bringing spending levels down to the President’s budget request. Whichever path the process decides to follow, this should be an interesting Holiday season.

Report Shows States Circumventing NCLB Policies

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) will not happen this year. Senator Kennedy (D-MA), The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pension (HELP), removed the matter from the Senate’s overbooked 2007 end of the year agenda. This allows advocates and Congressional staff to take time to consider the law’s next reiteration, so the advocacy that happens from now until the beginning of next year will likely play an important role in informing that deliberation.

One of the first reports to fill that space comes from Kevin Carey of the Education Sector, the Pangloss Index: How States Game the No Child Left Behind Act. The report, named after the character in Voltaire’s Candide who insisted that we live in the best of all possible worlds, is a damming chronology of how, according to Carey, the Alabama Department of Education, with illustrative examples from Birmingham City Schools, was able to secure waivers from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that eviscerated the law’s intent. The report takes the reader from 2001 to 2007 and details the waivers granted by ED.

These waivers, claims Carey, allowed Alabama to demonstrate academic progress under NCLB, but the reality was very different. Despite the well-publicized statements of progress made by the state superintendent and the Birmingham City School Board, their test scores were not praise worthy. The state was not truly improving in its academic achievement and Birmingham City Schools’ population continued to decline because parents sought better schools for their children. Alabama was merely successfully gaming the system, and ED was a conspirator because it granted the waivers.

In response, Carey recommends that Congress require ED to grant less waivers and make the process more manageable, that the reauthorized law be more specific about acceptable statistical behavior, and that the reauthorized law promote shared standards in order to reduce the profusion of state by state accountability gaming. The report argues that the law’s mechanisms and approach are correct -- but that it runs counter to the sentiment now emerging in Washington.

The more fashionable opinion, a judgment based on unscientific and personal discussions, is that the law has been trying to do too much all at once and that it is a Rube Goldberg structure that combined the political civil rights moralism of the 60s with unrealistic goals and ineffective behavior modification tools. As such, it is not working and, if it is to succeed, Congress will have to restructure the law completely. Small tweaks, the kind argued for by Carey, will not do. Yet, this debate, between tweaking and fundamental revision, rages on and it gives Members of Congress and their staff plenty to think about over Thanksgiving and well into the next year(s).

Resources:
Kevin Carey, The Pangloss Index: How States Game the No Child Left behind Act (Education Sector: November 2007), http://www.educationsector.org.
Author: DAD

Achievement Gap Receives Attention This Week

This week, the National Center for Education Statistics released The Nation’s Report Card: 2007 Trial Urban District Assessment in Mathematics. The report presents school-district-level results of the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) Mathematics 2003, 2005, and 2007 assessments at grades 4 and 8 for 10 urban public-school districts, and it is a treasure trove of data. Among the data, unfortunately, is evidence that the achievement gap between white and minority students (particularly black and Latino) remains a significant challenge for educators.

If there is any fortunate news in this, it is that the data fueled discussion at the two-day Achievement Gap Summit in California. Hosted by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, the national event drew over 4,000 California educators (some from across the country) who gathered to hear from more than 125 leading education experts on ways to address and eliminate the racial and economic achievement gaps.

“We know every child has the ability to succeed academically, yet so many of our students are struggling in school,” said O'Connell. “As public school classrooms in California and across the nation become increasingly diverse, the most pernicious and challenging education issue of our time is the academic achievement gap. During this Summit, I am asking participants to speak out openly and courageously, to take an honest look at the reasons why this gap exists and to explore solutions for removing barriers to student success.”

The presentations and conversations were, indeed, very open and courageous because they tackled the issue of race head on – not socio-economic gaps, not trend line data and policy wonkery, but race as an element to address alone. According to state test score results, poor white students are still doing better than affluent Latino and black students, and that prompted Superintendent O'Connell into action. “We do have to look internally at our own philosophies, our own expectations and make sure we're challenging all students. We cannot have low expectations for any student or certainly for any group of students,” said O’Connell. The event sparked more questions than answers, no doubt, but the frank and open discussion was an important step in the right direction, a step that most public officials have not dared to take.

Resources:

The Nation’s Report Card: 2007 Trial Urban District Assessment in Mathematics (IES: NCES, November 2007), http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008452.
The California Department of Education, http://www.cde.ca.gov/.
Ana Tintocalis, “Education Officials Say Racism Sets Students up for Failure,” KPBS [CA], November 15, 2007, http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=10217
Author: DAD

President Issues Executive Order for Government Program Efficiency

On Tuesday, the President issued an Executive Order on “Improving Government Program Performance”. This Order sets forth a policy of spending “taxpayer dollars effectively, and more effectively each year. Agencies shall apply taxpayer resources efficiently in a manner that maximizes the effectiveness of Government programs in serving the American people.” The Order calls for the heads of the various executive agencies to approve clear annual and long-term goals defined by objectively measurable outcomes and specific plans for achieving the goals.

Plans should include assignments to specified agency personnel of the duties necessary to achieve the goals and the authority and resources necessary to fulfill such duties. The plans should also provide ways to measure progress toward achievement of the goals and efficiency in use of resources in making that progress. Finally, the plans should also include mechanisms for ensuring continuous accountability of the specified agency personnel to the head of the agency for both achieving the goal, as well as effectively using resources to do so. Agencies are also directed to keep their websites updated with information relating to program performance, as well as updates on implantation of the achievement goals.
Furthermore, the Order calls on heads of agencies to assist the Director of the Office of Managements in Budget (OMB) in making appropriations recommendations to Congress that are justified based on objective performance information and accurate estimates of the full costs of achieving the annual and long-term goals. The Director of OMB is instructed to keep the information relating to the various agencies’ efforts readily available to the public, through the internet or the Federal Register.
The Order directs heads of agencies to designate Performance Improvement Officers. These officers are employees of an agency who is a member of the Senior Executive Service or equivalent service. Their duties include:
• Supervising the performance management activities of the agency;
• Advising the head of the agency with respect to a program administered in whole or in part by the agency;
• Convening specified agency personnel or appropriate subgroups thereof regularly throughout each year to assess performance of each program administered in whole or in part by the agency;
• Assisting the head of the agency in the development and use within the agency of performance measures in personnel performance appraisals, and, as appropriate, other agency personnel and planning processes; and
• Reporting to the head of the agency on the implementation within the agency of the policy of effectively spending tax payer dollars.
Finally, the Order creates an Operation of Performance Improvement Council, under OMB. The council will consist of the OMB Deputy Director for Management (who shall serve as Chair), agency Performance Improvement Officers, and such other full-time or permanent part-time employees of an agency, as determined by the Chair with the concurrence of the head of the agency concerned. The Council’s objective is to effectively implement the policy set forth on the Order by:
• Developing and submitting recommendation to the OMB Director regarding performance management policies and requirements as well as criteria for evaluation of program performance;
• Facilitating the exchange among agencies of information on performance management, including strategic and annual planning and reporting, to accelerate improvements in program performance;
• Coordinating and monitoring a continuous review by heads of agencies of the performance and management of all Federal programs that assesses the clarity of purpose, quality of strategic and performance planning and goals, management excellence, and results achieved for each agency's programs, with the results of these assessments and the evidence on which they are based made available to the public on or through the internet;
• Developing an internet website that provides the public with information on how well each agency performs;
• Monitoring implementation by agencies and reporting to the OMB Director, together with any recommendations of the Council for more effective implementation of such policy;
• Promptly reviewing and providing advice, at the request of the head of an agency, on a proposed action by that agency to implement the policy; and
• Obtaining information and advice, as appropriate, in a manner that seeks individual advice and does not involve collective judgment or consensus advice or deliberation.

You can view the text of the Executive Order at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071113-9.html.
Author: SAS

Senate Fails to Move Forward on Farm Bill

The Senate was unable to invoke cloture on H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill. Cloture is the procedure by which the Senate votes to put time consideration on a bill thereby overcoming a filibuster or delay by amendments. The vote, 55-42, fell just five votes shy of the two thirds majority necessary for cloture. Although there is still a remote possibility for consideration next month, this failure will likely put the Farm Bill off until next year. The legislation was automatically extended for an additional year when it expired last month, but farmers, nutrition advocates and the U.S. Department of Agriculture were anxiously awaiting a final version of the bill from Congress.

By failing to invoke cloture, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will not be able to limit debate on the bill. The cloture motion would have allowed for an additional 30 hours of debate, allowing the leadership to manage which amendments were and were not brought to a vote, ensuring only amendments that are germane to the underlying bill come up for consideration. When the Senate does not pass a cloture motion on a bill, that legislation is pulled from the floor. This either kills the bill, or allows the majority to set it aside until they can secure the necessary votes. In this case, it likely means the bill will remain off the floor until sometime next year.

Sen. Reid has mentioned that there is still a very remote possibility that the bill could be brought back to the floor when Congress returns after Thanksgiving. However, the fact that Congress still needs to finish its appropriations work, means that the Farm Bill does not have a very good chance of passage this year. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and the bill's chief sponsor, also hinted that partisan politics may hold the bill back until after the 2008 Presidential elections. Meanwhile, Congressional staffers will likely use the time to work out differences, both between Senators, as well as between the House and Senate versions, as they currently stand.
Resources:

Geof Koss, "Senate Rejects Cloture on Farm Bill," Congress Now, November 16, 2007.
Author: SAS

House Panel Clears HEA Reauthorization

On Thursday, the House Education and Labor Committee passed H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization bill, by a vote of 45-0. The nearly unprecedented bipartisan cooperation goes to show how committed members of the House are to pass the HEA, especially in lieu of reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which was officially placed on the back burner for the remainder of the year. The intense focus on the higher education legislation seems to create a positive outlook for a quick floor debate, speedy conference with the Senate, and hopefully a prompt Presidential signing ceremony, reauthorizing the law for the first time since 1998.

Following previous efforts in Congress this year, H.R. 4137 looks to help rein in the rising cost of higher education, making it more affordable for middle and low-income families to send their children to college. The bill increases the maximum authorized Pell grant for low-income college students to $9,000 per year, from $5,800, and would allow the grants to be used year-round. The bill will also:

• Streamline the federal student financial aid application process;
• Make textbook costs more manageable for students by helping them plan for textbook expenses in advance of each semester;
• Strengthen college readiness programs;
• Increase college aid and support programs for veterans and military families;
• Improve safety on college campuses and help schools recover and rebuild after a disaster;
• Ensure equal college opportunities and fair learning environments for students with disabilities; and
• Strengthen the nation’s workforce and economic competitiveness by boosting science, technology, and foreign language educational opportunities.

After two days of debate, and a marathon session of amendments, lasting until near midnight on Wednesday, the committee is now ready to send the bill to the House floor. Originally, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) had told the press that he would not move forward with the HEA until work on NCLB reauthorization was completed. However, with Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-MA) announcement that the Senate would not move on NCLB this year, Miller decided to push the HEA through the House, hoping to complete at least one major education reauthorization this year. The bipartisan support for the bill, in both the House and Senate, lends credibility to the claim that quick floor passage and a speedy conference could have the bill ready for the President's signature by the end of the year.

During the two day mark up, the committee passed a series of amendments, which would:
• Prohibit the U.S. Secretary of Education from entering into settlement agreements worth $1 million unless the attorney general reviews the agreement;
• Authorize a program to provide grants to train students to serve as school administrators in rural areas;
• Direct lenders in the Federal Family Education Loan and Direct Loan programs to contact borrowers five years after they have selected a repayment plan to determine whether the borrower can enter a shorter repayment plan to reduce interest payments on that loan;
• Require schools to provide financial counseling to student borrowers before they sign the first promissory note;
• Prohibit the U.S. Secretary of Education from developing a federal database of personal information on students receiving aid under the bill;
• Create a program to provide grants to state correctional education agencies and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to help incarcerated individuals get post-secondary education and employment counseling;
• Require schools that receive contributions of more than $1 million for its international studies programs or centers to disclose the source of the donation; and
• Prohibit a student from receiving a federal Pell Grant for more than 18 semesters or 27 quarters.

Resources:
Stephen Langel, "Higher Education Act Heads to Floor; NCLB Delayed Until Next Year," Congress Now, November 15, 2007.
Sara Lubbes, "Committee Approves Bill Boosting Student Aid," CQ Today, November 15, 2007.
Author: SAS

Congress Sends Head Start to President

On Wednesday, both the House and Senate passed the conference report on H.R. 1429, the Head Start reauthorization bill, clearing it for the President’s signature. The bill, which began its travel through Congress last spring, passed the House by a vote of 381-36, and the Senate by a vote of 95-0. Despite certain misgivings regarding faith-based Head Start providers, President Bush is expected to sign the bill. The 42-year-old program serves about 909,000 disadvantaged children, aiming to help prepare them for school academically, emotionally and socially.
The bill authorizes $7.35 billion for fiscal year 2008, $7.65 billion for fiscal 2009 and $7.99 billion for fiscal 2010. New funds would be dedicated to attracting teachers with bachelors’ degrees and for monitoring the effectiveness of Head Start centers. The program hasn’t been reauthorized since 2003.

Through the bill, Congress sets a goal that all Head Start teachers will have at least an associate's degree and half will have a bachelor's degree by 2013. It expands eligibility to families just above the federal poverty level, and directs money to programs for younger children and migrant and Native American students. The White House pushed for inclusion of a provision allowing faith-based Head Start providers to hire based on religious preference. Similar proposals killed the bill in earlier sessions of Congress so it was not included in either chamber this year.
The bill sat in legislative limbo before heading to conference last week. The bill was first introduced in the House in March, and passed through the chamber on May 2, 2007. The Senate did not pick up the bill until June, passing their version on June 19, 2007. The bill then stayed in a pre-conference holding pattern until party leaders decided to move forward with it last week. The cause for the sudden reemergence is most likely due to the decision to forgo any more action on reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Although the Higher Education Act (HEA) may still make it to the President this year, Congressional leaders wanted at least one major piece of early education legislation to make it through Congress.

Resources:
Maria Gold, “Bill to Expand Head Start, Bolster Its Teacher Qualifications Is Approved,” Washington Post, November 15, 2007.
Geof Koss, “Senate Approves Head Start Reauthorization,” Congress Now, November 14, 2007.
Author: SAS

House Fails to Override Appropriations Veto

Late last night, the House failed to override the President’s veto of the fiscal year 2008 (FY08) Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The final vote, 277-141, was 13 votes shy of the 290 votes required to override the veto. The largest domestic spending bill will now go back to square one, leaving Congress with less than a month until the current continuing resolution (CR) runs out and leaving the federal government without any funding authority. Lawmakers are already working on new proposals which they hope the President will sign before the December 14 deadline arrives.

The President had levied a veto threat against the bill even before each chamber passed its own version, based on what he viewed as excessive spending. The final version of the bill called for $10 billion over the President’s budget request for Labor-HHS-Education. Various programs, such as Title I, special education, and career and technical education all received funding increases. In total, Congress’ spending bills for FY08 came in at more than $20 billion above the President’s request. With the Labor-HHS-Education making up at least half of that difference, it was a prime veto target.

Democratic leaders were well aware of the President’s intentions, but sent him the bill as it stood in order to make a political statement. By vetoing the bill, the President provided Democrats with ammunition for accusing him of ignoring the American people by refusing to sign the single largest domestic non-defense spending bill, while asking for billions more for the war in Iraq. Regardless, the President held to his veto promise and sent the bill back to Congress.

Now that the bill is dead, Congress will have to find a different way to get the Labor-HHS-Education bill, along with multiple other spending measures, through the White House’s symbolic veto-wall. This will likely appear in the form of a large omnibus package, containing spending for multiple government agencies. Democrats have expressed interest in reaching a compromise with the White House, possibly by finding a midway point between their proposals and the President’s requested spending levels.

For example, they hope the President would be willing to sign a bill that included around $5 billion or more above his request for Labor-HHS-Education. The President has not yet responded to these proposals. However, if the President receives an omnibus bill right before Christmas, he may not have a choice as a veto would result in government shutdown.

Resources:
Jennifer Bendery, “House Fails to Override President's Veto of Labor-HHS Spending Bill,” Congress Now, November 15, 2007.
Author: SAS

Head Start Almost Ready for President’s Signature

Congress finally moved forward on H.R. 1429, the Head Start reauthorization bill. Both chambers passed their own versions in May and June of this year, but had not gone to conference until this Thursday, leaving the bill legislative limbo. The bill passed out of conference and only requires approval on the House and Senate floors before it finally heads to the President. While the bill does not face a specific veto threat, it does contain certain provisions that may not sit well with the White House. The last Head Start Reauthorization, enacted in 1998, expired in 2003.
Similar to the House and Senate bills, the agreement would raise the income level at which families become eligible for Head Start, from 100% percent of the federal poverty level, $20,560 annually for a family of four, to 130%, $26,728 for a family of four. The conference report requires that half the teachers in the program nationwide have a bachelor’s degree by 2013, and targets new funding toward improving teacher salaries. The bill also expands authorization for Early Head Start, a program that serves low-income youth from birth to age three, and would aim to increase accountability by requiring “programs failing to provide a high quality early education program” to reapply for grant funding.

The agreement authorizes total funding of $7.35 billion for fiscal year 2008 (FY08). That is roughly $450 million more than appropriated this year under the fiscal 2007 spending law. Spending would be authorized at roughly $7.65 billion for fiscal year 2009, $7.9 billion for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as necessary” through 2012. The FY08 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill calls for $7 billion for the program. The appropriations bill faces a likely veto threat, though it is not clear if the $450 million increase from FY97 is reason enough for the President to veto the reauthorization package.

However, one provision that the President pushed for, but neither body included in its own version of the bill, is also missing from the conference report. The White House is advocating for faith-based Head Start providers to be able to hire employees based on religious preference. Similar provisions killed the reauthorization efforts in the 108th and 109th Congress. Despite these concerns, both bills were passed through their respective Houses by overwhelming majorities, making a veto override an almost certainty.

Resources:
Libby George, “Head Start Conference Agreement Appears Headed for Final Passage Next Week,” CQ Today, November 8, 2007.
Author: SAS

House Poised to Move on HEA

The House Education & Labor Committee is set to mark up a reauthorization package for the Higher Education Act (HEA) next week. Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) originally planned to wait until after reauthorizing No Child Left Behind (NCLB), before moving on the HEA. Upon Senator Edward Kennedy’s (D-MA) announcement that the Senate would not move on NCLB this year, Rep. Miller moved up efforts on the HEA, hoping to finish before Congress adjourns for the year.

The Senate passed its own version of the HEA reauthorization earlier this year. S. 1642 would:

• Increase the amount of information that schools and lenders must provide to students, including an up-front disclosure of loan rates and terms and data on total school costs, and would ban lenders from giving schools financial aid funds or any other perks to get on a preferred lender list;
• Direct the U.S. Secretary of Education to assess costs that drive tuition increases and examine ways to contain costs and track pricing trends, alerting schools that the government will monitor tuition increases and consider ways to curb them; and

• Require colleges and universities to draft codes of conduct governing relationships with lenders, shorten the application form for federal student aid, and authorize a pilot program to allow students to learn the total aid they can expect to receive up to two years in advance.

Although Rep. Miller has yet to introduce his own legislation, it is not expected to look too different from the Senate version. Both Miller and Kennedy would like to get the HEA completed before breaking for the year, a fact that Miller may keep in mind when marking up the House bill. Along those lines of cooperation, Miller is not expecting much Republican opposition to reauthorization efforts. House Republicans already introduced their own HEA bill, which Miller may pull from in drafting his own proposal. Miller’s stated goals for the HEA are to:

• Encourage colleges to rein in price increases and provide consumers with helpful information;
• Restore integrity and accountability to the student loan programs;
• Simplify the federal student aid application process;
• Make textbook costs more manageable;
• Strengthen our workforce and our competitiveness;
• Expand college access and support for low-income and minority students;
• Increase college aid and support for veterans and military families;
• Ensure equal college opportunities for students with disabilities; and
• Boost campus safety and disaster readiness plans.

Although the House may be able to mark up and pass the bill next week, a conference between the two versions is not likely until after the Thanksgiving break.
Resources:
Stephen Langel, “Head Start Agreement Bodes Well for Higher Education Act,” Congress Now, November 8, 2007.
Author: SAS

Farm Bill Stalled on Senate Floor

The Senate finally began debate on the 2007 Farm Bill on Monday, only to have it stall and be set aside for the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill. The single largest piece of agricultural legislation spent less than two full days under debate, much to the chagrin of Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA), the bill’s chief author.
Disagreements over the amendment process bogged down progress on the bill, which was taken off the Senate floor for appropriations matters until a deal is worked out.

The farm bill includes an expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). The bill directs $225 million for FY08, if the funding is available. From there, it calls for annual appropriations to dictate the spending levels, though Harkin claims it will lead to about $1.1 billion over five years. Each year, each of the 50 states will receive 1% of the available funds for the program, with the remaining funds allocated based on states’ proportion of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch Program. There is no provision for using a portion of the funds for state administrative matters. The House proposal includes 5% of the grant a state receives for state administrative uses.

State educational agencies (SEAs) are directed to allocate the funds to schools where at least 50% of their students are eligible for free or reduce price lunches. Per student spending at an individual school must be between $50 and $75. If there are an insufficient number of schools that meet the 50% requirement, SEAs are directed to give priority to schools with higher proportions of student eligible for free or reduced price lunches. SEAs are also directed to give priority to schools that combine efforts under the FFVP program with additional nutrition and healthy living programs.

At the outset of debate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made a procedural maneuver known as “filling the amendment tree.” Under Senate rules, the Majority Leader’s amendments take precedence over any other amendments on the Senate calendar. “The Tree” refers to the system by which amendments are brought to the floor. By filling the tree, Reid can keep other amendments from coming to the floor, giving him the discretion to allow only certain amendments through. In the first two days, more than 60 amendments were filed.

The slew of amendments came because lawmakers are getting anxious about passing their own priorities through Congress before the end of the year. Since it is quite possible the Farm Bill will be the last piece of major legislation to pass through the Senate this year, some Senators are trying to attach their own priorities to the bill, such as a repeal of the estate tax, another stab at overhauling children’s health insurance, amendments dealing with the Iraq War, and even labor-related proposals. Sens. Reid and Harkin are speaking with those members proposing amendments, hoping to keep non-germane proposals away from the debate. However, if Reid alienates too many Senators by barring their amendments from the floor, he may not be able to get the 60 votes that are needed to bring the bill to a final vote.

Meanwhile, Harkin is considering moving forward with an amendment that will impose national nutrition standards in public schools across the country. The standards will apply to any elementary and secondary schools that receive funding from any national school lunch or other food-related programs. Harkin’s proposal is an expansion beyond his earlier legislative efforts this year. These national standards would carry over into competitive foods that are sold outside of the school cafeteria, including vending and soda machines. The proposal would also trump any state standards already in place, whether they are weaker or stronger than the federal mandate.

Debate should start back up next week, though progress will depend on whether or not Reid and Harkin can reach a compromise with those wishing to propose amendments. If the bill is not completed by the end of next week, the Thanksgiving recess will likely keep the final vote, and subsequent conference with the House until early or mid-December. It is unclear how quickly the two chambers will pass a conference report out to their respective floors, leaving many across the country worried that final reauthorization for the farm bill will not happen until early next year. Next week’s proceedings may be the deciding factor in the remaining time line for the bill to become law.

Author: SAS

Labor-HHS-Education Bill Headed to White House

Congress is finally ready to send the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill to the President. Although appropriators originally opted to send the bill as part of a package with the Veterans Affairs-Military Construction (VA-MilCon) bill, the Senate decided to divide the two packages, and send them as stand alone bills.

Although the President has said he would sign the VA-MilCon bill, he is expected to veto the Labor-HHS-Education spending measure.

In a political move, Democrats attached the two bills together in order to test President Bush’s resolve in opposing the Labor-HHS-Education bill, which exceeded his request for fiscal year 2008 by about $10 billion. The President assured Congressional leaders he will veto any multiple bill package (called a mini-bus) that comes to his desk. As such, a veto of the two-bill package would give Democrats ammunition, claiming that not only did the President veto the largest domestic spending bill in Labor-HHS-Education, but he also vetoed veterans’ benefits in the VA-MilCon bill. The House approved the mini-bus on Tuesday, despite Republican objections. However, the Senate did not follow suit.

On Wednesday, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), brought a point of order against the mini-bus, claiming it violated Rule 28 of the Senate Rules. The updated Senate rule prohibits Senators from “air dropping” spending provisions into conference reports. Since the conferees that met last week were chosen only for the Labor-HHS-Education bill, the addition of the VA-MilCon bill could be considered a large, air-dropped earmark. Democrats were unable to get the 60 votes necessary to waive her point of order, and the two bills were separated. The Senate passed an amended Labor-HHS-Education bill by a vote of 56-37, well short of a veto-proof majority. The House voted in favor of the amended bill by vote of 274-141, also short of a veto-proof majority.

The President is expected to veto the bill next week, sending it back to Congress. Since neither body passed the bill by a veto-proof majority, an override is unlikely, though not out of the question. Although the President has vowed to veto bills that are too far above his budget requests, Democrats are not likely to reduce spending in the bill by any considerable amount. As such, despite some differences, the levels agreed to in this Labor-HHS-Education bill may very well be the final numbers that are signed into law, probably as part of a large omnibus bill at the end of the year. Here are the major program spending levels (in thousands) currently in the conference report approved by both the House and the Senate:

· ESEA Title I Grants to LEAs $14,311,362

· School Improvement Grants $500,000

· Reading First State Grants $400,000

· Even Start $62,636

· State Agency Program—Migrant $390,212

· Charter School Grants $214,783

· CTE State Grants $1,206,111

· Adult Education $576,525

· NCLB Total $25,267,312

· IDEA Part B State Grants $11,292,425

· Dept of Education Total $60,702,573

Congress is working on giving itself another month to work on final appropriations bills as the House passed another continuing resolution (CR), to keep the government funded through December 14. The CR was attached to the conference report for the Defense appropriations bill, passed by a vote of 400-15. The Senate followed suit last night, clearing the bill for the President by a voice vote. The President has already stated his intention to sign the Defense bill, there by approving the CR. During that additional 30 days, Congress will have to either come up with lower funding levels acceptable to the President, or combine the remaining spending bills into one large omnibus package, framing it as a last resort to force the President sign the congressionally approved funding levels.

Resources:
Jennifer Bendery, “House Approves Stand-Alone Labor-HHS Bill but Fails to Secure Veto-Proof Majority,” Congress Now, November 8, 2007.
Ashley Roque, “House Easily Approves Defense Appropriations Measure With CR but No War Spending,” Congress Now, November 8, 2007.
Author: SAS

NCLB Done For the Year, Though Not Forgotten

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) took some strategic turns this week. On Sunday, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) confirmed what cynical political pundits claimed in January: that the reauthorization would not occur in 2007. “It's going to tip over to next year,” said Sen. Kennedy, but that too may be optimistic.

2008 is an election year and both parties have much to gain from having federal education on their platform. The Democrats stand to reclaim education as their party’s initiative. Republicans stand to rediscover their federalist roots and swing the power pendulum back to state departments of education. Together, the political incentives make 2009 more likely than 2008. Political prognostication, however, is notably unreliable and the fact that so many schools tripping into later stages of corrective action and restructuring makes it evident that something, if not the full reauthorization, must be done in 2008. The question is, what?

This week, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, introduced a bill that provides a glimpse of what Congress may pursue, in lieu of a full reauthorization, in 2008. The bill, the State Student Achievement Contract Act would create a pilot project for 12 states to trade most of No Child Left Behind's requirements in exchange for developing and implementing rigorous states' standards, and devising a clear accountability system and a statewide system of interventions.

As stated by Sen. Alexander when introducing the bill: “In other words, instead of saying: ‘Do it exactly this way' to the states, the federal government would be saying: ‘Give us results, and we will give you more flexibility.’” Twelve states would compete for the flexibility. Each applicant must have:

· Developed rigorous college and work-ready standards that are aligned across K-12 and have been developed in cooperation with the state educational agency (SEA), institutions of higher education and representative of the businesses community; or

Be at least as rigorous as national or international education standards and objectives measuring long-term trends and students’ academic achievement standards and objectives;

· Assurance about the quality and scope of the state assessment system;

· Provided an explanation of the state’s accountability system that includes a description of its:

o Single statewide accountability system;

o Statewide annual measurable objectives;

o Uniform system of identifying schools;

o Uniform and comprehensive interventions (which must include public school choice and supplemental educational service providers, among others);

· An explanation of the state's trajectory that is in place for meeting proficiency targets by 2014 or in up to 3 years and upon graduation from secondary school;

· Assurances of rigorous teacher quality standards;

· A demonstration that the state has an effective data system capable of reporting classroom level data; and

· Assurances that the contract was developed in consultation with either the Governor or the state legislature or both.

Secretary Spellings voiced her support for the pilot. “This legislation is a reasonable and responsible step forward as Congress moves toward reauthorizing No Child Left Behind,” stated Secretary Spellings. “I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Alexander and his colleagues as they develop a law that's in the best interest of America's children.” We will continue to monitor its progress and potential impact as the bill matures in Congress.

Resources:
“Statement by Secretary Spellings on Legislation Proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander,” United States Department of Education, Press Release, November 6, 2007, http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/11/11062007.html.
Author: DAD

Monday, November 5, 2007

GAO Report on Quality of Audits

On October 25th the General Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled Actions Needed to Address Persistent Audit Quality Problems in response to concerns over the quality of single audits. Single audits are annual audits entities that expend at least $500,000 in federal funds are required to obtain. The audits are conducted by independent non-federal auditors and are generally governed by OMB Circular A-133.

The GAO report analyzes a June 2007 study by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) as part of the National Single Audit Sampling Project, coordinated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General. Both the PCIE study and the GAO report indicate there are major problems with the quality of single audits and expressed concerns that audits are not being conducted in accordance with professional standards and requirements. In fact, 51% of the audit reports studied by the PCIE had deficiencies severe enough to be classified as having “limited reliability” or as being “unreliable.”

One of the most common deficiencies in single audits is the failure to adequately test for internal controls over federal compliance requirements. This report, together with recent changes to OMB Circular A-133 (reported in the June 29th Federal Update) that strengthen the requirement for single auditors to report internal control findings, is likely to lead to an even greater focus on grantee and subgrantee control over compliance with federal requirements.

The PCIE made three recommendations to address single audit quality: (1) revise and improve single audit standards, criteria, and guidance; (2) establish minimum continuing professional education (CPE) as a prerequisite for auditors to be eligible to conduct and continue to perform single audits; and (3) review and enhance disciplinary processes to address unacceptable audits and for not meeting training and CPE requirements. The GAO generally agreed with these recommendations, but recommended Congress study whether the recommendations are feasible (especially with regard to the CPE requirements) before making any changes to single audit standards. The GAO also recommended Congress consider strengthening the oversight by cognizant federal agencies, meaning grantees and subgrantees can expect even greater scrutiny of their audit reports by the U.S. Department of Education.

The GAO report is available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08213t.pdf, and the PCIE study is available at: http://www.ignet.gov/pande/audit/NatSamProjRptFINAL2.pdf.

Author: SLK

OIG Issues Report on NCLB Reauthorization

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report, entitled “An OIG Perspective on Improving Accountability and Integrity in ESEA [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] Programs.” Based on its audits of ESEA programs and topics related to the ESEA over the last seven years, OIG identified five main weaknesses or deficiencies that led to noncompliance:

1. Essential, Clear, and Consistent Requirements. The OIG’s report criticizes ESEA’s lack of specificity in stating how an LEA or SEA can demonstrate compliance. It notes that grantees are forced to rely on ED-issued non-regulatory guidance. In addition, OIG observes, certain requirements in NCLB are inconsistent between programs — for example, caps on administrative costs and carryover limitations vary between NCLB programs. The report points out that such inconsistent requirements cause confusion, make compliance more difficult, and may not be based on objective criteria.
2. Data Quality. Valid and reliable data are imperative because academic assessments and accountability data are critical to the implementation of the ESEA. OIG is concerned about the reliability and accuracy of data that SEAs and districts use to determine student achievement and program effectiveness as well as weak state controls over collecting and reporting performance data and scoring state assessments. OIG specifically pointed out that federal funds may have been spent improperly because of poor quality data related to counting migrant children.
3. Weak Monitoring and Oversight. OIG has identified deficiencies in ED’s monitor¬ing of SEAs and in the states’ monitoring of their districts. OIG posited that these weaknesses were particularly apparent in the school choice and SES programs as well as charter schools program.
4. Improprieties in State and Local Programs. The report points out several in¬stances of corruption, embezzlement and other misappropriation of federal funds by state and local officials. It also says conflicts of inter¬est often arise at the district and school levels and that such conflicts may lead to misuse of federal funds. OIG suggests that the ED and Congress consider taking specific actions to (1) enhance transparency in decisionmaking by deterring conflicts of interest at the State and local levels; (2) ensure States identify and provide additional oversight of high-risk subgrantees; (3) establish a reporting requirement for suspected fraud and other criminal misconduct, waste, and abuse; and (4) ensure whistleblower protection for State and local employees and contractors.
5. Program-Specific Issues. The report pointed out that OIG has identified provisions of the ESEA that have yet to be addressed. Therefore, OIG recommended that the Department and Congress consider incorporating the following: (1) Changes to the definition of “weapon” in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communi¬ties Act; (2) More specificity regarding the criteria SEAs use to identify persistently dangerous schools; (3) Alternate approaches to defining SES eligibility; and (4) Clarification of whether Reading First pro¬grams must have scientific evidence of effective-ness to be eligible for funding.

OIG’s purpose in authoring the report was to inform the reauthorization process by providing its perspective on improving accountability and integrity in ESEA programs. OIG stated that it will continue to provide comments, when requested, on specific ED or Congressional legislative proposals.

You can view the report at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2008/s09h0007.pdf.

Author: CWP

Senate Farm Bill Ready for Floor Consideration

The Senate intends to bring the 2007 Farm Bill to the floor for debate this week, finally moving forward on the largest piece of agricultural legislation in the country. Although the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee just passed the bill through carefully-crafted compromises, the bill’s authors are worried about getting bogged down in an onslaught of amendments once the bill reaches the floor. Nutrition stakeholders should be watching both the funding for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) expansion and the proposed amendment regarding national nutrition standards for competitive food.

The Senate bill contains an expansion for the FFVP into all fifty states, with each receiving 1% of the available funding, with additional funds allocated based on a state’s proportion of students available for free or reduced prince lunches. The bill calls for $225 million for fiscal year 2008, contingent on available funds. This is a considerable increase from the $70 million authorized in the House’s version of the bill, though the House bill does not make their spending level contingent on available funds. The final decision on funding falls to appropriators as each fiscal year begins, but the authorized levels at least give lawmakers a mark to aim for.

FFVP advocates are worried about the authorized funding levels currently in the Senate proposal. A number of agricultural and farmer advocacy groups are all lobbying members of Congress for additional funding for a variety of programs. The extra $155 million above the House’s version may prove a desirable target for shifting funding priorities. Most notably, the Farm Bureau, the nation’s largest farming advocacy group, is pushing for additional funding for various farm subsidies, and have already voiced their opposition to Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) proposal of using certain subsidy cuts to fund other priorities, such as nutrition. Harkin and his supporters may have a long road ahead of them to ensure that $225 million funding level remains in the final Senate version of the Farm Bill.

Sen. Harkin is also planning to bring an amendment to the floor that would call for national nutrition standards for food sold outside of cafeterias on public school grounds. In previous years, food and snack companies have lobbied against any such standards, but recently they have offered passive resistance, or even support in certain cases, regarding Harkin’s proposal. The proposal comes from S. 771, a bill which Harkin introduced earlier this year. As the bill currently stands, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is directed to implement the new standards through regulations and guidance. There is no definite timeline for implementation. The current language also places no restrictions on states from enacting their own standards that go beyond those regulated through the USDA.

Harkin and certain nutrition coalitions are currently working on an alternative proposal to the original bill language, which would implement the new standards through its own legislative language, rather than waiting for USDA rulemaking. However, this new negotiated language my bind states to strictly adhere to the national standards, not allowing states the flexibility to move beyond the federal levels. At the time of publication, Harkin had yet to decide which language he would bring to the Senate floor.

Regardless of how Harkin moves forward with his own amendments, there is still no guarantee that the Senate will be successful in moving the bill through the floor debate. Outside of nutrition, there are a number of controversial provisions involving farm subsidies, commodity programs, and other issues that may keep the majority from securing the sixty votes necessary to bring the bill to a final vote. If the Senate successfully passes the bill, there is no timeline set for when the two chambers will conference on the bill. The uncertainty, along with the various appropriations issues still facing Congress point towards a possible failure to pass the Farm Bill before Congress adjourns at the end of the year.

Author: SAS

HEA Extended Through March

As the President signed another extension for the Higher Education Act (HEA), the House Education and Labor Committee held a hearing on the rising cost of college. The hearing, which examined factors contributing to tuition increases as well as possible solutions to help make college more affordable, came on the heels of a report on rising college prices released last week. According to the report, tuition and fees at four-year public colleges have increased by 31 percent in the last five years, after adjustment for inflation. The report, released by the College Board, also found that tuition prices were up at public and private colleges and at two-year and four-year colleges. Through H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, Congress has already taken steps towards making college more affordable, most notably by increasing the maximum Pell grant award. However, as Committee member Ric Keller (R-FL) pointed out, “what good is it for Congress to raise financial aid by $2,000 if colleges increase tuition by $3,000?”

Witnesses at the hearing included:
• King Alexander, President of California State University at Long Beach;
• Dr. John E. Bassett, President of Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts; and
• Jane V. Wellman, Executive Director of the Delta Cost Project in Washington, D.C.

Panelists testified that drastic fluctuations of state appropriations contribute to the increase in costs. Mr. Alexander, in reply, noted that a stricter federal/state partnership would make it more difficult for states to shift the costs of higher education to students, and ultimately, federal tuition-based programs. Witnesses also testified about the non-educational expenses incurred by colleges, such as housing, food, and health services for students. To address price increases, witnesses recommended increasing transparency and making a wide range of data available to families, including student debt information, tuition and fee increases, and information about how colleges and universities spend money.

Prior to this week, George Miller, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, stated that HEA reauthorization would wait until Congress addressed the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). That, however, has proven difficult and now the Committee may address HEA before NCLB. Chair Miller may, in fact, introduce an HEA bill as early as next week and attempt to move it through Committee and bring it to the floor prior to the Thanksgiving break, beginning on November 16th. We will monitor the action closely.

Resources:
Charles Dervarics, “Rising Tuition Raises Ire of Congress, Which Is Constantly Being Asked to Raise Student Aid,” DIVERSE: Issues in Higher Education, November 2, 2007.
House Education and Labor Committee Press Release:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/rel110107.html
Author: SAS

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)