Fiscal Year 2008 in Full Swing

The fiscal year 2008 (FY08) appropriations cycle is well underway and this week was quite busy. The Budget Committees in the House and Senate are responsible for preparing a budget resolution (BR) that sets the federal spending caps. The process of setting the caps is called the 302(a) process, named after its authorizing section in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This week, the Senate Budget Committee began that 302(a) process by offering a plan that increases discretionary spending in FY08 by $18 billion over President Bush’s request. According to Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), the plan would balance the budget by 2012 while adding $6.1 billion more for the U.S. Department of Education in FY08.



Next week’s Senate floor debate on the resolution will be heated because Conrad’s plan makes many assumptions that are not probable and the Republicans will expose that. In order to achieve a balanced budget by FY 2012, the plan assumes: nearly $500 billion more in tax revenue over five years, that the percentage of discretionary spending will drop from now through 2012 and that all war funding ends by 2010. “It’s a budget from the Land of Oz,” said Judd Gregg (R-NH), the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.

When the House and Senate eventually approve their BRs, the House and Senate Appropriation Committees move the process along by taking the 302(a) spending caps and performing 302(b) distributions to their respective House and Senate Appropriation Sub-committees.

In preparation for this upcoming 302(b) step, the House and Senate Apportions Subcommittees on Labor, HHS and Education held hearings on the proposed FY08 education spending this week. On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the House Subcommittee on Labor, HHS and Education held hearings to review the President’s budget request for the U.S. Department of Education (ED). Secretary Spellings went before the Subcommittee on Monday. Deputy Secretary Ray Simon went before the Subcommittee on Tuesday, and Under Secretary of Education Sarah Martinez Tucker and the Director of the Institute of Education Science Grover Whitehurst went before the Subcommittee on Wednesday. In sum, the message to the Administration was clear: the proposed budgets are insufficient and House Appropriation Subcommittee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) promised to invest more money into education. His displeasure was clear.

The Administration’s request is … 10% below 2005 levels after adjusting for inflation and for population growth. The NCLB funding is down 7% below the 2005 levels after adjusting for inflation and population growth. The President’s ‘08 budget also shrinks the federal commitment to cover a portion of the costs of special education for almost $7 million students. The request is almost a billion less than the 2005 levels … and we can go on and on.

On Wednesday, the Senate Subcommittee on Labor, HHS and Education hosted a panel to review the President’s education budget request and it was just as uncomfortable for Administration officials. According to Subcommittee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA), the requests, dating back to 2002, have simply been insufficient to meet the program’s requirements. “The more I get into it really a matter of resources,” said Harkin, “They [schools] are simply not getting it and I do not see the request for funding in your budget.” As in the House Appropriations hearing, the Senate Committee appears ready to provide more funding for education.

The Senate hearing then became tense when Harkin expressed the Committee’s serious concerns with how the U.S. Department of Education was implementing the money they now receive, citing the Office of Inspector General’s scandalous Reading First Audit. Secretary Spellings detached herself from the findings by stating that she was not “micromanaging” ED programs at the time, but this clearly did not reduce the Committee’s displeasure about the way ED has managed their funds to date.

Resource:
United States Senate Committee on Appropriations, http://appropriations.senate.gov/index.cfm
United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_lhhse.shtml
“Budget Testimony,” United States Department of Education, March 14, 2007, http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2007/03/03142007b.html
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

The Impact of the Republican NCLB Rebellion

On Thursday, Republicans in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would allow states to opt out of the No Child Left Behind Act’s (NCLB) current accountability regiment. As the Congressional minority, Republican legislation tends not to draw much attention, but the political implications of these bills are worthy of consideration.






Representative Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) introduced HR 1539, The Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act of 2007 (A-PLUS). The bill would give states the option of providing the Secretary of Education with a “declaration of intent” to assume full responsibility for the education and require states to report information annually to parents and the general public about the State’s student achievement assessment system, demonstrating student progress. The bill already has more than 50 co-sponsors including House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO). Jim Boehner, the former Chairman of the House Education and Labor and an original NCLB architect, has not signed onto the law, but the fact that his second in command has signed on indicates the bill’s potential support.

On the Senate side, Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) also introduced an A-Plus Act that is very similar to the House companion version. The bill would allow states to opt out of the current NLCB accountability regime in exchange for establishing a 5-year Performance Agreement with the Secretary of Education. It would also give states flexibility to consolidate federal education programs and funding and redirect these resources to state education reform initiatives.

The bills’ text, however, is not as critical as the potential political implication. In 2001, the conservative Republicans hesitantly rallied behind President Bush soon after 9/11 and voted NCLB into law. But after five years of implementation, with dwindling public support for the law and the President’s popularity down to a near 30% approval rating, the conservative Republican support is vanishing. More importantly, Republicans are beginning to collaborate with liberal Democratic groups that also want to prune the expanded federal role to its pre-NCLB days, such as the National Education Association and their allies. The consequence is that liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are merging to isolate the law’s core supporters that include Representative George Miller (D-CA) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), the Chairmen of the House and Senate education committees.

What does this mean for the 2007 reauthorization? It means that this is not an ideal political environment for Miller and Kennedy to force a vote on the law’s core accountability provisions, if in fact they are serious about preserving those provisions and if they are able to draft bills by the end of the year. This would throw NCLB into the fire of the 2008 Presidential election and onto the desk of the next President in 2009. As Representative Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), the ranking member on the House Education and Labor Committee said, "It was a struggle getting it passed last time. It'll be even more of a struggle this time.”

Resources:
Andrew Rotherham, “How Bush Stole Education,” Blueprint Magazine, March 25, 2002, http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250319&kaid=110&subid=900023
Jonathan Weisman and Amit R. Paley, “Dozens in GOP Turn Against Bush's Prized 'No Child' Act,’ Washington Post, 3/15/2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402741.html
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Joint Hearing on NCLB

The House Education and Labor Committee held a joint hearing with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee on reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Although HELP Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and a few other senators attended, the hearing seemed more of a House event with a few guests from the other side of the Capitol. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), the ranking member on the HELP Committee, was not even present at the hearing, though he did submit written statements for the record. Notably absent were Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), two presidential hopefuls on the HELP Committee. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), another committee member with presidential aspirations, attended the hearing, but remained uncharacteristically silent and did not stay for the entire hearing.




The panelists at the hearing included:

· Gov. Roy Barnes, Aspen Institute Commission on No Child Left Behind;

· Elizabeth Burmaster, Council of Chief State School Officers;

· Mike Casserly, Council of Great City Schools;

· Wade Henderson, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights;

· Ed McElroy, American Federation of Teachers;

· Arthur J. Rothkopf, Business Coalition for Student Achievement; and

· Reg Weaver, National Education Association.

The hearing was primarily a forum for members of Congress, as well as the panelists, to demonstrate their support for the law and to highlight their own recommendations and suggested improvements for reauthorization. That regulars in the education community, such as Weaver and Casserly, were chosen as panelists suggests that members were only interested in hearing well known positions.

One factor that set this hearing apart from others, aside from the fact that it was seemingly bicameral, is that no other hearing has covered as many aspects of the federal education law. The topics discussed included highly qualified and effective teachers, greater flexibility in meeting adequate yearly progress, the use of growth models, better incorporation of longitudinal data, making provision for physical education and possible expansion of NCLB into high school. However, the broad range of discussion meant that more-specific proposals were not discussed, with members of the committee limited to a short amount of time to question the panelists.

Although this hearing can accurately be considered the first major step towards reauthorization, the fact is that no new proposals were discussed, no specific legislation was mentioned, and no timeline was set for completion of the reauthorization process. Members and panelists used the time to posture and give useable sound bytes for their positions and recommendations. The enthusiasm for the bicameral hearing quickly dissipated, leaving anyone who expected this to help ensure a 2007 reauthorization with a distinct feeling of disappointment. 2009 remains the most likely date for final reauthorization.

Resource:
House Committee on Education and Labor, http://edworkforce.house.gov/
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

House Committee Passes Head Start Bill

On Wednesday, the House Education and Labor Committee approved H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007, by a vote of 42-1, with Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), casting the only opposing vote. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee passed their own Head Start bill last month, so although no date has been set in either chamber for debate on the floor, final reauthorization is expected to pass through relatively quickly.




The committee passed H.R. 1429 with fourteen amendments. The most prominent amendment was a manager’s package that increases the maximum income level at which families become eligible for Head Start, from 100% of the federal poverty level, $20,560 annually for a family of four, to 130% or $26,728 for a family of four. The Senate bill, S. 556, has a similar provision. Various other amendments, sponsored mainly by Republicans, were subsequently defeated prior to passage.

Rep. Luis Fortuño (R-PR) sponsored an amendment that would allow Head Start providers to hire employees based on religious preferences. Under current law, faith-based groups that receive government grants to run Head Start programs can hire staff based on religion for any program except Head Start. Fortuño’s amendment would have allowed them to hire Head Start teachers and support staff based on religion. Republicans said the religious hiring language is worth its weight in controversy because it could help faith-based organizations expand their participation in the program, which provides early education for children from low-income households. Bill sponsor Dale E. Kildee (D-MI) and other Democrats on the committee strongly opposed the provision, claiming it would roll back civil rights and weaken Head Start. The amendment was defeated on a party line vote of 19-26.

Another failed Republican amendment, offered by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), would have authorized a pilot project for eight states to take over their local Head Start programs. Price claimed the provision would help coordinate efforts so children would be better prepared for elementary school. Kildee and other Democrats, however, said it would “end the Head Start program as we know it” by relinquishing authority to states without requiring them to meet federal standards. The amendment also failed by a party line vote.

The bill would boost authorized funding to $7.4 billion for fiscal year (FY) 2008 and “such sums as necessary” through FY 2012. The last reauthorization expired in 2003, but the program has been extended since then by annual appropriations. The program received $6.9 billion in FY 2007. As it stands now, the amended measure will:

· Require at least 50 percent of Head Start teachers to have a bachelor’s degree by 2013 (the Senate version makes this a non-binding goal);

· Allow Head Start providers to use up to 10 percent of their funds to transport children; and

· Authorize grants for tribal colleges and Hispanic-serving schools to develop associate and bachelor’s degree programs for Head Start staff.

Resources:
Libby George, “House Panel Defeats Faith-Based Hiring Before Advancing Head Start Bill,” CQ Today, March 14, 2007.
Rebecca Kimitch, “Head Start Reauthorization Wins House Panel’s Approval,” CQ Today, March 14, 2007.
Stephen Langel, “House Panel OKs Head Start Bill Despite Bitter Fight Over Religion,” CongressNow, March 15, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

New Expandable Posts

Testing

A whole lot more

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Hearing on Teacher Quality

Last Tuesday, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) held a No Child Left Behind (NCLB) hearing entitled Strategies for Attracting, Supporting, and Retaining High Quality Educators. “America’s most at-risk students are too often taught by the least prepared, the least experienced and the least qualified teachers,” observed Chairman Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA). “Students in high poverty and high-minority schools are twice as likely to be taught by new, inexperienced teachers. Such teachers are less likely to receive the pay and support they need and they often leave their school or leave teaching all together, further destabilizing already struggling schools.”



So, what strategies address the problems successfully? As the nine-person panel of experts demonstrated, there are many, but getting any to scale is the challenge. The panel included:

1. Pam Burtnett, President, Lake County Education Association, Florida;

2. Dr. Linda Darling Hammond, Professor of Education, Stanford University, Stanford California;

3.Amy Wilkins, Vice President, The Education Trust, Washington, DC;

4. Barbara Maguire, Teacher and Math Instructional Facilitator, Park Elementary School, Casper, Wyoming;

5. Dr. William Sanders, Senior Manager, Value-added Research and Assessment, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina;

6. Jon Schnur, Chief Executive Officer, New Leaders for New Schools, New York, New York;

7. Jesse Solomon, Director, Boston Teacher Residency, Boston, Massachusetts;

8. Wanda Watkins, Principal, Thurgood Marshall Elementary School, Richardson, Texas;

9. Dr. Beverly Young, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, Teacher Education and Public School Programs, California State University, Long Beach, California.


The experts provided a broad spectrum of school, district, state and organization strategies to improve teacher quality and retention. The evident theme of the hearing was that there are many ways to address the issue, but the Committee sought something more difficult – a way to weave the strategies together into a federal approach that could be part of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorization.

While no epiphany delivering such a federal strategy manifested itself, there were common themes in the testimonies that could end up in the reauthorized law. The following list highlights the most common testimony themes and identifies issues that will likely warrant more attention as NCLB reauthorization unfolds:

§ NCLB’s three-part definition of a highly qualified teacher seems to have been accepted. No testimony questioned the requirements reasoning;

§ NCLB’s existing highly qualified teacher provisions have been poorly implemented;

§ Teachers need better career ladders. Their career paths must be exciting and challenging. Programs such as the Teacher Advancement Program, the Boston Teacher Residency, and the California State University Math and Science Teacher Initiative provide program designs that Congress may consider to promote at a national scale;

§ Teachers need better ongoing professional development early and throughout their careers;

§ The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards has been successful and will likely gain more attention;

§ The principal is critical to school success and its successful leadership programs should be based on system-wide, results-based strategies;

§ The teaching profession should develop better financial incentives to draw qualified teachers to hard-to-staff schools;

§ The learning environment is critical. Small class size promotes good learning environment;

§ When educators have reliable measures of student progress, such as value added growth models, they tend to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses to the benefit of classroom instruction.

That the testimonies presented so many varying strategies may ultimately support a point made by Dr. Hammond, Dr. Sanders and Pam Burtnett in their closing comments: that a single federal approach may not be appropriate and that more innovation and study is needed.


Resource:
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, “NCLB Reauthorizations: Strategies for Attracting, Supporting, and Retaining High Quality Educators,” http://help.senate.gov/Hearings/2007_03_06/2007_03_06.html.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Harkin Introduces New Child Nutrition Bill

The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee held a hearing on child nutrition in schools. The purpose of the hearing was to allow members of the nutrition field to voice their opinions on the state of and future of nutrition programs. Panelists included:


> Ms. Janey Thornton, Child Nutrition Director for Hardin County School District;
> Ms. Teresa Nece, Director of Food and Nutrition at Des Moines Public Schools;
> Ms. Susan Neely, President and CEO of the American Beverage Association (ABA);
> Ms. Mary Lou Hennrich, Executive Director of the Community Health Partnership;
> Dr. Kelly Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

The panelists referenced opportunities to improve nutrition in the Farm bill, which is up for reauthorization this year, but Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) went beyond that. He and other nutrition advocates believe that the growing issue of childhood obesity is problematic enough to warrant more immediate and significant action. According to Harkin, current federal regulations limiting the sale of junk food in schools are very narrow and have not been updated in almost 30 years, despite major changes in nutritional science during that time. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that, today, 99% of high schools, 97% of middle schools and 83% of elementary schools have vending machines, school stores or snack bars. The most common items sold out of school vending machines, school stores, and snack bars include soda and sports drinks, salty snacks, candy and high-fat baked goods.

To address the matter, Harkin used the hearing to unveil his new legislation on child nutrition. S. 771, the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2007, amends the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to improve the nutrition and health of school children by updating the definition of “food of minimal nutritional value” to conform to current nutritional science and to protect the Federal investment in the national school lunch and breakfast programs. Harkin has tried to pass similar legislation in previous sessions of Congress without success.

Harkin believes his bill will address antiquated standards and vending machines by requiring updated nutritional standards for all foods sold at school, and would apply those standards to all foods sold during the school day everywhere on schools grounds. However, food and vending industries, represented by lobbyists such as Neely, will likely lobby Congress to make sure that any new measure does not go too far in restricting what products can be sold in school vending machines.
Although no one verbally opposed the legislation, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) said he is worried schools will lose valuable income from vending machine and snack bar sales. Neely also mentioned other consequences of enacting policies that make serious cuts into the vending industry, citing that ABA’s members employ more than 211,000 people who produce U.S. sales in excess of $99 billion per year. According to American Economics Group, Inc., direct, indirect and induced employment in the beverage industry means over 3 million jobs that create $280 billion in economic activity. At the state and federal level, beverage industry firms pay more than $30 billion of business income taxes, personal income taxes, and other taxes with over $14 billion in taxes paid to state governments alone.

The fact is that no one is against child nutrition. The only worries come from fear of negative economic effects of regulating the food and vending industry. No Senator wants to be known as the person who is against healthy schools, but neither do they want to be held responsible for denying jobs and revenue to the food industry.
Harkin introduced a similar bill in the 109th Congress, but was unable to get the bill off the ground. With his own party in control of Congress, Harkin and his supporters are much more optimistic about passing the first real child nutrition measure in years. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) also introduced H.R. 1363 this week in the House, which is a companion to Harkin’s bill.

Resources:
Joseph S. Enoch, “Senate Eyes Stricter School Lunch Standards,” Consumer Affairs, March 6, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Leaders Push Competitiveness Measure

Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced S. 761, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science (COMPETES) Act of 2007. This bill is the latest manifestation of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which has been a Congressional buzz term since the President began the initiative in early 2006 in reaction to the National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. Despite the buzz, no bills have made any significant progress on Capitol Hill. However, S. 761 is unlike last year’s predecessors in that it is sponsored by both Democrat and Republican Senate leaders.



COMPETES looks at improving mathematics and science education. Senators said they hope to keep the United States competitive with China, India and other rapidly growing technological powers by authorizing more spending on a number of federal research and education programs. The bill would double the budget of the National Science Foundation, from $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 (FY06) to $11.2 billion by FY11. The bill would focus attention on elementary and secondary education programs by:

> Establishing new summer training programs for teachers at the National Laboratories and at the National Science Foundation;
> Assisting states in the development of specialty schools in math and science;
> Expanding Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs by increasing the number of teachers prepared to teach those courses; and
> Creating partnerships between the National Laboratories and high-need high schools to establish math and science centers.

A similar bill failed in the 109th Congress, but the party leaders in the Senate have pledged their full support to this effort and have promised to bring the bill to the Senate floor as early as next month. There does not appear to be any real opposition to the bill and Senators, such as Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT), see the bill as the first of several efforts to boost competitiveness through federal attention to education. Additional steps will appear as the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind proceeds.

On the House side, Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) has stated his intention to reinstate the "innovation agenda" he and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) introduced in 2005. Miller wants to increase the number of college graduates entering the technology and engineering fields by promoting his own math and science education agenda instead of the Bush administration's ACI. There is, however, no current House counterpart to S. 761 at this time.

Resources:
Jessica Brady, "Miller To Push His Own Competitiveness Plan Over Bush's," National Journal, February 20, 2007.
Michael Sandler, “Senators Push Bill Aimed at Math, Science Education Improvements,” CQ Today, March 6, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...