House Subcommittee Holds Childhood Obesity Hearing

The House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities held a hearing on national strategies to fight childhood obesity yesterday. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), chairwoman of the subcommittee, called witnesses to discuss research on the state of wellness policies and nutrition standards for non-lunchroom foods available in schools (like food in vending machines), challenges to implementation of school wellness policies, and the importance of physical education and fitness for America's youth. Although witnesses and committee members referred to H.R. 1363, the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act, the hearing focused more on basic ideas and proposals, as opposed to specific legislative language.


Witnesses at the hearing included:
• Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey (D-CA), who sponsored H.R. 1363;
• Chevy Chase, an actor/writer who co-founded the Center for Environmental Education Online;
• James S. Marks, M.D., M.P.H., the Senior Vice President and Director at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Group in Princeton, New Jersey;
• Virginia A. Stallings, M.D., director of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Nutrition Center and chair of the Committee on Nutrition Standards for Foods in Schools;
• Chandler Converse, a high school student in Marietta, Georgia;
• Ms. Nora L. Howley, Interim Executive Director at Action for Healthy Kids in Maryland; and
• Dr. Phil Lawler, Director for Outreach and Training at PE4Life in Kansas City, Missouri.
Rep. Woolsey testified that Congress should base rules regulating nutrition in schools on common sense reform. She made it a point to discuss her bill, which amends the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to revise the definition of "food of minimal nutritional value." As a condition for federal funding of school lunch and breakfast programs, the sale of “food of minimal nutritional value” is prohibited in areas where school meals are sold or eaten. The revised definition would apply to all food sold anywhere on school campuses (not just where school meals are sold or eaten) at any time of the day, with the possible limited exemption of food sold at school fundraisers.
Mr. Chase framed the argument in terms of investing in children’s health. He pointed out that since the government “invests huge amounts of money - $10 billion in fiscal year 2006 alone - in school lunches and breakfasts, selling chips, candy, and sugary drinks in schools undermines that taxpayer investment.”
All the panelists agreed that regulating the nutritional content of all food sold in public schools is necessary, and that there is also support for increasing nutrition education in public schools. One panelist pointed out that prohibition, in and of itself, will not solve the problem. Instead, prohibiting certain foods and drinks must go hand in hand with educating students about nutrition and healthy living. Panelists agreed that parental involvement is underutilized. While members of the Committee agreed that getting parents involved is necessary, Chairwoman McCarthy made a point to note that Congress cannot mandate parental involvement.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Spellings Testifies Before House Education and Labor Committee

On Thursday, Secretary Margaret Spellings testified before the House Education and Labor Committee on the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) oversight of both the student lending industry and the Reading First program. Unlike the previous hearings on these topics, Secretary Spellings was present to defend her agency’s actions.

Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) did not seem overly satisfied with the explanations Spellings offered, but the hearing ended with a tentative agreement that Congress and ED have more work to do to oversee these programs.
As Spellings, Miller, and Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the committee, gave their opening remarks, it was clear where each participant intended to steer the discussion. Chairman Miller immediately pointed to conflicts of interest uncovered in both programs under investigation. He mentioned copies of contracts between a student lender and five school financial aid officers or other officials. The lender in question compensated the school officials for promoting their services. He also mentioned the conflicts of interest that existed regarding Reading First program officers and royalties they received when the program used a specific instructional tool in which they had a financial stake. Miller made it clear that the responsibility for oversight in these areas lay with ED, and that ED failed to properly enforce the rules and regulations that govern conflicts of interest in government agencies.
Secretary Spellings countered that ED has initiated “thousands” of audits of colleges across the country, even levying fines on specific schools found to be out of compliance with department regulations regarding lending practices. Chairman Miller seemed to disagree with her assessment, mentioning that ED’s audits did not address the specific issues that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo uncovered in recent months. However, Spellings countered that most of the loan scandals involved private lenders, over whom ED has no jurisdiction or oversight. Republicans on the committee, such as McKeon and Rep. Ric Keller (R-FL) reaffirmed Spellings’ claim that she is powerless to stop private lender abuse without Congressional involvement. Rep. Keller was deliberate in explaining that, despite Attorney General Cuomo’s comments blaming ED for “falling asleep at the switch,” his investigations focused solely on private lenders, and not the two federal loan programs.
Spellings did take time to point out that, in her few short years in office, she has brought together the Commission on the Future of Higher Education, as well as beginning a new rulemaking process to deal with lender practices. Not one to sit and take abuse, Spellings made a point to mention that she has initiated the rulemaking process because of inaction on Capitol Hill. Most of Spellings’ testimony, as well as statements from the committee’s Republicans, focused more on how ED and Congress have and can continue to fix the problems in the student lending industry. Miller, McKeon, and Spellings, all paid lip service to the newly passed H.R. 890, the Student Loan Sunshine Act, which sets up new rules regarding preferred lending practices among public universities.
The bill, which passed on a 414-3 vote on Wednesday, will require schools to disclose all relationships with lenders, ban lender staffing of school financial aid offices or help lines and require schools to conduct annual audits. Miller, who recently sent a letter to Spellings asking that she ban preferred lenders lists, compromised on this bill. Instead of abolishing preferred lender lists, the bill simply ensures students have to be informed that they also can borrow from a lender not on the school’s preferred-lender list. The bill also bars aid administrators from serving on bank boards and would ratchet up disclosures required by schools and lenders alike. A similar bill exists in the Senate, though there is no timeline for when the bill will reach the Senate floor.
Although Spellings did not win over Democrats with her explanations and promises of future action, all parties agreed they can do more to reform the troubled system. Miller has referred to the Student Loan Sunshine Act as one step in reforming the student lending practices and college affordability as a whole. While Congress works towards legislation, Secretary Spellings has promised further action towards reforming the lending industry, by forming a task force, along with the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., to look into how the government might better regulate the private student loan market. Spellings is certainly not done with answering to House oversight, and she still has to deal with Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and his committee.
Resources:
Libby George, “House Moves Quickly to Rein in Student Loan Abuses; Senate May Be Slower,” CQ Today, May 9, 2007.
Libby George, “Education Secretary Defends Oversight of Troubled Student Loan Industry,” CQ Today, May 10, 2007.
Doug Lederman, “Sparring With the Secretary,” Inside Higher Ed, May 11, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Budget Conference Begins

The House and Senate met this week to reconcile differences on their respective budget resolutions for fiscal year 2008 (FY08). Although Congress held the first formal conference meeting yesterday, a final agreement is unlikely until next week. The House budget provides $7 billion more in discretionary spending than the Senate measure. Budget Chairmen Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) are contemplating a $20-plus billion boost to the President’s FY08 discretionary funding request for non-security domestic programs. The final budget blueprint should match the White House request for the Pentagon. The conferees are on the clock as appropriators can begin clearing FY08 discretionary spending bills for floor action beginning May 15th, with or without a final budget resolution that sets an overall spending cap.



The Senate bill, S Con Res 21, proposes $9.2 billion more than the President’s proposal on education and training, including $62.1 billion for the Department of Education, $6.1 billion more than requested. The House resolution, H Con Res 99, projects a $153 billion surplus in fiscal 2012. That includes a $1.1 trillion cap on discretionary spending, which is almost $25 billion more than the President’s discretionary request for FY08. The budget plan allows for tax cut extensions and new mandatory entitlement programs, such as a potential $50 billion expansion of children’s health care and $20 billion for farm programs – but only if Congress can offset the costs. The bill provides $83.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for function 500, a 2008 program level that is $3.0 billion over current spending for education, training, and social services.
Once appropriators start their markups, the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill might be the third bill to reach the house floor, following the Homeland Security and Energy bills. Mark up on the Labor-HHS-Education bill could happen as early as next week, depending on what happens with the budget conference. Regardless, House Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee chairman, Rep. David Obey (D-WI), wants the bill passed through committee by Memorial Day (Monday, May 28). That puts the bill on the House floor by the end of May or early June. House majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has June scheduled as “Appropriations Month” on the House calendar. Hoyer claims all appropriations bills will get through the House before the Fourth of July recess.
Resources:
David Clarke, “Budget Negotiators Appear Near a Deal; Jousting Begins on Senate Floor,” CQ Today, May 9, 2007.
Scott Cox, “Budget Conference Set to Begin Today, With Agreement Expected Next Week,” Congress Now, May 10, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

McKeon Introduces SES Legislation

Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Education and Labor introduced a bill revealing a top Republican NCLB reauthorization priority. On Tuesday, McKeon introduced H.R. 2203, the Improving Supplemental Education by Ensuring Parental Awareness Act, a bill designed to increase student access and participation in supplemental educational services (SES).
The bill’s notable provisions include:


• Allowing students attending public schools that do not make AYP for two years to take advantage of the law’s SES services provision;
• Requiring LEAs to document parental awareness that free tutoring options exist for their children or, alternatively, have certain policies in place which have been found to lead to greater participation in SES programs;
• Requiring LEAs to roll over unused SES funds into an SES program account to be used during the following school year(s);
• Allowing school districts to reserve up to one percent of their SES and public school choice transportation funding for activities directly related to the implementation of tutoring programs for eligible students;
• Expanding the current state administrative cap under NCLB to allow additional funds to be used for the sole purpose of improving implementation and oversight of SES programs; and
• Requiring that key data pertaining to these programs be included in the report cards currently provided to parents.

Of those provisions, the first, that SES is available in the first year of school improvement, is the most likely to emerge in a reauthorization bill, but the value of the bill is more political than substantive. It suggests that the Republicans on the Committee are taking a traditional Republican approach to SES, which is to bolster the SES market by expanding the range of available providers, assuring that LEAs do not restrict the funding to the providers and providing parents and the community more information about the services.

Extrapolating that traditional Republican position to the reauthorization, it suggests that the Republicans will likely slow the process in order to challenge the expanded role of the federal government in education. This party, after all, sought to eliminate ED just 9 years ago. If that is true, then an on-time 2007 reauthorization just became less likely.
Resources:

“McKeon Introduces Bill to Strengthen Free Tutoring Options under NCLB,” Committee on Education and Labor, Republicans, Press Release, May 8, 2007, http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=132.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Miller and Kennedy Introduce TEACH Act

On Tuesday, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced H.R. 2204 and its companion S.1339, the Teacher Excellence for All Children (TEACH) Act. The $3.4 billion bill is designed to improve recruitment, preparation, distribution and retention of public elementary and secondary school teachers and principals.


The bill serves four major functions. First, it addresses the recruitment of excellent teachers by providing institutions of higher education incentives to recruit teachers among students majoring in math, science, foreign languages, special education and English language learners and by providing aspiring teachers with tuition and loan support.

Second, the bill would assure that high poverty students have equitable access to quality teachers by providing local educational agencies the funding to distribute annual bonuses for exemplary teachers and by assuring equitable distribution of excellent teachers by making ESEA funding contingent on meeting the law’s teacher equity provisions.

Third, the bill would reward teacher quality by using robust data systems to recognize exceptional teachers, by funding the establishment of fiscally rewarding career advancement ladders, by requiring schools of education to track the results of their graduates, and by requiring the Secretary of Education to study the validity of teacher certification exams.

Finally, it would try to reduce professional turnover by developing teacher induction programs, peer mentoring and review programs, principal certification and professional development and tax relief for teachers and principles in high needs schools.

What does the bill mean for the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)? The chairmen’s introduction of the bills is a clear indication that the Democrats will focus their efforts on teacher quality issues. Yet, this is not new for George Miller who was an original architect of the highly qualified teacher provisions of NCLB. It also provides a framework for debate and legislative language on this topic. Notably, the bill provides a compromise on the pending debate on measuring teacher effectiveness. The Aspen Institute’s Commission on NCLB recommends tying a teacher effectiveness rating to student test scores, but the push-back has been strong because standardized assessments are, currently, blunt instruments and using them to assess teacher quality raises legitimate political and technical concerns. Yet, the Commission and Miller seem to agree that the technical capacity of school instructional management systems will continue to evolve and will, eventually, provide school leaders with powerful analytical tools capable of cross-analyzing teacher quality and student academic progress. How, exactly, that analysis should play out remains in contention, but that it will play out is nearly certain.
Resources:

“Miller, Kennedy Introduce Comprehensive Bill to Promote Excellence in Teaching,” Committee on Education and Labor, May 8, 2007, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/rel050807.html
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

ED Publishes Proposed Rulemaking for IDEA Part C

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) officially released its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the IDEA Part C Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Grant program. The proposed regulations would implement Part C of the IDEA, as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.

Taking the same approach as with the Part B regulations, ED essentially incorporates most of the statute’s requirements, restructuring the regulations and adding clarifications where deemed necessary. The full set of proposed rulemaking is more extensive than the current Part C regulations, which do not incorporate as much of the law.

Because a major goal of the 2004 reauthorization was to create a “seamless system of services” for individuals with disabilities, beginning at birth with the Part C program through age 21 with the Part B program, the NPRM incorporates some applicable Part B regulations in order to align the two programs. For example, the purchase, optimization, maintenance or replacement of cochlear implants would not be Part C covered services. To implement the law’s new flexibility allowing States to continue Part C services through preschool age, the definition of “infant or toddler with a disability” could include, at the State’s discretion, children with disabilities, ages three or older who are eligible for Part B preschool services and who previously received Part C services.

Among the proposed clarifying rules not specifically in the law, the list of “qualified personnel” would include, as special educators, teachers of infants and toddlers with hearing impairments (including deafness) and teachers of the visually impaired (including blindness). ED clearly intends to include teachers of the hearing impaired as special educators in the final regulations, but it requests comment on whether it is necessary to classify teachers of the visually impaired as special educators. The proposed regulations would require all States (not just those in which the State educational agency is not the Part C lead agency) to establish an inter- or intra-agency agreement between the Part C and Part B programs on the logistics of notice, conferences, IFSP content, and transition steps and services. Regarding child referral procedures, the proposed regulations would relax the current two-working day timeframe by requiring that the referral “be as soon as possible.” In addition, the NPRM would allow Part C eligibility to be established based on a qualified personnel’s use of “their informed clinical opinion to assess a child’s present level of functioning,” even when other instruments fail to establish eligibility.

The Department will hold public meetings to consider comments on the proposed rulemaking, although a schedule for dates and locations is yet to be published. Comments on the proposed rulemaking are due on July 23, 2007.

Resources:
The NPRM may be accessed at http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=89281819835+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Author: CPN

Read More...

Summary only...

2007 Compliance Supplement Issued: Time Distribution Questions Remain

This week, the Office of Management and Budget posted the 2007 version of the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement. It is expected to be announced in the Federal Register in the next couple of days.


The OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement is the federal guidance that auditors use when conducting Single Audits. Produced by OMB with the input of participating federal agencies (including the Department of Education (ED)), the Compliance Supplement identifies the specific tests an auditor should apply when monitoring for compliance. Because the document provides a roadmap on the direction of the audit and is updated annually, it is particularly helpful for program administrators preparing for an audit.

In general, the 2007 version of the Compliance Supplement does not reflect many significant differences from the 2006 version. However, a few changes are noteworthy, particularly involving time distribution requirements under schoolwide programs and consolidated administration.
Time Distribution in Schoolwide Programs: The Compliance Supplement newly adopts language from the May 2006 Title I Fiscal Guidance on time distribution in a schoolwide program. The language states that if a schoolwide program consolidates federal, state, and local funds in “a single account,” an employee who is paid with funds from that single account is not required to file a semi-annual certification “because there is no distinction between staff paid with Federal funds and staff paid with State or local funds.”
The language goes on to say that if a schoolwide program does not consolidate funds in a single account, an employee who works solely on a single cost objective must furnish a semi-annual certification. Employees working on multiple cost objectives must maintain monthly time distribution records.
While not explicitly stated in this guidance, we understand from conversations with ED officials that the schoolwide plan is considered to be a single cost objective.
Neither the Compliance Supplement nor ED guidance defines what “a single account” involves. Our conversations with ED officials indicate that they intended the “single account” to refer to the use of a single “schoolwide accounting code” for the labeling of all costs captured in the schoolwide plan. However, additional written guidance from ED is essential before districts can fully maximize the flexibility potentially available in a schoolwide program.
In the absence of clarification from ED through guidance or the Compliance Supplement, we recommend districts take a conservative approach and maintain a semi-annual certification on schoolwide employees reflecting time spent on the single cost objective of the schoolwide plan, or monthly PARs reflecting time split between the schoolwide plan and another cost objective.
Time Distribution under Consolidated Administration: The Compliance Supplement from 2006 stated that consolidated administration is considered to be a single cost objective and that the semi-annual certification requirements under OMB A-87 applied. To meet the semi-annual certification requirements, the 2006 version gave two options: 1) maintaining the certification every six months, or 2) through time and attendance certifications under normal standards for payroll documentation. Under the second approach, if:
(1) the standards for payroll documentation comply with A-87 standards,
(2) the employee is coded to a “dedicated function” (i.e., single cost objective) in the state’s or district’s payroll system, and
(3) the employee’s potential assignment to multiple programs/ activities is not within the authority or purview of the supervisor responsible for certifying time and attendance for payroll, then
the payroll certification shall be accepted in lieu of the semi-annual certification of time and effort.
The 2007 Compliance Supplement largely reverses the assumption underlying that interpretation. The 2007 version simply states “[a]n employee who works on a Federal program whose administrative funds have been consolidated is not required to file a semi-annual certification.” The Compliance Supplement no longer discusses how the district might meet applicable semi-annual certification rules (including through the 3 steps noted above). Rather, it suggests the semi-annual certification rules no longer apply.
The basis for this new interpretation is unclear. In the schoolwide setting, the explanation for not requiring a semi-annual certification seems to be because federal funds are combined with state and local funds – specifically, as stated in the Compliance Supplement, “because there is no distinction between staff paid with Federal funds and staff paid with State or local funds.” Consolidated administration, however, generally affects only federal programs under the NCLB; thus the schoolwide reasoning would not be applicable. (While state and local funds may be combined with federal NCLB administration funds, the state and local funding must be used only for allowable purposes under the federal statute.)
With the new language on time distribution under schoolwide programs and consolidated administration, numerous important questions remain unanswered. We will continue to track these issues closely and provide you with the latest information that we obtain.
Internal Controls: The 2007 Compliance Supplement reflects some recent fiscal findings from program reviews dealing with needed improvements in internal controls. Officials from ED have noted that in cases where grantees rent or lease buildings or equipment from an affiliate organization, the costs associated with the lease or rental agreement can be excessive. The Compliance Supplement alerts the auditor to the fact that the measure of allowability in such “less-than-arms-length-relationships” is not fair market value, but rather the “costs of ownership” standard as referenced in each OMB cost principles circular. This reflects a trend we have seen coming from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer whereby fiscal monitors are closely reviewing the internal controls of states and districts.
Highly Qualified Teachers: The Compliance Supplement states that all teachers of core academic subjects must be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year, as indicated in the statute. The 2007 version advises auditors that most states, however, have negotiated a plan to come into compliance with the HQT requirements by the end of the 2006-07 school year.
Other changes in the 2007 version deal with higher education issues and are not addressed in this summary.
Resource:
The 2007 Compliance Supplement can be accessed through the following link: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/grants_circulars.html
Author: KTC

Read More...

Summary only...