President Nominates New Higher Education Chief

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced that President Bush is nominating Diane Auer Jones to the position of Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

Prior to her nomination, Jones served as Deputy to the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. She has also served as Director of the Office of Government Affairs at Princeton University, as well as Program Director in the Division of Undergraduate Education at the National Science Foundation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iowa and Ohio Join the Growth Model Pilot

On Thursday, The U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced approval of two more growth models states, Ohio and Iowa, bringing the pilot total to seven or the ten available pilot openings.

Iowa is immediately approved to use the growth model for the 2006-2007 school year. Ohio's growth model is approved on the condition that the state adopt a uniform minimum group size for all subgroups, including students with disabilities and limited English proficient students, in AYP determinations for the 2006-2007 school year.
All participants must abide by ED’s “bright-line” principles for the growth models:
• 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 system.
Resources:
“Secretary Spellings Approves Additional Growth Model Pilots for 2006-2007 School Year,” U.S. Department of Education, Press Release, May 24, 2007, http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2007/05/05242007.html

Read More...

Summary only...

Early Childhood Issues

On Wednesday, Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY) presented the most detailed education initiative of the escalating 2008 presidential campaign.



The proposal would expand pre-kindergarten classes to all children by creating a pre-K matching grant system. States would have to establish high quality plans, as defined by Clinton’s proposal, for making voluntary pre-K services universally available for all four-year olds in the state. In exchange for this plan, the federal government would provide matching grants that would increase over time. Where state-committed and federally matched funds are insufficient for universal access to pre-K, the plan would place a priority on assistance for low-income families and for kids learning English. States would be able to use these funds to expand their Head Start programs.
The federal government would allocate $5 billion in the first year to states to establish and administer universal Pre-K. Over the next five years, the federal commitment would increase to $10 billion as states increase their commitment to Pre-K.
Sen. Clinton’s proposal is a likely indication of proposals to come. Early childhood investment has been popular for years in Washington, but the Brookings Institute has been actively promoting the early education programs by touting the educational and fiscal benefits, something that campaigning politicians are eager to hear in tight financial times. Early childhood investment, argue Jens Ludwig and Isabel Sawhill of Brookings, delivers great return on the investment:
The United States currently spends around $7,300 on elementary and secondary public schooling for each school-age child (five to seventeen years old), for a total of around $530 billion. But family background generates large differences in child outcomes well before children start school and even before they are old enough to participate in the federal government’s preschool program for disadvantaged children. [….]
The program that Brookings has proposed, and that Sen. Clinton is echoing, would provide early intervention and, they claim, generate economic and social benefits that would far exceed the program’s costs while providing efficiency savings to the government throughout the student’s education career. This is a win-win for federal deficit reduction, public education and other related social programs. Accordingly, we can expect to see a number of similar proposals throughout the presidential election cycle and, potentially, in the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.
Resources:

“Success by Ten: Intervening Early, Often and Effectively in the Education of Young Children,” February 2007, http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/views/papers/200702ludwig-sawhill.htm
“2 Candidates to Roll Out Domestic Proposals,” New York Times, May 21, 2007.
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Parents May Represent Themselves in IDEA Due Process Cases

On Monday, May 21, 2007, the Supreme Court determined that parents may represent themselves without an attorney when bringing a complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. ____ (May 21, 2007).

The Supreme Court ruling now permits parents who remain dissatisfied after the administrative determination to file a civil lawsuit on their child's behalf, in federal court, and without an attorney on any IDEA-related claim.
Jeff and Sandee Winkelman are the parents of Jacob, an autistic child receiving special education services. The original complaint alleged that Jacob’s individualized education program (IEP) failed to provide him with a free and appropriate education (FAPE), as required under IDEA. The Winkelmans spent $30,000 in legal fees for representation in the original hearing and before a review office. When the hearing office and then the review office found in favor of the school district, the Winkelmans appealed again, but hoped to represent themselves as they could no longer afford legal representation.
The Winklemans, neither of whom is an attorney, appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Parma City School District filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s appeal because they were prosecuting the appeal without a lawyer. On November 4, 2005, before any briefing on the merits of the appeal, the court of appeals granted the motion determining that the Winkelmans had to obtain counsel for the appeal.
More than a year and a half later, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Court, said, “[p]arents enjoy rights under IDEA; and they are, as a result, entitled to prosecute IDEA claims on their own behalf…. It is beyond dispute that the relationship between a parent and child is sufficient to support a legally cognizable interest in the education of one’s child; and, what is more, Congress has found that ‘the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by … strengthening the role and responsibility of parents and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children and at home.’” Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. ____; (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(5)).
Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented in part, and argued that while parents could represent themselves under IDEA, they should be limited to only claims relating to personal procedural violations and reimbursement issues.
While this ruling makes it easier for parents to protect their child’s rights, the concern is that it will increase the number of frivolous lawsuits. Parents who were previously hesitant to bring a lawsuit without an attorney may now feel more confident in bringing their cases forward. Parents tend to be unfamiliar with the law, the legal process, and may be less likely to settle cases because they tend to lack third party objectivity, which could make this ruling expensive for schools.
Resource:
Full Opinion located at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-983.ZS.html
Author: TRW

Read More...

Summary only...

House Passes Lobbying Bill

More than a year after the Jack Abramoff scandal brought lobbying and ethics reform to the forefront of the political arena, the House finally passed a new lobbying reform bill yesterday, amid internal strife and multiple accusations from Republican leaders that the bill is a watered-down version of the bill that passed through the Republican House last year. H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, passed by a vote of 396-22, after the minority won two key victories in shaping the bill they criticized as too weak to affect the lobbying and ethics problems on Capitol Hill.

The Democratic leadership brought up two separate lobbying bills yesterday, including H.R. 2317, the Lobbying Transparency Act, which amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require registered lobbyists to file quarterly reports on contributions bundled for certain recipients. House Republicans were able to amend the bill to require lobbyists to disclose whether they had bundled donation checks for political action committees. The amendment passed 228-192. Republicans were then able to attach the bill as an amendment to H.R. 2316, the larger lobbying overhaul bill.
The bill is now ready to go to conference with S. 1, the lobbying reform package the Senate passed at the beginning of the year. Under the two bills, lawmakers would have to reveal negotiations for private-sector jobs while still serving in Congress and would have to recuse themselves from any legislation where there could be a conflict of interest with potential employers. The lobbying provisions affect only activities involving Congress. They would not apply, for example, to former members who wanted to lobby the administration or state governments. The House bill would double the civil penalties for violating the disclosure rules, from $50,000 to $100,000; the Senate bill would permit fines of up to $200,000.
The biggest difference between the two versions is the Senate’s proposed two-year lobbying ban by former members of Congress. The House rejected a similar provision in the Judiciary Committee markup May 17th, and House members are unlikely to embrace anything beyond the current one-year “cooling off” period before members can cash in and lobby their former colleagues on Capitol Hill.
Resources:
Martin Kady II, “House Passes Lobbying Overhaul,” CQ Today, May 24, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Consolidated Education Tax Credits Proposed

On Tuesday, Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), introduced H.R. 2450, the Universal Education and Lifetime Learning Act, a bill to consolidate and expand the Hope Credit, the Lifetime Learning Credit, and a tuition and fees credit into one education tax credit worth up to $3,000 annually.


A full credit would be available to families making $100,000 annually, while partial credit would go toward families making as much as $160,000. The bill would also provide a refundable 50 percent credit, which could be used for tuition and, notably, for non-tuition costs, such as room and board, books and other supplies. According to Rep. Emanuel, “This bill makes college more affordable and accessible for the middle class and provides a significant investment in ensuring that our workforce remains the envy of the world.” While that statement may be more bravado than reality, a simplification of the IRS paperwork in conjunction with an expansion of the tax benefits is certainly welcomed.
The Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to mark up the bill after the week-long Memorial Day break. We will continue to track its progress throughout the year.
Resources:
“Emanuel, Camp, Bayh Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Tax Bill to Make Higher Education Universal,” Congressman Rahm Emanuel, Press Release, May 27, 2007, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il05_emanuel/highered.html
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

House Passes Math and Science Omnibus Bill

On Monday, the House passed H.R. 2272, an omnibus bill that incorporates several bills focused on improving U.S. global competitiveness in math and science. The bill includes language from previously passed bills (H.R. 362, H.R. 363, H.R. 1867, H.R. 1868, H.R. 1068) and is now set to go to conference with S. 761, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science (COMPETES) Act, which passed the Senate by vote of 88-8 on April 25.

The House bill reauthorizes the National Science Foundation (NSF) at $21 billion through fiscal 2010. The bill also reauthorizes the National Institute of Standards and Technology for the first time in more than a decade, at a total of $2.5 billion through fiscal 2010. The bill also authorizes $1.5 billion through fiscal 2012, including $664 million in scholarships for math and science majors who commit to teaching those subjects in “high-need” schools, and authorize federal grants through 2012 for early-career scientists and engineers at universities and other organizations. Congress has not set a conference time for the bill yet, but the White House has already spoken out against the “excessive” funding levels.
Congressional leaders have stated their intent to have the bill signed this year, but negotiations over the cost of the omnibus bill and a tightening legislative calendar threaten to undermine this promise.
Resources:
Kathryn A. Wolfe, “Proposed House Math-Science Omnibus Could Ease Conference With Senate,” CQ Today, May 18, 2007.
Kathryn A. Wolfe, “House Wraps Science, Math Bills Into Omnibus,” CQ Today, May 21, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress Passes New Supplemental Appropriations Bill

On Thursday, Congress passed another emergency supplemental appropriations bill (ES) for spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous domestic projects. The current ES, H.R. 2206, does not contain the binding withdrawal language of the version that President Bush vetoed, but it still contains about $20 billion more then the President’s request, funding various domestic programs. The Senate passed the $120 billion ES last night, by a vote of 80-14. The House Democratic leaders decided to split the ES vote up by two amendments. One amendment focused solely on the $22.2 billion in domestic spending, which passed 348-73. The other amendment, which contained funding for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas, passed by a vote of 280-142, with 140 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting in opposition.

Similar to the first ES, H.R. 2206 contains $425 million for a one-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Act. The SRS program allocates funds to support more than 4,400 rural schools and to help maintain county road systems. The program expired in 2006, and many rural schools have operated with massive budget cuts, or have shut down altogether, due to the loss of funds. When the first ES, H.R. 1591, passed through the Senate in April, it contained an amendment that provided $5 billion for a five-year reauthorization of the program. That amendment did not make it into the conference report for H.R. 1591, and neither chamber made any significant push to add it to H.R. 2206.
The vote is considered a defeat for the new Democratic Congress because the Senate Democratic leadership could not establish enough bipartisan support to override Bush’s veto on troop withdrawal. Democratic leaders have vowed to continue the debate on the war in Iraq, but for now the President is getting his money with no stings attached.
Resources:
Liriel Higa and Josh Rogin, “Democrats Vow to Fight Another Day on Iraq,” CQ Today, May 24, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

New Rulemaking on Direct Grants

On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the determination and recovery of indirect costs in direct grant programs. The proposed regulations would amend sections 75.560 (dealing with temporary indirect cost rates), 75.562 (dealing with indirect costs in training grants) and 75.564 (dealing with group awards under training grants) of the Education Department General Administration Regulations (EDGAR).

Temporary indirect cost rates: Under current regulations, grantees must have negotiated indirect cost plans in place in order to charge indirect costs to federal grants. ED has the authority to approve a temporary rate for grantees who do not have existing indirect cost plans in place; however, as a practical matter this is rare. The proposed regulations would make it easier to obtain a temporary rate.
Under the proposed rule, grantees must submit indirect cost plans to their cognizant agencies (the agency responsible for approving indirect cost plans) within ninety days after receiving a direct grant from ED. During that time, ED can authorize the grantee to charge a temporary rate of 10% of the direct salaries and wages included in the grantee’s approved budget. If the grantee submits a plan to its cognizant agency within the first ninety days of the grant award, then it may continue to use the temporary rate until the plan is approved. If the grantee does not submit a plan to its cognizant agency by the ninetieth day, the temporary rate expires and the grantee must discontinue charging indirect costs to the grant.
Once a final rate is approved, the grantee must make adjustments to ensure its total recovery does not exceed the approved rate.
Training grants: Part 75 of EDGAR provides special rules for indirect costs in educational training grants. Training grants generally support instructional activities such as summer institutes, training programs for selected participants, or the introduction of new or expanded courses, as opposed to activities simply related to the development or dissemination of educational materials. Grantees under training grants may recover their actual indirect costs (as determined under a negotiated indirect cost plan); however, the recovery of non-governmental grantees is capped at eight percent.
Indirect cost plans generally determine the ratio of a pool of indirect costs (numerator) to a base of direct costs (denominator). The base consists of “modified total direct costs.” Current regulations define modified total direct costs as all total direct costs minus stipends, tuition and related fees, and capital expenditures of $5,000 or more. The proposed regulations would remove the reference to “capital expenditures of $5,000 or more” and replace it with “equipment.” They would also clarify that any amount of a sub-award exceeding $25,000 must be excluded from the base as well.
The NPRM addresses two somewhat controversial issues. Regarding equipment, ED’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) has been somewhat inconsistent in how it treats items purchased with federal funds. EDGAR defines equipment as all tangible personal property with a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more unless the state sets a lower threshold. EDGAR then requires grantees and subgrantees to track equipment as part of an inventory management system. Notwithstanding EDGAR’s clear definition of equipment, OCFO monitors have cited state and local education agencies for failing to track items below the $5,000 threshold – items that legally constitute supplies and do not need to be tracked. At the same time, the preamble to the proposed indirect cost regulations make clear the OCFO will follow the EDGAR definition for purposes of indirect costs. Thus, the OCFO seems to apply different criteria for “equipment” in different contexts.
Regarding sub-awards of more than $25,000, OMB Circular A-87 requires state and local education agencies to exclude “major” contracts from their indirect cost calculations. Neither A-87 nor EDGAR currently defines what constitutes a “major” contract; however, OMB Circulars A-21 and A-122 do set the threshold at $25,000. In order to be consistent, federal agencies have generally agreed that a major contract is a contract exceeding $25,000. The proposed regulations would finally clarify this rule in the context of direct training grants. It is important to note, however, that ED applies the same limitations in state-administered programs as well.
Group Grants: The proposed regulations would clarify that when a training grant is provided to a group of eligible recipients, the grant funds allocated between group members do not constitute sub-awards for purposes of calculating and applying indirect cost rates.
Interested parties can comment through June 25, 2007.
Author: SLK

Read More...

Summary only...

NAEP History and Civics Scores Rise

On Wednesday, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released data from the 2006 U.S. History and U.S. Civics National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in grades 4, 8, and 12. History scores rose in all three grade levels, but civics scores rose only among 4th graders. This is good news for Secretary Margaret Spellings and the U.S. Department of Education (ED), who are constantly defending the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements for math and science, when critics claim the focus is taking away from other subjects, like history and social studies.

“While critics may argue that NCLB leads educators to narrow their curriculum focus, the fact is, when students know how to read and comprehend, they apply these skills to other subjects like history and civics, and the result is greater academic gains,” Spellings said. The rise in U.S. History scores is important for ED, especially at the 12th grade level, where students are consistently testing at flat or declining levels on math and science. While Spellings may be able to use this data to deflect criticism of NCLB’s math and science focus, the debate is far from over.

On the U.S. History test:

· 70% of 4th graders performed at the basic level or better, meaning some of them scored at proficient or advanced levels. That is up from about 66% in 2001. 4th graders who can work at the basic level should understand the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty, for example.

· Among 8th graders, 65% performed at the basic level or better, up from 62% in 2001. 8th graders working at that level can typically identify slave states on a map.

· While there has been an increase in 12th-grade history scores — a rare occurrence on National Assessment of Educational Progress tests — the results are still not seen as great news. Just 47% know at least basic-level history, up from 43% in 2001. Seniors working at the basic level should be able to explain the historical context of Supreme Court decisions.

· There was no change in the percentage of students performing at or above the "proficient" level, at any grade level. About 20% reached that mark in the 4th and 8th grades, as did 14% of high school seniors.

In U.S. Civics:

· 73% of 4th graders performed at the basic level or higher — up from 69% in 1998. 4th graders working at the basic level know that only citizens can vote in the United States.

· 70% of 8th graders could do basic work or better in civics — the same percentage as in 1998. 8th graders demonstrating basic knowledge should be able to identify the term limit for the president.

· 66% of 12th graders scored at the basic level or higher, also the same as the 1998 results. A student whose performance falls in that category should be able to identify a leadership position in Congress.

· About a quarter of 4th and 8th graders rated "proficient" or better, and almost a third of seniors did.

You can view both NAEP reports at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.

Resources:
Sam Dillon, “Students Gain Only Marginally on Test of U.S. History,” New York Times, May 17, 2007.
Stephen Sawchuk, “NAEP History Scores Rise in 3 Grades,” Education Daily, May 17, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

House Subcommittee Hearing on Teacher Preparedness

On Thursday, the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness held a hearing on preparing teachers for the classroom. The subcommittee discussed proposals for efficiently using Title II funds to ensure adequate instruction and preparation for those going into the teaching field. The discussion included Title II funding under both No Child left Behind (NCLB) and the Higher Education Act (HEA). With both pieces of legislation slated for reauthorization this year, the education community has the opportunity to amend the provisions under both national programs.

Subcommittee Chairman Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) opened the hearing by stressing the importance of having effective teachers in public elementary and secondary schools. The process for ensuring effectiveness, Hinojosa conceded, begins with the college and university programs that educate those teachers. The first step, as always seems to be the case, is highlighting the failures of the system. Chairman Hinojosa pointed out that the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey shows that 41.2% of teachers in the country had limited English proficient (LEP) students in their classrooms, yet most are not trained to teach these students. According to the report, only 12.5% of teachers had more than 8 hours of training in how to teach these students.

Together, NCLB and HEA put about $3.6 billion into Title II programs annually, $3 billion under NCLB and $60 million under HEA. The witness testimony at the hearing centered on how to adequately funnel those funds to improve teacher quality. Witnesses at the hearing, representing organizations such as the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Region One Education Service Center, the Carnegie Corporation, and National Center for Alternative Certification, suggested that the reauthorized laws should authorize funding for:

· Better state data systems, which would be designed to track teachers from their preparation programs into schools;

· Stronger clinical fieldwork experiences, especially in high-need urban school districts;

· Professional development programs tied to specific state standards and curricula;

· Sustained induction programs for new teachers; and

· Performance-based assessments for teachers that include components requiring teachers to reflect upon and change their practices.

All of the suggested reforms attempt to gear the nation’s public education towards more effective teachers instructing the neediest students in elementary and secondary public schools. However, the discussion on Thursday focused more on educating current and future teachers, and did little to address ways to entice already effective teachers to high-need districts. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) seemed to be the only subcommittee members to address the issue as a top priority, but was unable to generate more discussion before the subcommittee adjourned. While the hearing is only a preliminary step towards ensuring teacher quality, it is likely the beginning of a controversial debate on ways of measuring teacher effectiveness, a prime concern for NCLB reauthorization.

Resources:
Stephen Sawchuk, “Subcommittee Puts Title II Funds Under Microscope,” Education Daily, May 18, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

NCLB: Week In Review

Congress was busy with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) this week. Secretary Spellings sought to distinguish the reauthorization from the Congressional investigations into Reading First and the student loan scandals, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor hosted other members of Congress for a hearing on the reauthorization and bills were introduced that may have a good chance of working their way into reauthorization language. To be sure, the reauthorization momentum grew this week, even if it remains somewhat disjunctive.

Secretary Spellings is very eager to get the process underway in order to complete reauthorization while President Bush is still in office. One day after the contentious oversight hearings on Reading First and student loans, Spellings sent a cordial letter to the House and Senate education committee chairmen and ranking members asking them to make a distinction between their oversight activities and their reauthorization duties, and to discuss the reauthorization over lunch. She wrote:

I acknowledge your committee’s oversight function. I look forward to answering your questions and those of other members, and to meeting with any members who would like to discuss these matters in further detail. […] I am hopeful that the pursuit of oversight will not delay moving forward legislatively on these two important laws. [….]

I believe the coming weeks afford us the opportunity to collaborate to strengthen NCLB and the HEA. So that we may best prepare for this essential work, I offer to convene, at the earliest opportunity, a working luncheon with you and your staff. Together, we can make progress that will benefit America’s students, parents and taxpayers.

While Spellings warm outreach is welcomed, it does not make the work of the chairmen any easier. They must still negotiate the law’s many technical sections and secure political consensus around the changes. The work around Title I’s accountability sections will be the most contentious and this week’s represen­tatives-only hearing in the House Committee on Education and Labor made that clear.

On Wednesday, members of the House Education and Labor Committee held a bipartisan meeting to hear recommendations from other members of Congress on ways to improve the NCLB. Twenty-five members of the House presented their opinions of the law that covered a wide range of topics, mostly regarding Title I accountability. Most supported growth models, but the meaning of a growth model remained uncertain. Most wanted more flexibility for the assessment of limited English proficient (LEP) students and students with disabilities, but details were sparse. Many felt that the law is too punitive and expressed concerns about expanding the law’s testing provisions. There were so many varying opinions, in fact, that Education Daily described the task of reauthorization as follows: “If the House education committee’s representatives only hearing is any indication, NCLB reauthorization could be a cat-herding contest at best.”

While consensus on many Title I issues remains complicated, there is emerging clarity around Title II. Chairman Miller is a strong supporter of the existing highly qualified teacher requirements and, for years, he has been trying to supplement them with his Teacher Excellence for All Children (TEACH) Act, which he introduced last week. The bill, H.R. 2204, would provide $3.4 billion to improve recruitment, preparation, distribution and retention of public elementary and secondary school teachers and principals. The Washington NCLB intelligentsia believe that the Chairman will fold this bill into a new Title II bill, while retaining many of its existing requirements and allowing for more credentialing flexibility using the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE).

This week also provided hope, if not clarity, for Title II (D), the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT). Under Republican leadership the program has program has fallen from an investment of $700 million to the current $273 million level of funding, but education appropriations chairmen Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Representative Obey (D-WI) are considering more funding for the program in fiscal year 2008. Advocates would like to see funding restored to the 2002 level of $700 million, but the chairmen have yet to subject the request to the give-and-take politics of appropriations negotiations. In addition to more funding for FY08, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) is expected to introduce a revamped Title II(D), titled Achievement Thorough Technology and Innovation (ATTAIN). The proposal improves on EETT, including a better acronym, by authorizing $1 billion for fiscal year 2008, of which 40% would go towards rigorous and ongoing professional development and 60% would go towards professional development or technology tools. The bill gives priority to schools in school improvement status with large populations of LEP students or students with disabilities. It would also promote technology literacy by creating a definition of student technology literacy and requiring that states assess technology literacy by the 8^th grade. The bill’s advocates report that the proposal has been very well received and that its language stands a good chance of being incorporated into the reauthorized NCLB Title II (D).

Finally, this week also saw the introduction of a bill that could influence community and parental participation in reauthorization. On Tuesday, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD) introduced H.R. 2323, the Full-Service Community Schools Act of 2007, a bill to award grants for the support of full-service community schools, which are defined as schools that participate in a community-based effort to coordinate educational, developmental, family, health, and other comprehensive services through community-based organizations and public and private partnerships and that provide access for students, families, and the community to such services. The bill would authorize $200 million for FY2008, of which 20 percent would go to state educational agencies that collaborate with at least two other state agencies for purposes of planning, coordinating and expanding full-service community schools. Five percent would go to technical assistance, training, data collection and evaluation. Daniel Cardinali, the President of Communities In Schools, Inc. and an architect of the bill, considers it a complement to the law’s current parental involvement requirements and hopes that it will make it as a stand-alone bill or become a part of the reauthorized NCLB. But its fate, he acknowledged, lies with the chairmen of the education committees and the politics of reauthorization ahead.

Resources:
“Secretary Spellings Invites House and Senate Education to Convene on No Child Left Behind,” US Department of Education, Press Release, http://www.ed.gov/print/news/pressreleases/2007/05/05112007a.html
Sarah Sparks, “House cires Usual Suspects for Reauthorization,” Education Daily, May 18, 2007.
David Hoff, “Miller Signals Openness to ‘Substantial Changes' to NCLB in Reauthorization,” Education Week, May 17, 2007.
“Education and Labor Committee Hears from Members of Congress on Ways to Improve No Child Left Behind,” House Committee on Education and Labor, Press Release, May 16, 2007, http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/edlabor_dem/RelMay16NCLB.html
Coalition for Community Schools, http://communityschools.org/HOyerleg.html
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

ED Proposes New Migrant Education Program Regulations

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) recently published its proposed amendments to the Migrant Education Program (MEP) regulations in the Federal Register. The proposed changes were motivated, in large part, by the results of OIG audits and investigations of several states’ MEP programs over the past year that found significant errors in state counts of children eligible for the program. Because MEP allocations are based on state counts of eligible children relative to other states, ensuring accurate and consistent determinations of student eligibility under the program across the states is very important to ED.

The proposed regulations aim to improve accurate and consistent state counts in several ways. First, the proposed regulations clarify and expand upon the definitions governing who is a “migratory child.” For example, the proposal includes changing the definitions for “agricultural work” and “fishing work” to clarify that they do not include activities that may be related to agriculture or fishing but are not inherently agricultural or fishing work. To highlight this distinction, ED provides an example explaining why factory work processing wheat into flour would not qualify as “agricultural work.” Several similar definition clarifications are made in an attempt to better detail MEP eligibility requirements.

Second, the regulations establish a mechanism to adjust the base amounts of the MEP basic state formula grant allocations for FY 2006 and subsequent years. In addition to adjusting the base amounts for state formula grant allocations, the proposed regulations establish requirements for SEAs to develop and implement rigorous quality control procedures in order to improve the accuracy of MEP eligibility determinations and state counts of eligible migratory children. This includes a new requirement for SEAs of annual re-interviewing for improved quality control. Under the proposed regulations, states generally will be required to use a face-to-face approach to conduct these annual interviews.

Comments on the proposed regulations must be received by June 18, 2007. The proposed regulations can be found on ED’s website at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2007-2/050407a.html.

Author: JSM

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress Passes Budget Resolution

On Thursday, both the House and the Senate passed the conference report on S Con Res 21, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008 (FY08). The final resolution caps discretionary spending for FY08 at $954.1 billion. Just after the House passed the budget resolution by a vote of 214-209, the Senate voted 52-40 in favor of the conference report. Now that both chambers have passed the resolution, the House Appropriations subcommittees can begin work on the FY08 spending bills. However, the close margins on both votes suggest that Democrats should not expect too much cooperation from Republican appropriators.

Under the discretionary spending limit, the budget resolution sets the cap on education, training, employment, and social services at $85.7 billion. More specifically, the budget resolution increases the allowable education funding by $3.6 billion over the FY07 level, to $59.5 billion. The resolution also directs the two education committees to produce legislation by September 10 that would provide savings of $750 million over the next six years.

Now that the budget resolution is complete, House appropriators are ready to begin marking up the 12 spending bills for FY08. Although House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is starting a little behind schedule, he and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) still plan to have all FY08 appropriations bills passed through the House before the July 4 recess. Chairman Obey plans to begin marking up the Labor-HHS-Appropriations bill sometime in the next few weeks. It is scheduled to be the third in line for passage on the House floor in sometime in June, which Rep. Hoyer has dubbed, “Appropriations Month.”

Although appropriators are set to begin their work, Republicans in both the House and Senate are less than eager to cooperate. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, has stated his reluctance to cooperate with Democratic leaders after they chose to pass the FY07 Continuing Resolution under a closed rule, which did not allow for amendments from the minority party. With Republicans feeling uncooperative, Democrats are going to have to work hard to keep their own party on board, which, evidenced by the vote on the budget resolution, will not be an easy task.

On the Senate side, Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) also faces Republican challenges. Seven Republican Senators (Sam Brownback of Kansas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, John McCain of Arizona, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire) did not cast a vote on final passage of the budget resolution. However, all Democrats and Independents, with the exception of Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), voted in favor of the conference report. Johnson, who is still recovering from a brain hemorrhage, has not cast a vote all year. The Democrats will be hoping for his return, because they have a long fight ahead of them in the FY08 appropriations cycle.

Resources:
Jonathan Allen, “Budget Debate Sets Up Fights to Come Over Domestic Spending, Tax Cuts,” CQ Today, May 17, 2007.
Jonathan Allen, “Congress Adopts $2.9 Trillion Fiscal 2008 Budget Resolution,” CQ Today, May 17, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...