Bruman Legislative Office: 2007-09-30

Monday, October 1, 2007

Congressional Efforts Heat Up on School Nutrition Issues

Members of Congress moved forward last week on efforts to make schools and students healthier. Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Christo¬pher Shays (R-CT) circulated a Dear Col¬league letter this week to round up more sup¬port for H.R. 1363, the Child Nutrition Promo¬tion and School Lunch Protection Act. School nutrition, which has not garnered much attention recently on Capitol Hill, received a brief victory this summer when the House included an expansion of a fruit and vegetable school program in the 2007 Farm Bill. Rep. Woolsey and her supporters are attempting to build off of those efforts to ensure a healthier student body in the United States.

H.R. 1363, and its Senate companion (S. 771), would revise the nutritional requirements of foods sold in schools. Those requirements would only affect food sold outside the federal lunch pro¬gram, such as vending machine snacks and other à la carte items. Rep. Woolsey, along with representatives from the Center for Science in the Public Interest and child-health advocate and actor Chevy Chase, held a briefing on Capitol Hill to discuss the proposed legislation, and other efforts towards reducing the child obesity rates in the country. The New America Foundation’s Workforce and Family Program, the Foundation for Child Development and the offices of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) are planning to continue the discussion next Thursday in Washington. Panelists will discuss obesity and child well-being, the role of government, and some innovative programs at the state and local levels that are making a difference in children’s health.

Sen. Harkin is also pushing to add the language of S. 771 to the Senate’s version of the 2007 Farm Bill, slated for committee hearings later this fall. The House Farm Bill did not contain the language of the bill, but did expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to operate in 35 schools in every state. The program provides all children in participating schools with a variety of free fresh fruits and vegetables throughout the school day. It is billed as an effective and creative way of introducing fresh fruits and vegetables as healthy snack options. That expansion has not appeared in any draft language circulated by the Senate Agriculture Committee, but Sen. Harkin has assured advocates that school nutrition is a priority for the Senate as they work through the Farm Bill.

Resources:
Kris Kitto, “Legislators Push for Stricter Nutrition Standards in Schools,” Education Daily, September 28, 2007.
Author: SAS

President Signs Higher Education Reconciliation Bill

Last Thursday, President Bush signed H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act in to law (P.L. 110-84). The bill, touted by supporters as the single greatest aid bill for college students in more than a decade, passed both chambers of Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, making the possibility of a veto unlikely. The President conceded to sign the bill, but stated that he is looking forward to working with Congress on finding offsets for the Pell grant increase and other spending commitments that are not paid for in this bill.

The College Cost Reduction Act, commissioned in the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution, provides more than $20 billion in federal aid to college students. The bill slashes federal subsidies to private loan companies and increases grants for students. It will gradually reduce interest rates on federally subsidized loans for low-income students to 3.4% over five years. The law will also offer loan forgiveness for those who have held public service jobs for 10 years and will cap payments on federal loans at a certain percentage of a college graduate's income.

Congress still has yet to complete work on reauthorizing the Higher Education Act (HEA), a bill that would build upon the efforts of the College Cost Reduction act by increasing aid to students, and setting strict standards for tuition and other policies at public universities. The Senate passed their HEA Reauthorization bill, S. 1642, buy a vote of 95-0 on August 1.

The Senate bill will:
• Increase the amount of information that schools and lenders must provide to students, including up-front disclosure of loan rates and terms and data on total school costs, and would ban lenders from giving schools financial aid funds or any other perks to get on a preferred lender list;
• Direct the U.S. Secretary of Education to assess costs that drive tuition increases and examine ways to contain costs and track pricing trends, alerting schools that the government will monitor tuition increases and consider ways to curb them; and
• Require colleges and universities to draft codes of conduct governing relationships with lenders, shorten the application form for federal student aid, and authorize a pilot program to allow students to learn the total aid they can expect to receive up to two years in advance.

The House currently has no draft proposals for its HEA reauthorization. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, commented that the House will not move forward on the HEA until it completes work on reauthorizing No Child Left Behind.

Resources:
Jonathan D. Glater, “President Signs Overhaul of Student Aid,” New York Times, September 28, 2007.
Ian Shapira, “Bush Signs Sweeping Student Loan Bill Into Law, Adding an Asterisk,” Washington Post, September 28, 2007.
Author: SAS

Congress Passes 6-Week CR

Last Thursday night, the Senate passed a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through November 16, by a vote of 94-1. The President must sign the CR, which passed the House earlier this week by a vote of 404-14, by Sunday, the last day before the beginning fiscal year 2008 (FY08). Passing the CR is the final stage in the first failed promise of the new Democratic majority in Congress that campaigned, in part, on the ability to pass all spending measures before the end of the fiscal year. Congress has six weeks to complete work on all twelve spending bills, or pass yet another CR.

The purpose of a CR is to keep funding the federal government despite the lack of authorizing legislation for each individual government agency. Traditionally, a CR funds government programs at the previous fiscal year’s funding level, or the lowest level agreed to in different House and Senate bills. This year, the CR level funds programs for six weeks.

Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA), the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, lays the blame for the backed up schedule solely on the shoulders of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). The House passed all of its FY08 spending measures before the month-long August recess. The Senate, meanwhile, still has eight more bills to complete by November 16, or Congress will need to pass another CR.

President Bush has levied veto threats on all but two spending measures. If Congress is able to get the defense and homeland security bills through conference, the President will likely sign them with little reservation. However, recalling the importance of political theatre in Washington, Congressional leaders are likely to set up a political showdown over a bill that will likely meet with a veto. Democrats will use the bill to make a political statement against the President’s policy towards spending on domestic programs. It is not clear which bill Democrats will send to the White House, but the schedule leaves them only a short time to pass the bill, send it down Pennsylvania Avenue for a veto, and hold votes to try and override the veto.

Meanwhile, if Congress plans to finish its appropriations work by November 16, it will have to bunch all those unfinished bills into one large omnibus package. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are thrilled with that particular course of action, but it may be the only option for the majority to pass their desired spending levels.

Resources:
David Clarke, “Reid Hints at Budget Strategy as Senate Clears Stopgap Spending Bill,” CQ Today, September 27, 2007.
Scott Cox, “By 404-14 Margin, House Passes CR Through Nov. 16,” Congress Now, September 26, 2007.
Author: SAS

SCHIP Heading Towards Veto

The House and Senate have both passed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, H.R. 976 (SCHIP) conference report and the attention now turns to the promised Presidential veto and the Democratic leadership’s ability to override it. An override requires two-thirds vote in each chamber.

Last Thursday evening, the Senate passed the SCHIP conference report by a vote of 67-29, enough to override the threatened Presidential veto in the Senate. The House approval of the conference report, however, lacked the needed 2/3 majority with a vote of 265-159.

The conference report would expand the children’s health insurance program by $35 billion over the next five years, to $60 billion. The expansion would be financed by tobacco tax increases, including a 61-cent increase in the cigarette tax to $1 per pack.

It also contains a critical moratorium on the ability of the Secretary of Health and Human Services from taking any action that would limit Medicaid payments to school districts. According to Section 616 of the conference report:

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not, prior to May 28, 2008, take any action […] to restrict coverage or payment under title XIX of the Social Security Act for rehabilitation services, or school-based administration, transportation, or medical services if such restrictions are more restrictive in any aspect than those applied to such coverage or payment as of July 1, 2007.

While the moratorium would only extend until May 28, 2008, it represents a considerable victory for school districts and states that are resisting the recent regulatory actions by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to cut Medicaid funding by reducing school-based and rehabilitative services for children with disabilities. The threatened veto, however, places that victory in jeopardy. Whether the Democratic majority can secure enough votes in the House and Senate is not clear but unlikely.

The President argues that the expansion is a step toward federalization of health care. “Their proposal is beyond the scope of the program, and that's why I'm going to veto the bill.” If the President does, in fact, veto the conference bill then negotiations will begin anew, making one thing certain: The political theatre over the SCHIP bill will continue beyond its expiration on September 30. To keep funding flowing for the program, the Senate cleared a continuing resolution on Thursday that extends until November 16.

Resources:
Alex Wayne, “As SCHIP heads Toward Veto, Backers Say Bush Abandoning Promise to Kids,” Congressional Quarterly, Sept. 27, 2007.
Mark Silva, “Line in sand: Health-care veto,” Chicago Tribune, Sept. 21, 2007, http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/friday/chi-bush_frisep21,0,5782557.story/
Stephen Langel, “Lawmakers: Even After Veto, Chances for SCHIP Deal Appear Dim,” Congress Now, Sept. 27, 2007.
Author: DAD

Discussion Draft Review: Graduation Promise Fund

The new focus on high school improvement runs throughout the House’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) discussion draft. Examples include the new Graduation Promise Fund, the College and Work-Ready Standards and Assessments, the emphasis on secondary schools in the improvement and redesign process and the standardization of the graduation rate. Last week’s Update covered the new section 1124, Graduation Rate. This week’s Update takes a closer look at the new Graduation Promise Fund.

The new section 1006, Graduation Promise Fund, serves two basic purposes. First, it is designed to support and replicate effective secondary school reform in “eligible schools” as defined in the discussion draft. Second, it seeks to identify and target support to individual middle school students that are most likely to become high school dropouts.

The program in the discussion draft is either formula funded or is a competitive grant, depending on the level of appropriated funding each fiscal year. If Congress appropriates more than $1 billion, it triggers a formula distribution wherein the state educational agencies (SEAs) must set aside 90% of the funds for sub-grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) that have “eligible secondary schools.” Eligible secondary schools are those with an average graduation rate of 60% or less over three years or a secondary school that has graduation rates below the tenth percentile in the state. Each eligible secondary school receives a minimum of $700 per student and additional funding based on a specified formula that considers enrollment, poverty and graduation data. Grants under this section are for a five-year period.

If Congress appropriates less than $1 billion dollars for this section, the LEAs must apply for the sub-grants to serve only “eligible schools.” The SEA then awards the grants based on school enrollment, graduation rates, poverty rate and the quality of the school improvement plans for the schools to be served.

The SEA’s application must demonstrate how it will support LEAs to reform identified schools. It must demonstrate its process for classifying secondary schools with a graduation rate of 60% or less as a high priority or a high priority redesign school. It must show how it supports the use of school improvement teams, and, critically, the SEA must ensure that the state’s longitudinal data system includes specific middle school data that identifies potential dropouts. Having an operational state longitudinal data system appears to be a prerequisite.

LEAs receiving Graduation Promise Funding must use the funds for four practices. Note how the requirements split the interventions between secondary schools and middle schools. For secondary schools, the LEAs must support only eligible secondary schools according to rank, based on graduation rate, effectiveness of parental involvement and professional development, and the quality of their school improvement plan. The LEAs must also support only eligible secondary schools in developing and implementing their school improvement plans, and they may support the use of school improvement teams.

Regarding middle schools, the LEAs receiving the grants must identify potential dropouts and provide intensive support to such middle school students, but they may not spend more than 15% of their funds in doing so. The LEAs must work with their SEAs to incorporate data into the state wide longitudinal data system that identifies students who are at risk for not graduating schools with a regular diploma. These indicators include, at least: rates of absenteeism, rates of disciplinary action, failure rates and overage students. Once identified, these LEAs must provide intensive support for such students and the draft language goes on to list examples of such support.

The funding does not come without commitment cost. SEAs that receive funding under this section must provide matching funds in an amount equal to 25% of the Graduation Promise funds. LEAs receiving subgrants must provide matching funds in an amount that is not less than 15% of the total LEA sub-grant, although the U.S. Department of Education (ED) may waive the LEA matching funds upon a show of hardship.
The replication of successful school dropout prevention models is important to the Fund. The draft grants ED the authority to reserve 10% of the funds for capacity building. The funds may be used to provide technical assistance, regional training and fund eligible nonprofit entities to replicate and implement effective dropout prevention models.

To be sure, the Graduation Promise Fund is a welcomed first step toward providing more focused interventions to secondary schools with high drop out rates and their middle school feeders. While there will certainly be changes to these provisions, particularly around the required percentage of matching funds, it is consistent with the emerging focus on secondary schools and middle school advocates will assure that their provisions remain intact. We can expect similar provisions in the actual ESEA reauthorization bill that the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor George Miller (D-CA) will introduce before October.

Resources:
“Committee Releases Remaining Titles of Miller-McKeon NCLB Discussion Draft,” House Committee on Education and Labor, http://edlabor.house.gov/.
Author: DAD

Discussion Draft Review: Graduation Rates

The Title I discussion draft contains a new Section 1124, entitled Graduation Rates. It is part of the draft’s considerable new focus on high school accountability. The section defines the graduate rate calculations and the terms used in the definition; the graduation rate reporting requirements; the allowable additional complementary indicators for reporting how to handle data anomalies; the monitoring of data collection; and how schools, districts and states must use the data for accountability under Title I.

According to the discussion draft, the term “graduation rate” includes an adjusted cohort rate and an extra year adjusted cohort rate. The law defines the “exit year” to be the school year at the end of which that cohort would be expected to complete the exit grade, assuming the cohort completes one grade per school year (which would be 4 years most often). The term “extra year” means the school year after the exit year (or, most commonly, 5 years). The draft describes the graduation rate formulas.

The data must be disaggregated by school, local educational agency (LEA) and state educational agency (SEA). It must also be parsed by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migratory status, English proficiency and economic disadvantage status. As it is used for meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP), the data must meet the same “N” size and reporting requirements of Section 1111.

The draft includes two exceptions to the graduation rate formula. First, a state that does not have a state wide longitudinal data system with individual student identifiers may use an interim graduation rate that meets specified requirements until the 2013-2014 school year. Those requirements will compare the number of students in the entry year to the number of students receiving a standard high school diploma in the exit year, will not use dropout data, will disaggregate the data and the data may be used to determine rate of growth toward graduation objectives. The interim plan must be part of the state plan and approved by the U.S. Secretary of Education.

Second, state plans may include graduation timeline exceptions for alternative educational settings. The draft defines those settings as programs that are designed for students who have dropped out of secondary schools or are one or more years behind the expected accumulation of credits or courses toward an on time graduation and will receive a regular high school diploma upon completion of the course of study in the setting.

The discussion draft includes specific flexibility for special education students. Up to 1% of students in an LEA or SEA with significant cognitive disabilities, who are assessed using alternative assessments using alternative achievement standards and who receive a regular high school diploma or a state defined alternative diploma in accordance with IDEA, could be counted as a graduate with a regular high school diploma.

Critically, the graduation rate data is required in order for secondary schools and LEAs to make AYP. This is a two part analysis. First, the graduation rate for all subgroups defined in section 1111 must be not less than 90%. Second, the graduation rate must increase an average of 2.5 percentages points or 3 percentage points depending on the chosen baseline. What baseline? There are three baseline options as set by a 2007-2008 school year calculation: the adjusted cohort rate (which requires 2.5 percentage points of growth per year), the extra year adjusted cohort rate (3%) or the alterative expected completion rate (2.5%). The calculation of these rates is illustrated above. Fully meeting the growth target will provide credit for up to 15% of a subgroup’s objectives. The baseline may be adjusted when an SEA moves from an interim rate to an individual student identifier longitudinal data system.

The draft also allows for alternative growth targets upon conditions. The alternative SEA program must be peer reviewed and approved by ED. It must include annual growth targets for all subgroups based on closing the gap between baselines for each subgroup and 100% graduation rate in substantially even increments over time. Finally, it must require that all subgroups will achieve at least 90% graduation rate by 2019-2020.

This new section has been well received, generally. The National Governors Association, which has led the advocacy for uniform graduation rate calculations, applauds the section for its transparency and fair flexibility. Yet, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) does not support the section because the five year graduation rate calculation could provide the incentive to not emphasize the importance of on-time graduation in high schools. Despite ED’s concerns, it is very likely that a reauthorized law will contain these or very similar provisions.

Author: DAD

NCLB Update: Huddle Up

Not all is going according to plan for Representative George Miller, the Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. The House discussion draft of Titles I through XI of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has created new allies in criticizing the proposal. As a rule a thumb, a bill that aggravates a wide spectrum of interested parties has a fair chance of success, but that chance diminishes when aggravation slides towards outrage.

In the case of the House discussion draft, that slide is now occurring. Notably, both advocates and critics of the current law have withdrawn their support for the draft bill as released. The Education Trust (Ed Trust), generally a supporter of NCLB, states that the law is moving in the right direction, but is “deeply troubled” by the multiple measures provision that would reduce academic transparency and create an incredibly complex accountability system. Ed Trust has also been very adamant that the draft language extending the time that English Language Learners could be tested in their native language (up to 7 years) would delay their transition in mainstream educational opportunities for too long. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, exemplifying critics of the current law, have also withdrawn support for the current language. They argue that the testing provisions are still too heavily weighted on a single state exam and that, closer to the heart of the unions, the discussion draft is an intrusion on local collective bargaining and an offense to the efforts of states working to recruit and retain quality educators.

Hyperbole and euphemism, of course, are tools of the education policy trade, so there is a lot of inaccurate characterization occurring. While the rhetoric does not add clarity to the discussion draft (quite the opposite), it does illustrate the political obstacles that Miller will have to navigate in the coming weeks.

What, then, will Miller do to stop this slide from manageable aggravation to rhetorical outrage? According to House Education and Labor Committee staff, the Democratic staffers are huddling on their strategy and reviewing the 3,000 comments (and growing) they have received. They have not met with Republican staff on the matter to date but will do so before Chairman Miller introduces the bill and attempts to move it through the House before the close of the month. “I am not sure what the trends are yet,” said one staffer, “other than everyone seems to hate it.” We will continue to monitor the developments with scrutiny in the coming days.

Author: DAD

Taking CMS Issues to Congress

A consortium of opponents to the proposed rule changes related to Medicaid reimbursements for school-related administrative and transportation costs are taking the issue to members of Congress. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has attempted to pass this rule for almost 20 years, but has taken its efforts further this year by announcing a proposed rule in the Federal Register earlier this month. Meeting with no success in appealing to CMS and the current Administration, advocates for the program are taking their issues to Congress, hoping to spur legislation that will keep CMS from instituting and enforcing the proposed rule.

School districts all over the country receive federal reimbursement for an estimated $3.6 billion over five years in Medicaid services provided to children with disabilities. Schools rely on these reimbursements for a variety of purposes, such as outfitting buses with specialized equipment, transporting children to school for their medical appointments, identifying students who need screenings and evaluations, and connecting children and their families with other needed services in their community. CMS, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services, argues that it should not have to reimburse school-related costs. Advocates for the program have been successful in stopping CMS before it can move on this rule every year until now.

Some lawmakers have taken mild steps towards legislation that would prohibit CMS from going through with its proposed rule, but efforts have been ineffective so far. Presently, advocates are sending individual and dear colleague letters to members of Congress, asking for their support of any legislative efforts towards that end. The most likely vehicle for this legislation is currently the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is in conference at the time of this Update’s publication. The House version of the bill included a provision that would prevent CMS from moving forward on the rule, but it is not clear if that provision will make it into the conference report. Another likely vehicle would be an omnibus appropriations bill. The 60-day comment period on the proposed rule ends in November, leaving just over a month for advocates to lobby Congress for assistance in keeping the program running.

Author: SAS

CR Already in the Works

Two weeks ago, Congress began working on the inevitable continuing resolution (CR) that will keep the government running past the September 30 deadline. Although there are some Democrats who do not want to move on CR, forcing a showdown with the President over a government shutdown, the only real debate is over the length of the CR. The base from which conversations are taking place is a month-long CR ending in early or mid November, though a shorter stop gap measure is being discussed.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) proposed legislation on Wednesday that would continue to fund the federal government if Congress fails to pass all of the annual appropriations bills or stop-gap spending measures before the start of a fiscal year. If enacted, the bill would fund departments and programs either at the previous fiscal year’s level or at the level of the House- or Senate-passed appropriations measures, whichever is lower. Staff members for Dave Obey (D-WI) Chairman for the Committee on Appropriations have stated that they would like to use a level funding approach in order to cause as little disruptions as possible. Hensarling, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said that Democrats are posturing for a government shutdown since they refused to “sit down in good faith” and negotiate with the administration on spending levels.

However, House Majority leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has already conceded that a CR is necessary. Although some Congressional leaders want to pass a short CR in order to keep pressure on appropriators to finish fiscal year 2008 bills, Hoyer would prefer a longer measure, allowing time for a deal to be worked out instead of having to pass temporary spending bills every few weeks. Hoyer also commented that while he would rather avoid having to pass an omnibus bill containing several individual FY08 spending measures, he acknowledges that it may be the only way for Democrats to get their proposed spending levels past the White House, which has issued veto threats on 10 of the 12 spending bills.

Resources:
George Cahlink, “Hoyer: Lawmakers Eyeing Temporary CR Lasting a Month or Longer,” Congress Now, September 18, 2007.
Scott Cox, “Hensarling, DeMint Propose Automatic CR, Blast Democratic 'Games' on Spending,” Congress Now, September 19, 2007.
Author: SAS

Congress Reaches Deal on SCHIP

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill finally reached a deal on expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which expires at the end of September. The deal mirrors the Senate version of the expansion, though it does contain certain House provisions. Congress is expected to move quickly on the compromise, but veto threats from the White House will still act as a barrier to final passage.

According to Congressional aides, the agreement includes the Senate’s $.61 tax increase on tobacco products and the Senate’s provisions for adult coverage. The bill will also include the Senate’s $35 billion funding level for the program over five years, but will use the House’s formula for coverage. The final language will also include the House’s additional provisions for dental, mental health and vision coverage. Adding those coverage provisions allow the House to claim some credit for shaping the deal. A controversial House proposal that would cut Medicare payments to private doctors was left out of the final compromise. If that provision were included in a final bill, many conservative Republicans in the Senate would have stood in opposition to final passage.

Although the bill is expected to move through Congress quickly, the President commented yesterday that he intends to veto the expansion. The President proposed a mild expansion for SCHIP, totaling $5 billion over five years. President Bush opposes the $35 billion expansion, which he claims is simply a way for Democrats to earn points in Washington, because the proposal would, "raise taxes on working people.” Although Republican Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Charles Grassley (IA) have publically chastised the White House for threatening to veto the deal, it is unclear if either the House or the Senate has the necessary votes to override a veto. Meanwhile, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is drafting a one year extension of the program, including inflation-based funding increases, to act as a replacement if the current proposal is vetoed.

Resources:
Stephen Langel, “Lawmakers Reach Deal to Expand SCHIP Coverage,” Congress Now, September 19, 2007.
David Jackson, “Bush Vows to Veto Expansion of Children's Insurance Plan,” USA Today, September 21, 2001.
Author: SAS

EDGAR Changes to Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements2

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is inviting comments on a submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number 1890–0004 collection currently includes three distinct information collection instruments: (1) the ED 524 Budget Form, (2) the ED 524B Grant Performance Report, and (3) the administrative requirements in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). As part of the renewal of these instruments, the OMB is requesting that each of these instruments be approved under separate OMB control numbers. OMB is separating these instruments into three information collections to make it easier to make additional deletions, revisions or other needed changes to each instrument throughout the approval period and eliminate any potential confusion when changes are made to only one of the instruments.

Therefore, OMB is requesting a new OMB control number for the ED 524 Budget Form and a three-year approval for the collection. OMB is also requesting a new OMB control number for the EDGAR Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements and a three-year approval for the collection. The ED 524 form and instructions are included in the U.S. Department of Education discretionary grant application packages and are needed in order for applicants to submit summary level budget data by budget category, as well as a detailed budget narrative, to request and justify their proposed grant budgets which are part of their grant applications. Note that the ED 524B, Grant Performance Report will retain the 1890–0004 number.

Parties interested in submitting comments must do so on or before October 19, 2007. Written comments should be addressed to:

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Attention: Education Desk Officer
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th Street, NW.
Room 10222
Washington, DC 20503

Commenters are encouraged to submit responses electronically by e-mail to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov or via fax to (202) 395–6974. Commenters should include the following subject line in their response ‘‘Comment: OMB Control Number 1890–0004” and the collection name commented on (e.g. “EDGAR Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements” or “ED 524 Budget Form”). Parties submitting comments electronically should not submit paper copies.

Author: CWP

ED to Form Risk Management Services

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has announced it is restructuring to better fulfill its grants management responsibilities. ED is forming a new group in the Office of the Secretary to be named Risk Management Services (RMS). The RMS will have four primary responsibilities: (1) establishing policy for all grant funds ED administers, whether they are discretionary or formula grants; (2) work with grantees on risk mitigation strategies, beginning with those grantees perceived to be the highest risk (through the Management Improvement Team (MIT)); (3) work with states to develop risk based subrecipient monitoring systems; and (4) customer service and training. The RMS will begin work on October 1.

This restructuring will have a significant impact on grants management. First, one entity within ED will now be responsible for grants management issues in all programs, meaning there should be more consistency in ED’s policies across programs. Second, ED does not have an existing office responsible for grants management issues in formula programs (the Office of the Chief Financial Officer did work on discretionary programs), meaning ED may finally develop policies on important issues such as cash management, financial management, procurement and inventory. We will watch the RMS’s actions closely and report on any major developments.

Phil Maestri, the current director of the MIT, is expected to head the new RMS. Mr. Maestri is scheduled to speak at Brustein & Manasevit’s Fall Forum in Clark County November 29-30.

Author: SLK

Higher Education Data Released

Although the House Education and Labor Committee has focused solely on the discussion draft for reauthorizing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) since Congress returned to session this month, Higher Education is still the only area of Education that has already seen movement in Congress, and continues to garner much of the attention on a national scale. Last month, a report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), along with various university studies and U.S. census data all focused on the number of institutions of higher education, the number of advanced degrees awarded, and the social and economic make up of those students in the U.S.

While the number of both male and female students enrolled in higher education programs rose between 2000 and 2006, a census survey found that women outpaced men in both undergraduate and graduate programs. In that period, the nation's undergraduate enrollment swelled by nearly 2.7 million students, 18.7%, but the percentage of males fell 1.2 percentage points, to 44%. Women in 2006 made up 56% of undergrads, up from 54.8% in 2000.

The NCES report, released Tuesday, shows that the number of American postsecondary institutions grew by 1.5% from fall 2005 to fall 2006, and that the number of degrees they awarded grew by 3% from academic year 2004-5 to academic year 2005-6. Almost all of the growth in the number of institutions came in the for-profit sector, although the institutions continue to educate a relatively small proportion of the overall total college population. The proportion of degrees going to women and to members of minority groups continued to edge up. Women received 57.8% of all degrees awarded by four-year institutions in 2005-6 (up from 57.4% percent in 2004-5) and 62.7% of the degrees awarded by two-year colleges, up from 62.6%. White students received 65% of the degrees awarded by four-year colleges, while 9.1% went to black students, 6.4% to Hispanic students, 6.1% percent to Asian/Pacific Islanders and 0.7% to American Indian/Alaskan Natives. The proportion awarded to people whose race or ethnicity was unknown rose to 6.9% from 6.6%, while the proportion going to nonresident aliens shrank to 5.8% from 6%.

Of those degrees, the number of Masters and other advanced degrees is also increasing. More students than ever have started masters programs this fall, and universities are seeing those programs as potentially lucrative sources of revenue. The number of students earning these degrees around the country has nearly doubled since 1980. Since 1970, the growth is 150%, more than twice as fast as bachelor and doctorate programs. For students, the degrees are often expensive; at private universities, many students take out $50,000 in loans for every year of school. Scholarships and fellowships are rare, unlike doctoral programs, which are usually fully financed by universities.

Increased enrollment, more degrees, and a higher number of institutions led Congress to begin working on reauthorizing higher education programs this year. Just last week, Congressed passed H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act, intended to increase maximum Pell Grant levels, lower interest rates on student loans, and take other various measures to increase aid to students and increase accessibility for low income students. Although the President has not signed the bill yet, he is expected to do so, despite some reservations regarding new entitlement programs authorized under the bill. The Senate has also completed work on its own reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The House currently has not produced its own version, and House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) said he will not move on to the HEA until the committee completes work on NCLB. However, higher education is still a top priority in Congress, and further action can be expected for next year.

Resources:
Doug Lederman, “College Capacity Grows,” Inside Higher Ed, September 12, 2007.
Greg Toppo and Anthony DeBarros, “Women Feed the Jump in College Enrollment,” USA Today, September 12, 2007.
Hannah Fairfield, “Master’s Degrees Abound as Universities and Students See a Windfall,” New York Times, September 12, 2007.
Author: SAS

Presidential Hopefuls Comment on NCLB

Fred Thompson and Bill Richardson, both hopeful candidates for the 2008 Presidential Elections, turned their attention to education in September, specifically focusing on No Child Left Behind (NCLB). While other candidates spent this week campaigning on issues such as universal health coverage, and Iraq, Governor Richardson, and former Sen. Thompson spoke on the state of American education, and the direction they would take the country if they were elected next November.

While campaigning in Florida, Republican hopeful Thompson suggested that it's time to move past NCLB, suggesting that the federal government has gotten too involved. Thompson’s comments surprised some, considering that, as a senator in 2001, he voted for NCLB. Campaigning in the Republican stronghold of Jacksonville at the start of a Florida campaign kick-off bus tour, Thompson said the President's signature education program isn't working and promised that, if he is elected, he would provide federal school funding with fewer strings attached. Thompson said his message to the states would be: "We expect you to get objective testing done and publicize those tests for the local parents and for the local citizens and suffer the political ramifications locally if things don't work out right."

Meanwhile, New Mexico Governor, and Democratic hopeful, Richardson published an editorial in USA Today regarding his views on NCLB. Richardson agrees with Thompson regarding NCLB’s failure to improve schools, but his proposals focus more on enforcing strict standards and rewarding teachers. Richardson wants to provide public schools with what the National Education Association (NEA) refers to as the three R's — Responsibility, Respect and Resources. His key to improvement is respecting teachers. He discussed a law he signed in New Mexico that pays teachers a professional salary, and promised that, if elected president, he will fight for a national average starting pay for teachers of at least $40,000 a year. He also called for universal pre-K for all students. Finally, he is advocating for strong academic standards aligned with the needs of today's workforce.

Neither Richardson nor Thompson are considered front runners, though Thompson is likely further ahead on the Republican side than Richardson is with Democrats. However, both hopefuls have been the only candidates to discussion education in-depth while on the campaign trail. Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) discussed a few education-related matters with the NEA, but no other candidate has offered any real suggestions thus far, focusing much more on the war in Iraq, and other, more high-profile issues. Thompson and Richardson’s actions this week show how those candidates that are behind in the polls tend to focus more on domestic issues, trying to connect with American voters, rather than offering rhetoric on the big issues, like every other candidate. It is unlikely that education will take a greater prominence in Presidential debates, but this week’s news at least shows that it is still a concern for registered voters.

Resources:
Gov. Bill Richardson, “NCLB Fails Our Schools,” USA Today, September 7, 2007.
Mark Silva, “Thompson: Leave 'No Child Left Behind' Behind,” Baltimore Sun, September 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

SCHIP Debate May Not Move Forward This Month

One of the few areas in which Congress seemed to be making progress has lost momentum since the August recess. Both chambers passed their own versions of an expansion on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) prior to the recess, but have failed to move forward with a conference report since returning to session this month. The major hold up is coming from the Senate, were Republicans are concerned about the House bill’s tax increase as well as proposed cuts to Medicare payments to doctors. While negotiations continue, Senate leaders are calling on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to release studies on the program. Between the delays on Capitol Hill, and continued criticism of both chamber’s expansion proposals from the White House, circumstances are aligning against final passage before the program expires at the end of the month (Sept. 30).

Currently, lawmakers are seeking to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The House bill would provide $50 billion over the next five years, while the Senate's bill would provide $35 billion. Both bills pay for the increase by raising tobacco taxes, while the House also cuts some Medicare payments to private doctors. Senate Republicans are vowing to oppose any version of a conference report that contains such a provision, stalling pre-conference negotiations. Republicans have also expressed concerns that the expansion goes far beyond the program's original intent and could be the first step down the road of universal health coverage through the federal government.

Meanwhile, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and ranking Republican Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are asking HHS to release studies on the program. Both Senators are hoping the studies will provide more information to the effects, both positive and negative, that the program has had and what the proposed expansion will mean for the number of children the program covers. In their letter, sent earlier this week, Sens. Baucus and Grassley ask the department to “identify all contracts and other agreements or arrangements your department or any of its agencies has entered into with any outside entity to evaluate, study or analyze in any way how the [SCHIP] program works.” Although the effort seems to be in good faith, the studies can only add to the delay Congress is dealing with regarding final passage.

Meanwhile, the White House continues its own negotiations with Congressional leaders over the program’s expansion. President Bush originally proposed a mild $5 billion expansion, and has been very critical of the higher level proposed in both the House and the Senate. His opposition to such a large expansion gives Senate conferees more weight when negotiating with the House, since the Senate’s proposed expansion is $15 billion less than the House’s, and it does not include the Medicare cuts. However, whatever deal Congressional leaders are able to come out with will have to have veto-proof majorities in both chambers if they hope to have any bargaining power with the White House. This leaves a lot of debating and horse trading to complete in only two weeks.

Resources:
Kelly Shaw, “Pallone: Lawmakers and Bush Will Reach SCHIP Deal by Sept. 30,” Congress Now, September 12, 2007.
Geoff Koss and Kelly Shaw, “Baucus, Grassley Ask HHS for 'Unpoliticized Information' About SCHIP,” Congress Now, September 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Republican Positioning

On Monday, September 10, as the nearly seven hour House hearing on the NCLB discussion draft came to a close, the Republican strategy on No Child Left Behind became clearer with the issuance of a letter by the former Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, original author of NCLB and current House Republican Leader John Boehner (OH).

Boehner’s letter, addressed to the current Chair George Miller (D-CA) and Ranking Member Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), expresses his concern that the draft bill “appears to back away from the key education reform principles of No Child Left Behind” and lays out his conditions of support for a reauthorization bill. Those conditions do not match what is now in the draft language.

They are as follows:
1. Flexibility and local control: Allowing, as Representative McKeon has proposed in HR 2577, states and local school districts to transfer up to 100 percent of their funds among the various federal education funding streams and provide states with additional flexibility in the design of their accountability systems.
2. School choice: Any bill must not restrict current education choices for parents in any way; it should expand such options.
3. No new testing: The emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring the current system by which states measure Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the tests they are already required to implement is fair and effective in ensuring accountability for student achievement.
4. No loopholes in accountability: Reject any proposal that would amount to a loophole for chronically underachieving schools to evade identification as a school in need of improvement or avoid restructuring.
5. No national test: Such language would be enormously problematic for many members of the House Republican Conference. National standards and national assessments would also be highly problematic and would represent an improper meddling of the federal government into state and local curriculum decisions.
6. Teacher quality: The bill should include reforms that encourage states to establish pay for performance systems that compensate teachers based on their performance in the classroom and how effective they are in helping students learn and succeed.
7. Streamlining federal education programs: The draft legislation circulated by the Committee creates at least three new programs within Title I -- and, if history is any guide, many Members will be lining up to seek the inclusion of many more new programs as the bill moves through the committee process.

The letter’s position was buttressed by Rep. McKeon’s statement on the No Child Left Behind reauthorization hearing in which he also affirmed his support for the law’s core principles of “accountability, flexibility, and parental choice.” “Any proposal that backs away from these principles will be met with my steadfast opposition,” wrote McKeon. Then he assured his constituents of his willingness to resist a bill that does not match Republican objectives. “The concerns we have heard are valid, and I offer my assurances that they will not fall on deaf ears. In the coming weeks…I will redouble my efforts to ensure that any bill reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act adheres to its core principles.”

This press release, in conjunction with the letter from Minority Leader John Boehner, suggests that Mr. Miller will find little support among the Republican Party for the draft discussion as currently written. Given that he may also lack the support of the Unions, as described in the hearing summary above, he will have to proceed in a very calculated manner in the coming weeks.

Resources:
“McKeon Statement on No Child Left Behind Reauthorization Hearing,” Committee on Education and Labor, Republicans, Press Release, September 10, 2007, http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=243.
“Boehner: No Child Left Behind Act Reauthorization Draft Backs Away From Key Education Reform Principles,” Republican Leader John Boehner, September 10, 2007, http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=73491
Author: DAD

Marathon NCLB Hearing

On Monday, September 10, the House Committee on Education and Labor conducted a marathon six hour, forty minute hearing on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) discussion draft. Over 40 witnesses, making up 6 panels, testified before the committee covering a wide array of topics.

The panel topics included:
• The Big Picture
• High School Reform & College and Career-Readiness
• Civil Rights
• Business, Foundation and Innovation
• Teaching and School Leadership
• State and Local Administrators

The Committee advertised the panel discussions as part of a hearing on the Title I, Part A discussion draft, but the day covered a broader scope of topics that included Title II, III, IV and more. The breadth of coverage diffused the emergence of any clearly dominant themes, but there were notable highlights.

First, there was general support for the Committee’s efforts to broaden the accountability measures under the law using multiple measures. Many panelists supported the idea in theory, but not as drafted. Mike Cohen, President of Achieve, for example, supported the effort to increase variable measures, but stated his belief that it could result is less academic accountability. “It will paint a confusing picture to educators and the public, and set up incentives for states and schools alike to figure out ways to game the system in order to reduce the number of schools that fail to make AYP.” Dan Losen, the Senior Education Law and Policy Associate for the Civil Rights Project, was also encouraged by multiple measures, but he expressed a common concern about retaining the goal of 100% proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year. “This uniform deadline assumes that the schools and districts furthest from the goal can make the most extraordinary gains,” he stated. “But the assumption directly contradicts what research tells us about the rates of improvement we can expect from the most successful districts.” In the end, most agreed with the notion of multiple measures but did not agree with the particulars of the discussion draft.

Teacher quality was another notable topic. Most of the panelists who addressed the topic affirmed that excellent teachers are prerequisites for excellent schools. However, pay and distribution of quality teachers sparked considerable debate. Regarding distribution, the Title I discussion draft would require districts to show that the average per pupil expenditure for teacher salaries in the schools is equal to or greater than the average per pupil expenditure for teacher salaries in non-Title I schools. Regarding teacher pay, the Title II discussion draft would provide funding for high-need school districts that choose to apply for performance pay bonuses of up to $10,000 for outstanding teachers (and of up to $12,500 for teachers of math, science, special education and other shortage subjects) and annual bonuses of up to $15,000 to outstanding principals who transfer into the hardest-to-staff schools for four years.

Some panelist liked the proposals. Germaine Brown, a teacher at the Stewart Street Elementary School in Florida applauded the Committee for the inclusion of the program. “I hope that this committee will provide funding for programs to allow more schools and districts to reform their compensation systems for teachers,” she testified. Kristan Van Hook, Senior Vice President at the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching, also testified in support of performance pay, tied into the school and districts academic accountability measures and in support of innovation through the Teacher Incentive Fund. She stated that the new demands on teachers and schools should be compensated through performance pay.

The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) disagreed with Ms. Brown and the Committee on these proposals. Reg Weaver, the President of the NEA, testified that the comparability provisions and the pay for performance provisions were an attack on public teachers everywhere. “We are gravely disappointed that the Committee has released language that undermines educators’ collective bargaining rights. This is an unprecedented attack on a particular segment of the labor community—the nation’s educators.”

The AFT also rejected the draft’s comparability language and pay for performance language, albeit in a less confrontational manner. “The AFT believes that the approach proposed in Title II of the draft would impose a top-down policy that jeopardizes buy-in from the teachers and, ultimately, the success of the program,” stated AFT Executive Vice-President Antonia Cortese. “It also interjects federal law into the collective bargaining process– a matter that is within the purview of state and local law.” The federal government should not be in the business of mandating employment contracts.

The outright rejection of the language by the unions offended Chairman Miller and he let Mr. Weaver and Ms. Cortese know it. “The language you are objecting to is identical to the language in the TEACH Act that you supported…. This is language that was mutually arrived at.” It is the language, he observed, that their organizations negotiated, accepted and promoted over the last few years and the fact that they now rejected it outright was, according to the Chairman, a misrepresentation and a poor negotiating position.

The moments of animosity were also matched by moments of welcomed support for the draft provisions. In particular, the panelist and Chairman agreed wholeheartedly that workforce readiness is an important part of the reauthorization. Janet Bray, the Director for the Association for Career and Technical Education thanked the Committee for including the career and technical educator’s voice as part of the draft discussion. In particular, she applauded the new Graduation Promise Fund for high schools with the lowest graduation rates to support school-wide improvement activities and the new funding in the proposed section 1111A that would provide incentives to states to align their standards vertically and to review what students should know in order to be successful in postsecondary education and the workplace.

“There are distinct purposes and reasons to have both NCLB and Perkins as two separate and distinct laws, but there is much more that can be done to align the two pieces of legislation,” said Bray and, to which, Chairman Miller agreed. “Too often within the beltway CTE [career and technical education] is viewed as the technical education that we grew up with 30 years ago and we do not recognize how complicated it is today,” said the Chairman. “I am quite pleased at the attention [this is] getting.”

The hearing concluded nearly seven hours later with Chairman Miller promising to digest all the comments and make changes to the draft. Committee staffers report that the Chairman may introduce the House version of the revised draft during the week of September 24, but that is merely speculation and subject to change.

Resources:
“Miller/McKeon Discussion Draft of ESEA Reauthorization,” House Committee on Education and Labor, September 10, 2007, http://edworkforce.house.gov/hearings/fc091007.shtml.
Author: DAD

Majority Leaders Admit Appropriations Will Not Make Deadline

The two majority leaders of the House and Senate were forced to admit last month that Congress will not pass all 12 spending bills for fiscal year 2008 (FY08) by the October 1 deadline. Concessions from the two leaders prompted critics and supporters alike to prepare for the inevitable continuing resolution (CR) to fund government operations until the final bills are passed and signed by the President. Although Congressional schedules are often subject to change, the leaders' choice on an expiration date for the CR will provide a better picture for the timeline on the remaining spending measures.

On Wednesday, September 5, House majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) finally conceded that Congress will not have all its appropriations work done before the beginning of the next fiscal year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) followed suit yesterday, although he assured the public that the Senate will have most of the 11 remaining spending bills finished by the end of the month. Unfortunately, the two chambers still need to go to conference on every one of the 12 FY08 appropriations measures. Rep. Hoyer and Sen. Reid were both reluctant to admit defeat, especially in light of the fact that Democrats won the majority last fall due, in part, to promises to complete appropriations work in a timely, efficient fashion. While Rep. Hoyer hinted towards the Senate's delays are to blame, both leaders attempted to assure that the delay will not be as long as in previous sessions of Congress.

Sen. Reid's promise that most of the bills will be completed by the end of month signals that he hopes to pass a CR that extends funding for a few weeks, rather than months. However, the real fight is not only between the majority and minority on Capitol Hill, but between Congressional leaders and the Bush Administration. The White House, and its allies in Congress, have characterized the Democrat's spending plans as a "$1 trillion meltdown," going to far beyond those levels requested in the President's FY08 Budget Proposal. Democrats, on the other hand, claim that the $22 billion difference between their budget and the President's request is less than a 1% total increase for FY08. Rep. Hoyer claimed that the President's request would end up as a $16.1 billion cut for domestic programs, once you adjust for inflation. Either way, the schedule for the appropriations cycle will depend on: 1) the President's resolve to veto bills that he deems excessive on spending, 2) Republicans commitment to sustain a veto, and 3) Democrats unwillingness to bring spending down to an acceptable level for the White House.

Once a CR is passed, Democrats will likely get one of the highly contested bills to the President, both to test his resolve, and to make a political statement regarding their funding priorities. Assuming the President follows through on his veto threats, and assuming Republicans have the votes to sustain those vetoes, Democratic leaders will likely group multiple spending measures into one large omnibus bill. Since the funding for so many government agencies and programs will be tied together, an omnibus bill brings more political pressure on the President to sign, and against the minority, making it harder to sustain a veto. The one drawback to an omnibus bill, from the perspective of the majority, is that even though it will get its spending levels, it will have employed a tactic that it spent year criticizing the Republicans for using too often. It is simply a case of which political hit is more worth taking.

Resources:
George Cahlink, "Hoyer Concedes That Appropriations Work Will Not Be Finished By Oct. 1," Congress Now, September 5, 2007
Jennifer Bendery, "Reid: Senate Will Pass Most Appropriations Bills By Oct. 1, But Temporary Spending Measure Likely," Congress Now, September 6, 2007
Author: SAS

Senate Pushes Back Farm Bill

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, notified the public that his committee will not work on the 2007 Farm Bill this month. Sen. Harkin originally planned to release a draft proposal this week, and hold markups sometime in the third week of September. However, due mainly to the fact that Congress has not passed any of the twelve spending measures for fiscal year 2008, the Farm Bill has been moved back to October, at the earliest. Sen. Harkin will not release the committees draft proposal until just before the Committee moves forward with a markup. To make up for the delay, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promises that the Senate will consider the bill on the Floor of the Senate within a week of the bill passing through the committee, assuming no other pressing issues take precedence.

Harkin has stated more than once his intention to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). The exact details of that expansion are not clear, but it is likely to mirror the House proposal, or possible an even greater expansion. The House Farm Bill, passed in July, authorizes $70 million for expanding the FFVP into 35 schools in each state. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would then distribute additional funds, as necessary, to states based on population. The original proposal called for 50 schools in every state to receive funds, but the $100 million was contingent on offsets. The new language guarantees the $70 million, but calls for a scaled back expansion. Currently, the FFVP operates in 14 states (Utah, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Texas, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Washington, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania) and on 3 Indian Tribal Organizations (Pine Ridge in South Dakota, Zuni in New Mexico and the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona). A total of 375 schools currently participate.

Resources:
Beth Crowley, "Harkin: Senate Won't Take Up Farm Bill This Month," Congress Now, September 4, 2007.
Author: SAS

SCHIP Debate on Hold

Negotiations on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) are on hold regarding Republican objections to a provision in the House version that cuts Medicare payments to private doctors. Both chambers have passed their own versions of the bill, but still need to go to conference. Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats and various advocacy groups rallied to encourage conferees to move forward on the bill. As has been the case on nearly every major bill this session, after conferees agree on a bill, they will still have to contend with criticisms and veto threats from the White House.

Republicans are upset with a provision the House's SCHIP bill, which expands the program by $50 billion, through both a cigarette tax increase and proposed cuts in Medicare payments to private doctors. Senate Republicans have stated their strong opposition to the cuts, freezing negotiations until a compromise is reached. Even after the conferees move past that particular issue, there is still a matter of reconciling the difference between the House expansion, and the Senate's $35 billion expansion. Both proposals include tax increases on cigarettes, but the amount of the increase is a matter of contention. The conferees will have to strike a delicate balance that will keep a majority of support in both chambers. While the program itself enjoys bipartisan support, liberal Democrats in the House are adamant about the Medicare cuts, while conservative Republicans are equally opposed. Both groups are important to Congressional leaders to ensure final passage.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), several Democratic lawmakers and labor leaders rallied in support of the legislation, urging President Bush not to veto the final bill that emerges from Congress. The President opposes the bill because of the excessive spending involved, the large tax increase, as well as the Medicare cuts. The President proposed a mild $5 billion expansion, and has threatened the large increase proposed in both chambers. If negotiators are unable to appease Republicans in both the House and the Senate, neither chamber will have the necessary votes to override a veto. Between this debate, and the battle over other appropriations measures, there is likely to be a lot of horse trading occurring on the Hill.

Resources:
Stephen Langel, "SCHIP Conference on Hold Over GOP Objections to Medicare Provisions," Congress Now, September 5, 2007.
Kelly Shaw, "Top House Democrats, Labor Allies Push for Passing Final SCHIP Bill," Congress Now, September 6, 2007.
Author: SAS

Congress Passes Higher Education Reconciliation Bill

Congressional negotiators agreed on a conference report for H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act on Wednesday, September 5. The joint budget resolution for fiscal year 2008 (FY08) called for the House and Senate Education Committees to generate $750 million for budget reconciliation, which H.R. 2669 does. Both chambers passed the conference report today. The Senate passed it by a vote of 79-12 and the House by a vote of 292 - 97.

The conference report raises the maximum value of the federal Pell Grant scholarship by $1,090 over the next five years, reaching $5,400 by 2012, up from $4,050 in 2006. Roughly 5.5 million low- and moderate-income students would benefit from the increase. Additionally, the bill cuts interest rates on need-based student loans in half, from 6.8% to 3.4%, over the next four years. According to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman, once the cut is fully phased-in, it would save the typical student borrower $4,400 over the life of the loan. Chairman Miller also claims that the legislation would make loan payments more manageable for students, provide tuition assistance for undergraduate who agree to teach in high-need areas, invest in minority institutions and provide loan forgiveness for some government workers, such as military officers, police officers, firefighters and teachers.

Although the bill enjoys widespread bipartisan support, some Republicans still have reservations over the conference report. House Education and Labor Committee Ranking Member Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA) criticizes the fact that the $19 billion cut to subsidies for the student lending industry is not being put to effective use. McKeon and other Republicans argue that the money from the cuts could pay for greater increases in the maximum Pell Grant, an issue that generally receives the widest margin of bipartisan support.

Originally, the White House strongly opposed the House version of the bill, which created additional entitlement programs in grants for students. Despite previous veto threats, White house officials assured Congressional leaders that the president will sign the bill, and although he has some reservations regarding the interest rate cuts, public support for the bill has likely swayed the president's stance. The bill should be signed by the September 15 deadline set in the budget resolution.

Resources:
Stephen Langel, "Officials Say Bush Will Accept Deal on Higher Ed Package," Congress Now, September 6, 2007
Author: SAS

NCLB Responses Coming In

Last month, the House Committee on Education and Labor requested comments on its No Child Left Behind (NCLB) discussion draft of Title I by September 5th. On September 6th, the results largely became public. Given the complexity and breadth of the draft, most of the public comments were targeted to particular issues. Almost all have been very critical of the work. Criticism of the draft was, of course, expected, but the scope of disapproval is notable. The following is a small sampling of the feedback we reviewed (there are many comments that we have not yet seen and that are still being sent):

The American Association of School Administrators, which provided a detailed page-by-page response to the draft, expressed a concern shared by most of the responses, that the draft has too many “onerous new prescriptive mandate[s] that will cause nightmare regulations and drive up the costs of the program beyond the federal investment.”

The National Education Association (NEA) echoed this onerous concern. The NEA, for example, found the multiple measure section “too limited and restrictive,” placing too much weight on current reading and math results and, generally, too focused on test results. Regarding the improvement and redesign sections, it commented that the “options required in the redesign phase are too limited... and are not supported by research that they will improve student learning and close achievement gaps.”

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) expressed similar worries. While it applauded certain parts of the draft, it generally found many problems with the adequate yearly progress indicators and the interventions. The AFT noted that the proposed growth model is “in reality a trajectory model and does not fully give credit for the gains in student achievement that schools are making.” It also expressed concern that the multiple indicators, if allowed, could “simply lead to additional testing on top of the other testing provisions in the bill.” Both the NEA and the AFT disagreed with the comparability provisions of the draft.

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) also stated that the draft is too restrictive in many regards. “Achieving our shared education goals will require that we make room for sound education judgment and encourage continuous improvement across the states.” That sound judgment, according to CCSSO, includes allowing states to define the universe of multiple measures, allowing states to define alternative and viable growth models, and providing more discretion to states and local education agencies throughout the school designation and school improvement process.

The Education Trust, a staunch advocate of NCLB over the last five years, stated that the draft bill dumbed down the definitions of student academic progress and school success. “Transparency is a ‘must’ in accountability, but what the committee staff has proposed is a system that’s a statistical fog, obscuring the true picture of achievement in our schools,” said Amy Wilkins, Vice President of The Education Trust.

Yet, the criticisms were expected. Most of the advocacy groups have been, for one reason or another, unhappy with the law since it was signed in 2002 and they now have an incentive to slow the process down in order to better influence the outcome. It was the administration’s criticism of the draft that was most surprising because the administration has strong incentive to pass this as a part of President Bush’s legacy. Yet, even for the administration, the draft was far too complex and it lacked sufficient transparency.

In her September 5th letter to Chairman George Miller, Secretary Spellings outlined five issues of critical concern for the administration. First, the draft is too complex. The approach of multiple measures, growth models and a performance index is “far more complex than the current law,” and that would make it more difficult for parents to understand whether their school are doing a good job. That the US Department of Education (ED) finds this too complex cannot be understated.

Second, the inclusion of non-academic indicators in determination of student progress in reading and math “creates a greater potential for masking student’s and schools’ true performance.” According to ED, it offends the law’s central tenant, which is to close the achievement gap.

Third, the draft would reduce school choice and supplemental educational services, which would “significantly restrict the opportunities for children in schools that fail to make AYP” and schools might never be held accountable for real change or be required to provide real options for parents.

Fourth, the draft’s expanded flexibility for students with disabilities and with limited English proficiency would result in the exclusion of more students from the state accountability system. The practice could “allow them to be held to lower standards.”

Fifth, the draft’s new Graduation Promise Fund expands accountability into high schools, but the administration “believes that this can be best achieved by expanding the existing Title I program rather than creating a costly new high school program.”

By the close of Thursday, it was apparent that the draft’s criticism spanned the political spectrum and it places Chairman George Miller in a difficult position. He does not have the support of the administration, does not have the support of the unions, lacks key support from the chief state school officers, and certainly lacks the support of Republicans in the House, not to mention the Senate. To be fair, this was a “discussion draft” and it will change over time, but the strong criticism stands in sharp contrast to his claims that he would like to move this language through the House by the end of September. It begs the question, what is his strategy? The answer is not yet clear, but it is evident that this will be a contentious matter and the likelihood of completing this bill by the end of the year is not good.

Regarding the next steps, the House Committee on Education and Labor will hold a hearing on the discussion draft next Monday, September 10. The witnesses have not yet been announced but we know there will be 30 to 40 panelists. What we do not know is how many members will be there, as most members of the Committee have not had the time to review and properly prepare for the event and because the hearing will compete with General Petraeus’s testimony before Congress on the status of the “surge” and his recommendations moving forward in Iraq. After the hearing, Chairman Miller will likely introduce the bill. It will go directly before the full Committee, skipping the subcommittee, and then Chairman Miller has said that he will try to bring it to the House floor on the week of September 24th. Whether this will happen is uncertain and will depend on how Monday’s hearing goes. There is a great deal of skepticism among the education policy advocates and among the Members of Congress regarding the timing and the substance of this discussion draft. However it works out, we will be covering the matter with an unblinking eye.

Author: DAD

CMS Posts Proposed Rule on Medicaid Reimbursements

The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) posted a proposed rule in today's Federal Register to eliminate reimbursement for certain school-related costs under Medicaid. CMS has attempted to institute this rule since 1988, but has never met with success, due to both public and Congressional rejection of the proposal. The proposed rule would establish a Secretarial finding that school-based administrative activities are not necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan. Moreover, this proposed rule would establish a finding that transportation from to and from school for school-age children is neither necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan, nor within the scope of the optional medical transportation benefit. Based on these findings, the proposed rule would specify that federal financial participation under the Medicaid program will not be available for school-based administrative and certain transportation costs unless conducted by employees of the State or local Medicaid agency. CMS has opened up for public comments on the proposed rule. Comments on the proposed rule must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2007.

Because of the agency's long history of opposition to this program, it is unlikely that comments in opposition will have any serious impact on the decision to eliminate the program. Therefore, the best hope is for Congressional intervention. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee attempted to add a provision to the Senate's bill expanding the State Children's Health insurance Program (SCHIP) that would have placed a one year restriction on regulatory efforts to eliminate the program, allowing Congress enough time to work on a more permanent solution. The provision did not make it into the bill, but there is still a possibility that the conference report for the SCHIP expansion may contain such language. Otherwise, there are other vehicles, such as appropriations bills, that can carry the provision. However, this relies heavily on Congress's ability to move quickly on the issue, and that is not likely to occur.

To view the Federal Register listing, go to:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20071800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-4356.pdf.

Author: SAS

ESEA Discussion Draft: Multiple Measures

While there is disagreement about many provisions of the NCLB discussion draft, it is nearly certain that the reauthorized law will include a system of multiple indicators. It is what many states, advocacy groups, and other organizations requested in the reauthorized law; it is what the Committee tried to deliver (and kudos for the diligent work); and yet, this particular system of multiple measures has been greeted with reservations due to its complexity and the concern that it could be used to mask inequities in academic progress among the law’s subgroups. The final solution, whatever it may be, will be a difficult needle to thread, but the discussion is now well underway and it begins with the language proposed in the discussion draft. As such, it is critical to understand the language in order to understand how it will develop in the coming weeks (maybe many weeks).

How, as provided in the discussion draft, do the multiple measures work? The process is laid out in section 1111. It begins with the foundation of the current status model of measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) that moves all subgroups toward grade level proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year, according to the state’s determined annual measurable objectives (AMO) in, at least, math, reading or language arts and science according to the “academic assessments” provisions of the law. There are also new technical revisions to the measure of AYP such as: 1) an “N” size that must be between 30 and 40 students depending on the state’s agreement with the U.S. Department of Education; 2) a new and complex section of the statute (1124) on the calculation of graduation rates; and 3), caps on confidence intervals. These and other elements will receive more attention in later Updates.

The discussion draft adds a new subparagraph “(E) System of Multiple Indicators” that that allows multiple indicators to contribute to a school’s progress towards making its AYP AMOs. The allowable measures depend on the gradespan of the school. An elementary school may choose from the first two measures listed below and the credit that each subgroup receives by using these scores may not exceed 15% of its AMOs in reading or language arts and mathematics. Secondary schools may choose from the following five measures or fully meet the graduation rate growth targets, established in the new Section 1124. The total credit any secondary school group may receive may not exceed 25%. The graduation growth rate target option, if chosen, may only provide credit for up to 15% of a group’s AMOs. Additional conditions on the available multiple measures are identified below, referencing proposed Section 1111(b)(2)(E)(i).
‘‘(I) Growth on State assessments of science, history, civics and government, or writing.
‘‘(II) Increases in the percentage of students who move from the below basic level to the basic level and the proficient level to the advanced level, unless such score interpretations are already considered as part of the State’s growth model or performance index used to determine the school’s proficiency rate and as long as the total number of students who are proficient also increases.
 The credit may be only applied to the subject for which the increases occurred.
‘‘(III) Increases in the percentages of students passing rigorous, objective, independent end of course exams in core academic subjects such as for Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, QualityCore or another rigorous secondary school program of study as defined in … the Higher Education Act of 1965, if such courses are available in all schools in the state and such exams are not included in the State assessment system.
 This measure may only provide up to 10% of a group’s AMOs
‘‘(IV) Increases in college enrollment rates and percentages of secondary school graduates enrolling in other public or private accredited degree granting institution of higher education.
 This measure may only provide up to 5% of a group’s AMOs
‘‘(V) Decreases in dropout rates.
 This measure may only provide up to 5% of a group’s AMOs
In exchange for the multiple measures, the Committee’s draft sets aggressive objectives for these measures and growth targets for the measures. (You may want to stop reading at this point and prepare for some dizzying calculations).

Regarding the objectives, the state must set universal goals for achievement on each indicator that is equal to the highest performing subgroup in the highest performing 10% of local education agencies (LEA) in the state. States with only one LEA must set the average achievement of the top 15% of students in the state.

Regarding growth, the target must be the same for all subgroups and the growth targets are based on the average rate of percentage point growth of the top 20% of schools in the state that demonstrate the largest gains of performance for at least one year prior to the year the state implements the multiple indicators system.

Regarding rates over time, the annual growth must be substantial and continuous. It must be based on the difference between actual performance of each subgroup on each additional indicator in the year prior to the year the state implements its multiple indicators system and the universal goal over a 10 year period.

There is also partial credit granted. If there is progress on any indicator, other than the graduation rate growth targets, the group may get partial credit “based on the proportion of the percentage increase associated with fully meeting the indicator that is equal to the extent to which the annual growth target for the indicator is met.”

Finally, the draft requires that the state’s system of multiple indicators meet some across the board requirements:
 The same additional indicators must be the used for all schools or level of schools;
 The additional indicators must be measured separately for each subgroup;
 The credit may not help a school meet the 95% participation requirement;
 Secondary schools may not make AYP if they do not meet the full growth targets and credit from other indicators may not be applied to help a school meet the graduation rate growth targets;
 The state must report the results for each subgroup in addition to the aggregate AYP determination;
 The statewide data collection system must be capable of collecting valid and reliable data for each indicator; and
 The collection of the data must not delay reporting of AYP determinations;

The draft system of multiple indicators moves NCLB away from the single statewide assessment model, but it comes with a hefty cost. Managing such a system would be complex and the likelihood of unintended consequences is considerable. On Monday, the House will host a hearing on the discussion draft, and the system of multiple indicators will, to be sure, be a hot topic. There is plenty to discuss, assuming that the Members of the Committee have any interest in engaging the panelists at such a detailed level. We will see on Monday.

Author: DAD

WIA Not Expected to Move Before October

Last year, the House and Senate authorizing committees approved competing WIA reauthorization bills, which ultimately collapsed due to a provision in the House bill allowing faith-based providers to discriminate in hiring based on religion. Legislation to reauthorize WIA has not been introduced in either the House or Senate and the issue is not expected to receive significant attention until the committees have acted on HEA.

Senate staff has begun working on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. Democratic Legislative Counsel has begun revising H.R. 27, which was the version of the bill that was passed during the last Congress by both the House and the Senate. It is expected that the Democrats will give the bill to Republican staff before they formally introduce it, which is not expected until late fall, if at all.

Finding time for reauthorization debate on the Senate floor and bringing it to a vote will be difficult amid a very busy legislative agenda. House Democrats have indicated that they will use this revised version of H.R. 27 as the framework for their reauthorization efforts as well, which would help streamline efforts to bring the two chambers of Congress into concordance. Although H.R. 27 will provide a base for reauthorization efforts, separate legislation will likely be introduced as each chamber moves forward.

Under H.R. 27, both state and local workforce investment boards must ensure that one-stop centers deliver skills and cater to the employment demands in the local area. This “demand driven” policy would allow training for incumbent workers so that employers are able to upgrade the skills of their current workers, and also encourage training providers, including community colleges, to offer training through the one-stop system. The infrastructure funding system was not changed, which allows for a percentage of Perkins funding to be redirected to support one-stop administration and management.

The current law, which provides funding for both in-school and out-of-school youth, is amended to provide funds to go through a state formula program designed to focus on services that meet the needs the hardest to serve out of school youth.

On Thursday, June 28th, the House Education and Labor Committee held its first hearing in a series on the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), “Recommendations to Improve the Effectiveness of Job Training.” Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness Chairman Rubén Hinojosa (D-TX) was joined by fellow Democrats John Tierney (MA), John Yarmuth (KY), and Bobby Scott (VA), and Ranking Member Ric Keller (R-FL) and, briefly, Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA).

The panelists included:
• Dr. Sigurd Nilsen, Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues Government Accountability Office (GAO);
• Dr. Rachel Gragg, Federal Policy Director, The Workforce Alliance;
• Ms. Evelyn Ganzglass, Director, Workforce Development Center for Law and Social Policy;
• Dr. Sandra Baxter, Director, National Institute for Literacy;
• Mr. Wes Jurey, President and CEO, Arlington Texas Chamber of Commerce;
• Mr. Bruce Ferguson, Jr., President and CEO, Worksource.

The entire panel endorsed the critical role of the law’s training services in the emerging global economy, but recognized that the law required improvement. Three corrective themes were common. First, and possibly most important, the reauthorized law must have data that are more accurate about the enrolled job seekers. As stated by Mr. Nilsen and detailed in the June 28 GAO report, entitled “Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the System:”

We have little information at a national level about what the workforce investment system under WIA achieves. Outcome data does not provide a complete picture of WIA services.”

Second, there should be less focus on infrastructure funding and more on training, and the law should provide more flexibility regarding the sequence of training and the ability to target funds on programs that are specific to particular regional industry needs. Third, WIA’s funding should be simplified and more flexible in order to create more innovative practices and to promote the sharing of successful practices among the training centers.

On Thursday, July 26, the subcommittee held a hearing on reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which consolidates, coordinates, and improves employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation programs. The subcommittee focused on workforce development systems, though no specific legislation is pending, and the committee has not scheduled any markups. Although no time table is currently set, committee staff have confirmed that no legislation will hit the floor until later this fall, if at all.

Witnesses at the hearing included:
• Beth Butler - disability and accommodations consultant, Wachovia Corp., Charlotte, NC;
• John Twomey - Executive Director, New York Association of Training and Employment Professionals, representing National Workforce Association;
• Mason A. Petit - Washington State Employment Security, representing American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Spokane, WA;
• Charles Ware - Chairman, National Association of State Workforce Board Chairs , representing National Governors Association , Cheyenne, WY;
• Joe Carbone - Director, Workplace Inc., Bridgeport, CT; and
• Kathleen Randolph - President, Partners for Workforce Solutions Inc.

Discussion was relatively short, but focused on ways to increase services available at the one-stop career centers. John Twomey made a point to mention that one-stops are reducing duplication and increasing cost efficiency of the Federal workforce investment and partner programs. Twomey recommended that one-stops be authorized in a separate, new title of WIA, to reinforce the fact that one-stops are the primary infrastructure through which to access services in a comprehensive workforce investment system. As is the case in nearly every other reauthorization debate, all panelists agreed that additional funding for various WIA programs is necessary.

Although holding two WIA hearings in less than a month seems encouraging, reauthorization is still not a guarantee for this year. To date, the Senate has not moved forward with any preliminary hearings, and the House has only just begun consideration. Meanwhile, both chambers are engrossed in higher education reconciliation and reauthorization programs, twelve appropriation bills for fiscal year 2008 (FY08), and behind the scenes talks on reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Another barrier is the month-long August recess. When Congress comes back in September, both chambers will have less than a month to deal with all twelve appropriations bills for FY08. This packed schedule does not leave much time for working on the long overdue WIA reauthorization.

Authors: DAD, SAS

Senate Set for Work on Farm Bill

On July 27, the House passed, H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill, which reauthorized various agricultural programs through 2012. After voting on multiple amendments, the House passed the bill by a vote of 231-191. Republicans failed to pass a motion to recommit the bill back to the House Agriculture Committee, which would have sent the legislation back to the beginning of the legislative process. Instead, Democratic leaders were able to keep their rank and file members in line, passing the bill and taking the first major step towards reauthorizing the nation’s agricultural programs.

The nutrition title of the bill authorizes $70 million for expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) into 35 schools in each state. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would then distribute additional funds, as necessary, to states based on population. The original proposal called for 50 schools in every state to receive funds, but the $100 million was contingent on offsets. The new language guarantees the $70 million, but calls for a scaled back expansion.

Currently, the FFVP operates in 14 states (Utah, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Texas, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Washington, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania) and on 3 Indian Tribal Organizations (Pine Ridge in South Dakota, Zuni in New Mexico and the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona). A total of 375 schools currently participate.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) offered an amendment that requests that food, available under the school breakfast and lunch programs, be of maximum nutritional value as a means to reduce juvenile obesity. The amendment passed by an overwhelming majority of 422-3. While the House has finished their work, the Senate has not begun work on their Farm Bill.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is aiming to mark up the committee’s own version of the farm bill during the third week of September. Committee aides have circulated private “discussion drafts” of every title except for the commodities element of the bill, which contains income support programs for grain, corn, cotton and other crops. Staffers have been meeting to discuss the discussion draft proposals and to offer feedback during the August recess.

Sen. Harkin plans to release a complete proposal shortly after the Senate returns next week. Although he has not mentioned specifics, Sen. Harkin has said he plans to use the farm bill as an opportunity to promote healthy living by investing in the fresh fruit and vegetable program, increasing access to locally grown foods and encouraging child nutrition.

Resources:
Beth Crowley, “Senate Farm Bill Likely to Be Marked Up in Third Week of September,” Congress Now, August 17, 2007.
Author: SAS

HEA Put on Backburner for NCLB

Congress is working on two separate measures for higher education. First, both chambers have passed a Higher Education reconciliations bill, H.R. 2669, as directed in the fiscal year 2008 (FY08) joint budget resolution. That resolution instructed the House Education and Labor Committee and the Senate Health, Education, labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee to find $750 million in deficit-reducing cuts to mandatory programs that fall within the two panels' jurisdictions. The Senate also passed a reauthorization package for the Higher Education Act (HEA), which expired in 2004. Congress has passed multiple extensions over the last three years, due to a lack of consensus on reauthorization policies.

By a vote of 95-0, the Senate passed S. 1642, Higher Education Amendments, reauthorizing the Higher Education Act (HEA) on Tuesday, July 24. The unanimous vote signals the only truly bipartisan support for any legislation that has made its way to the Senate floor this year. After only two days of debate, the Senate was able to pass the bill much more quickly than usual. However, since the House has not moved forward on its own reauthorization legislation, both chambers had to pass a three-month extension of the HEA, giving the House additional time to produce its own comprehensive package.

The Senate bill, which reauthorizes higher education programs for five years, represents the first renewal of the HEA since 1998. Provisions within S. 1642 include:

• Increasing the amount of information that schools and lenders must provide to students, including up-front disclosure of loan rates and terms and data on total school costs, and would ban lenders from giving schools financial aid funds or any other perks to get on a preferred lender list;
• Directing the U.S. Secretary of Education to assess costs that drive tuition increases and examine ways to contain costs and track pricing trends, alerting schools that the government will monitor tuition increases and consider ways to curb them; and
• Requiring colleges and universities to draft codes of conduct governing relationships with lenders, shorten the application form for federal student aid, and authorize a pilot program to allow students to learn the total aid they can expect to receive up to two years in advance.

Before final passage, the Senate adopted Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) amendment, which bars colleges and universities from using federal funds or student aid money for lobbying, and would require schools to certify to the Education Secretary that they abide by those terms. Coburn’s original proposal also prohibited use of tuition money for lobbying purposes, but a secondary amendment from Sen. Kennedy, adopted by a 93-0 vote, removed that language from the underlying amendment, which the Senate accepted by a voice vote.

Shortly after passing S. 1642, the Senate passed a short HEA extension, to run through October 31, 2007, since the House has not made any progress on its own reauthorization. Although both chambers have passed H.R. 2669, a higher education reconciliation bill, there is no HEA reauthorization legislation for the House Education and Labor Committee to review. While Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) has not set out a timetable for reauthorization, he did promise that the House will eventually move forward with its own comprehensive package. Recently, Chariman Miller decided that the committee will not take up the HEA until it completes work on the No Child Left Behind reauthorization. The three-month HEA extension seems to show that the House may not move as quickly as the Senate did, especially considering that the House will not likely have any legislation completed before October.

Meanwhile, both chambers can now move forward on the reconciliation package. H.R. 2669 now goes to conference, where the leadership will have to settle the major differences between the two versions. The biggest difference is that the House bill, passed last week, halves the interest rates on subsidized student loans, from 6.8% to 3.4%. This rate cut is part of House Democrats’ “Six for ’06” agenda that Chairman Miller seems unwilling to sacrifice. While Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Chairman, is likely to be equally stubborn on Senate provisions, such as auctioning the right to offer federally backed PLUS loans to parents, the Senate measure has factors working in its favor. The President has already made a veto threat on the House bill, while only expressing “serious concern” with the Senate proposal. The fact that the White House has offered to negotiate with Sen. Kennedy gives Senate conferees the upper hand in negotiating with the House.

Resources:
Doug Lederman, “Unanimity in the Senate,” Inside Higher Ed, July 25, 2007.
Karey Wutkowski, “Senate Backs Crackdown on Student Loan Problems,” Reuters, July 24, 2007.
Libby George, “Kennedy Gives Higher Education Package ‘Outside Chance’ of Quick Passage,” CQ Today, July 24, 2007.
Author: SAS

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)