Bruman Legislative Office: 2007-11-04

Monday, November 5, 2007

GAO Report on Quality of Audits

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

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

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

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

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

Author: SLK

OIG Issues Report on NCLB Reauthorization

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

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

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

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

Author: CWP

Senate Farm Bill Ready for Floor Consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: SAS

HEA Extended Through March

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

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

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

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

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

SCHIP Round 2

The Senate passed the latest reauthorization package for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) despite continued veto threats from the White House. The Senate voted 64-30 in favor of passing H.R. 3963, setting up yet another veto fight in what appears to be the season of vetoes. However, unlike the first time Congress sent SCHP to the President, Democrats are not planning to rush an override vote, opting to take a more subtle approach this time around.

The bill still increases SCHIP funding by $35 billion over five years, offset by a $.61 increase on cigarette taxes. However, the bill contains language that will phase childless adults out of the program in one year, as well as language to ensure children currently covered by private insurance companies stay with their current plans. Republicans, however, are still concerned with the cost, and the bill’s apparent attempts to shift children to “socialized” healthcare. President Bush is still promising to veto the package due to excessive spending. His Administration proposed only a $5 billion expansion earlier this year.

The new bill also includes language that would keep the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from implementing restrictions on Medicaid payments until January of 2010. This provision is in direct response to efforts by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to place restrictions on Medicaid payments to schools for administrative and transportation costs related to services provided to students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Congress attached a 6 month moratorium on these restrictions in the conference report of the last SCHIP bill, but that proposal died when the House failed to override the President’s veto.

Thursday, November 1, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the proposed changes to Medicaid payments. Advocates from various education and health organizations presented their concerns regarding CMS’ efforts to members of Congress. Dennis Smith, Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations at CMS attempted to defend his agency’s regulatory efforts, but was met with much skepticism. Members of the Committee, including Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), viewed CMS’ actions as disrespectful to Congress’ role of oversight and their authority over governmental programs.

Democrats in the House are still 15 votes shy of a veto-proof majority for the SCHIP bill, but have laid plans to bring as much political pressure to their opposition as they can before bringing the bill to the floor for an override vote. Last time, Democrats rushed the House vote, against Republican protests, and suffered for it. This time the Democratic leadership plans to hold off on an override vote long enough to actively campaign for the additional votes necessary. As such, it is not clear when the final override vote will happen, so Congress may end up having more December votes than they anticipated.

Resources:
Drew Armstrong, “SCHIP Clears Again; Talks Continue With Would-Be Supporters in House,” CQ Today, November 1, 2007.
Stephen Langel, “Democrats Stepping Back After Latest SCHIP Defeat,” Congress Now, November 1, 2007.
Mark W. Sherman, “Lawmakers, CMS Official Spar Over School Medicaid Dollars,” Education Daily, November 2, 2007.
Author: SAS

Secretary of Education Amends ACG and SMART Grant Regulations

The Secretary of Education recently amended the regulations for the Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) and National Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART Grant) programs. The purpose of the amendments is to reduce administrative burden for program participants and to clarify program requirements. The new regulations are effective as of July 1, 2008. The amendments were announced on Monday in the Federal Register. 72 Fed. Reg. 61248 (Oct. 29, 2007).

There are a number of changes to the applicable higher education regulations, 34 CFR Part 691, as a result of the regulations, some very minor, while others more substantial. Among the changes are the following:
• Requiring an institution in which a student is currently enrolled to determine the student’s academic year progression based on the student’s attendance in all ACG and National SMART Grant eligible programs only at that institution.
• Adding a new provision to require that when determining the appropriate academic year for a transfer student, the institution to which the student transferred must count both (a) the number of credit or clock hours earned by the student at prior institutions that are accepted for the student, and (b) an estimated number of weeks of instructional time completed by the student.
• Adding a new provision requiring three alternative methods to determine the weeks of instructional time for a student’s academic year progression, and to provide that an institution choosing to use one of these alternative methods must do so for all students enrolled in the eligible program.
• Clarifying that when determining academic year progression for a student, an institution may not assign any weeks of instructional time to certain credit or clock hours accepted toward a student’s eligible program if those credit or clock hours were earned from Advanced Placement (AP) programs, International Baccalaureate (IB) programs, testing out, life experience, other similarly earned credits or credits earned while not enrolled as a regular student in an ACG or National SMART Grant eligible program, or coursework that is not at the postsecondary level, such as remedial coursework
• Clarifying that an institution must assign weeks of instructional time to determine National SMART Grant eligibility for periods in which a student was enrolled in an ACG-eligible program before declaring, or certifying his or her intent to declare, an eligible major.
• Clarifying that, for purposes of eligibility for ACG and National SMART Grants, an institution that assesses grade point average (GPA) on a numeric scale other than a 4.0 scale must ensure that its minimum GPA requirement meets the same numeric standard as a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher on a 4.0 scale.
• Clarifying that institutions are required to calculate a student’s GPA for determining second-year ACG eligibility as follows:
o For a student who transfers to an institution that accepts into the student’s ACG eligible program at least the credit or clock hours for one academic year, but for less than two academic years, the institution must calculate the student’s GPA using the grades from all coursework accepted into the student’s ACG eligible program.
o For a student who transfers to an institution that accepts less than the credit or clock hours for an academic year into the student’s ACG eligible program, the institution must calculate the student’s GPA by combining the grades from all coursework accepted into the student’s ACG eligible program with the grades for coursework earned at the current institution through the payment period in which the student completes the credit or clock hours for his or her first academic year.
• Adding a new provision to require that, for a transfer student who transfers from one institution to another institution at which the student is eligible for a National SMART Grant, the subsequent institution determines that student’s eligibility for the first payment period using one of two methods, depending on whether it incorporates the grades from the student’s previous coursework that it accepts on transfer into the student’s GPA at the subsequent institution.
• Extending eligibility for a first-academic-year ACG to any student who enrolls as a regular student in an ACG eligible program while in high school provided that the student is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance.
• Requiring an institution to document a student’s eligible major and progress in the eligible program and major by maintaining documentation, such as the following:
o Documentation of the declared major, including written declaration of intent to declare an eligible major provided by the student; and
o Written documentation showing that the student is progressing in coursework leading to a degree in the student’s intended or declared eligible major; and
o Written documentation that the student is enrolling in the courses necessary to complete a degree in the intended or declared eligible major.
• Providing a process for institutions of higher education to request additional majors to be added to the list of eligible majors for National SMART Grants.

The Federal Register notice stated that there were no significant differences between the Department of Education’s original Notice of Public Rulemaking and the final regulations resulting from public comment or legislative action.
You can view the Federal Register notice at http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2007-4/102907a.html.

Author: CWP

Congress Ready to Send “Mini-Bus” Appropriations to President

Thursday, November 1, Congressional conferees voted to send the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 (FY08) to the President as part of a “mini-bus” package that includes the Veterans Affairs and Military (VA-Mil) construction bill. The package originally included the Department of Defense appropriations as well, but was dropped due to controversial Iraq provisions. The conference report is ready for floor consideration, though it is unclear if the proposal will make through the Senate.

The conference report includes $150.7 billion in discretionary spending for the three departments (Labor-HHS-Education) and several independent agencies, notably the Social Security Administration. A number of discretionary programs received increases this year in both bills, including Title I, special education, and Pell grants. The final conference report also includes a $25 million increase for career and technical education. Total spending in the Labor-HHS-Education portion of the bill is $608.3 billion, including entitlements such as Medicare and Medicaid. The conference report’s discretionary total for Labor-HHS-Education is $1 billion less than in the House-passed bill and $841 million more than in the Senate version. It is $9.8 billion more than Bush requested.

The VA-Mil and the Labor-HHS-Education bills were combined as way of further politicizing the appropriations fight between Congressional Democrats and the White House. Republicans in Congress are criticizing the majority for attempting to use veterans funding as a political tool against the President. Forty-four Senate Republicans sent a joint letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) condemning the decision to package the two bills together. Some Senators are already planning to take further action against the mini-bus package.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) stated her intention to bring a point of order against the conference report, which she claims violates Senate Rule XXVIII. The new Senate rule is intended to prevent “airdropping” earmarks into conference reports. Sen. Hutchison claims that since conferees were only appointed to work on the Labor-HHS-Education bill, adding the VA-Mil bill constitutes an earmark, since it authorizes funding for projects not originally in either version of the Labor-HHS-Education legislation. Under Senate rules, the Chair must decide to accept the point of order to preclude further action on the bill in violation of Senate rules, which is unlikely.

President Bush is already threatening to veto the mini-bus, which may be exactly what Democrats are hoping for. By vetoing the total legislative package, Democrats can not only accuse the President of vetoing the largest domestic spending bill (Labor-HHS-Education), but also for vetoing funding for veterans programs, statistically a large Republican base. Although the President is issuing threats, the final votes in the House and Senate will be the deciding factor. If Congress is able to pass the conference report by veto-proof majorities, however unlikely that might be, the President just may refrain from vetoing the bill.

Resources:
Scott Cox, “Hutchison Targets Labor-HHS and MilCon Bill With Point of Order,” Congress Now, November 1, 2007.
Alex Wayne, “Measure Boosts Spending for Domestic Priorities, but Veto Threat Looms,” CQ Today, November 1, 2007.
Frank Wolfe, “Conferees Approve$60.7 Billion for Education,” Education Daily, November 2, 2007.
Author: SAS

Collecting and Reporting Ethnic Data

Two week0s ago, the United States Department of Education (ED) released final guidance on maintaining, collecting and reporting ethnic data to ED. 72 Fed. Reg. 59266, (Oct. 19, 2007). The final guidance details how educational institutions and other recipients of grants and contracts from ED will:

• Collect and maintain racial ands ethnic data from students and staff;
• Aggregate racial and ethnic data when reporting those data to ED; and
• Report and aggregate those data under No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

In brief, ED will require the use of a two-part question. The first question will be whether or not the respondent is Hispanic/Latino. The second question will ask the respondent to select from five racial groups. If, in the case of an elementary or secondary school, the individual or parents do not self-identify their race or ethnicity, the regulations allow the institutional agent to use observer identification.
Once collected, the reporting to ED will be in seven categories:
1. Hispanic/Latino of any race; and, for individuals who are non-Hispanic/Latino only;
2. American Indian or Alaska Native;
3. Asian;
4. Black or African American;
5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander;
6. White; and
7. Two or more races.

The final guidance will affect reporting under NCLB. It stipulates that state educational agencies (SEA) will continue to have discretion in determining which racial and ethnic groups will be used for accountability purposes, yet that discretion comes with conditions. If an SEA makes changes to the racial and ethnic data categories, swapping native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander for Asian/Pacific Islander for example, then it must submit an amendment to its Accountability Workbook. If it does not change its major racial and ethnic groups, it may be necessary to “bridge” the previous data collection groups to the new reporting groups in order to maintain reliable data over time and to facilitate uniform data gathering and maintenance practices. Bridging involves adopting a method for being able to link the new data collected using the two-part question with data collected before the publication of this guidance. For example, an SEA may ‘‘bridge’’ the ‘‘two or more races’’ category into single race categories or the new single race categories into the previous single race categories.

However an SEA chooses to reconcile its collection and reporting practices, the new final rules reminds the SEA that ED, always steward of the federal dollars, will closely scrutinize any changes. “During the Department’s routine monitoring of Title I programs, we expect to ask States … the extent to which they may relate to any changes in the demographic measurements that may have been brought about by the changes in the final guidance.” 72 Fed. Reg. 59266, (Oct. 19, 2007) at 59272. The guidance’s implementation date will begin with reporting data from the 2010–2011 school year.

Resource:
Racial and ethnic data standards; collection and reporting requirements, 72 Fed. Reg. 59266, (Oct. 19, 2007), http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a071019c.html.
Author: DAD

2007 Farm Bill Ready for the Senate Floor

Thursday, October 25, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee finally approved the 2007 Farm Bill, nearly three months after the House passed its own version of the reauthorization legislation. The two-day mark up came to an end after Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) was finally able to strike a deal with opposition to a change in certain farm subsidy programs. The committee report includes an expansion of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), contingent on available funds.

Sen. Harkin’s proposal for the FFVP includes expanding into all 50 states, though the bill does not set concrete funding levels for the program. Instead, the bill directs $225 million for FY08, if the funding is available. From there, it calls for annual appropriations to dictate the spending levels, though Harkin claims it will lead to about $1.1 billion over five years. Each year, each of the 50 states will receive 1% of the available funds for the program, with the remaining funds allocated based on states’ proportion of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch under the National School Lunch Program.

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

Debate slowed when Sen. Harkin found himself at odds with other members regarding his plan for changes to certain farm subsidies. Farmers would have the option of opting out of the current system, based on cyclical payments around a minimum price level for crops, choosing instead payments based on state’s targeted price levels. Harkin brokered a deal where farmers would have a two year period to make the transition, a compromise that took the committee over the last divisive issue, clearing the bill for approval.

There is no clear timeline for when the Senate will consider the legislation, though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said that the Senate will not consider any more appropriations bills until the President vetoes or signs the Labor-HHS-Education bill, freeing up additional time on the Senate calendar. Reid and Harkin originally planned to push the Farm Bill through the Senate in September, but the appropriations schedule pushed most other bills to the bottom of the priority list. Now, that Reid has cleared the schedule, at least for the next few weeks, the Senate is free to consider the farm bill, possibly as early as next week.

Resources:
Catharine Richert and Michael Teitelbaum, “Senate Panel Approves 2007 Farm Bill,” CQ Today, October 25, 2007.
Geof Koss, “Senate Agriculture Panel Clears Farm Bill After Deal on Key Amendment,” Congress Now, October 25, 2007.
Author: SAS

House Passes SCHIP Bill...Again

Thursday, October 25, the House passed H.R. 3963, the latest State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill, by a vote of 265-142. Once again, the House fell short of the 289 votes necessary to override a Presidential veto, casting doubt over this new proposal’s chances of becoming law. The override vote tally, however, is not clear due to the number of California Congressmen who were in their home districts monitoring local fire relief efforts, as well as the absence of a few other members of Congress.

Like the previous reauthorization bill, H.R. 3963 proposes a $35 billion expansion over five years, and still tries to offset the costs with a $.61 increase in cigarette taxes. This time, Democratic leaders attempted to assuage some Republican concerns over the coverage provided under the bill. Childless parents, which were slated for a more gradual phase out, would be phased out in one year under the new bill. The bill also directs private insurance companies to work towards ensuring that children would not be forced to alter their plans under the new SCHIP expansion, another White House concern.

A critical change to the new bill includes a longer moratorium on the ability of the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS), in the Department of Health and Human Services, to restrict Medicaid reimbursement payments to schools. The new language reads as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall not, prior to January 1, 2010, take any action (through promulgation of regulation, issuance of regulatory guidance, use of federal payment audit procedures, or other administrative action, policy, or practice, including a Medical Assistance Manual transmittal or letter to State Medicaid directors) 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.

The conference report for the previous SCHIP bill, H.R. 976, provided a similar moratorium, but only through May 2008. This provision would provide more long-term security for schools in danger of losing funds for school related rehabilitative, administration and transportation costs for students currently eligible under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Earlier this year, the CMS issues proposed rules that would eliminate CMS’ obligations for these payments. Education advocates have been and continue to call for a legislative block to the proposed payment restrictions.

As stated above, the House fell 24 votes short of the required number for overriding a veto, but 26 members of Congress missed the vote, a fact that Republicans tried to use to delay debate on the issue. There were a number of Republicans included in that number, so it is unlikely that all 26 votes would have gone in favor of the bill. However, the bill is now headed to the Senate, giving Democratic leaders in the House more time to lobby their Republican colleagues. In the end, if the House is not able to gain a veto-proof majority, the moratorium langue will need to find another vehicle for passage.

Resources:
Stephen Langel, “House SCHIP Bill Again Fails to Secure Veto-Proof Majority,” Congress Now, October 25, 2007.
Author: SAS

DREAM On

On Wednesday, the Senate moved to consider S. 2205, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007 (DREAM Act), which was introduced on October 18. The move sought to secure 60 votes for cloture, which cuts off debate on a bill and avoids the practice of killing off a bill through a litany of amendments or a filibuster. The vote failed and Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the bill’s sponsor, will now have to find another vehicle for the bill in order to pass it during the 110th Congress. Sen. Durbin has advocated for the matter over the last five years and Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) carried the torch on Wednesday. “I very much appreciate the hard work of Senator Durbin and Senator Hatch to bring this legislation to the floor. They have worked tirelessly to ensure this important bipartisan bill does not go away. We must now invoke cloture and pass this bill. Vote cloture and move to this legislation. If we do, we will put the American dream within the reach of far more children in Nevada and across America who want nothing more than a fair chance at success. That will be an accomplishment of which we can all be proud.” The effort, however, was without success. The result was announced – yeas 52, nays 44. Three-fifths of the Senators did not vote in the affirmative and the motion was rejected.

Resources:
Congressional Record, Daily Digest, Senate, Chamber Action, p.S13300-06.
Author: DAD

Labor-HHS-Education Bill Heads to Conference

Tuesday, October 23, the Senate passed H.R. 3043, the fiscal year 2008 (FY08) Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, by a veto-proof majority of 75-19. After four days of debating amendments, the bill is now ready for conference with the House, after which the President will have his first opportunity to follow through on his veto threats of any appropriations bills that exceed his funding requests. Congressional leaders plan to send the Labor-HHS-Education bill, the largest domestic spending legislation, to the President as soon as possible.

The Senate bill includes $606 billion in FY08 for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Education. The $149.9 billion in discretionary spending, which is $5.4 billion over FY07, is over $9 billion more than the President requested in his budget proposal. Within that number, the Senate increased the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) budget to $58 billion, $2 billion above FY07. A number of ED’s programs also received sizable increases.

The Senate bill increases Title I education grant funding by $1 billion, Pell grants by $826 million, special education funding by $528 million and funding for the Head Start program by $200 million. The House bill contains a $25 million increase for career and technical education (CTE). Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) proposed a similar amendment to the Senate version, but the Senate tabled the amendment, opting to level fund CTE programs. The CTE Congressional Caucus is lobbying for the House’s increase to appear in the final conference report.

The bill now heads to conference with the House, which provides about $2 billion more than the Senate. At a stakeholder’s meeting two weeks ago, Sen. Harkin said he hoped to come out of conference with levels closer to the House’s proposal. Congressional leaders expect a speedy conference, tentatively scheduled for next week. If negotiations proceed according to plan, President Bush may have the bill on his desk by the first full week in November, at which time most members of Congress are expecting him to issue a veto.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill is usually one of the last bills to make it through both chambers of Congress, but not this year. It will be the first to reach the President because the Democratic leadership knows he will veto it and they want to capture any political advantage that it may provide. Democrats will attempt to contrast the veto to the spending in Iraq and use this battle to shift the focus from Congress’ failure to pass all twelve spending bills by the start of the fiscal year, which was a major campaign promise of the Democratic majority. Once the President vetoes the bill, appropriators will go to work on either a large omnibus bill, or a few “minibus” bills, which will include multiple spending measures lumped into larger packages.

Meanwhile, the current continuing resolution (CR), which authorizes funding for government agencies at the previous fiscal year’s spending levels, runs out in mid-November. Congress will need to pass an additional CR to keep the government running through December, at which point leaders hope to have the final omnibus finished. While this process leaves time for additional changes, the final bill, in whatever form, will likely contain numbers similar to the conference report appropriators turn out next week.

Resources:
Alex Wayne, “Senate Passes Labor-HHS-Education Spending Bill,” CQ Today, October 23, 2007.
Kelsey Lamb, “Senate Passes Labor-HHS Spending Bill With Unexpected Ease,” Congress Now, October 23, 2007.
Author: SAS

ESEA Growth Model Language

Growth models are central to the reauthorization discussion. Many consider them a vast improvement over the law’s status model for measuring adequate yearly progress (AYP) and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is conducting a pilot program that allows States to use growth models to measure AYP. As of July 2007, nine states are operating approved pilot programs. Yet, the low national participation rate and the variability among the kinds of models indicate what most already know: these models can be complicated and difficult to operate. Borrowing an old saw: the devils (plural) are in the details.

How Congress would manage the details was a matter of considerable debate in the spring and summer, and the House discussion draft now offers their first cut at the issue. The draft model, currently, follows the U.S. Department of Education’s initiative and narrows the scope of allowable growth models by establishing strict program parameters. According to the law, States could “incorporate” student academic growth into the definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) so long as they meet some minimum requirements.

Allowable growth models must:
• Establish individual student growth objectives that are not based on individual student background characteristics;
• Establish separate, measurable objectives for the assessments of mathematics and reading or language arts;
• Include all students in the State’s assessment and accountability system; and
• Require that all groups meet the 2013–2014 target for 100% grade level proficiency or be on trajectory to meet or exceed grade level proficiency within 3 years.
In addition, approval would require States to include the results of assessments in their definition of AYP that:
• Produce comparable results from grade to grade and from year to year in mathematics and reading or language arts (3 through 8, and in secondary school);
• Track student progress through a State-developed longitudinal data system that meets the requirements of section 1123 and that has been in use by the State for at least two years; and
• Include, as separate academic indicators, the rate of student participation in assessments under paragraph (3); and other academic indicators as described in the law.

The discussion draft’s growth model parameters have sparked considerable debate because it maintains the goal of 100% grade level proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year. This, some argue, potentially guts the benefit of an individual or school growth model, which is designed to measure unique academic progress according to unique starting points. Customized trajectory and 100% proficiency by 2014 do not blend well, and this remains an active debate in the House and Senate education committees.

Two closing notes: Congressional Research Service produced an excellent report on the status of the growth models this summer, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act. Those states that are now conducting growth model programs include:
1. North Carolina (approved in May 2006)
2. Tennessee (May 2006)
3. Delaware (November 2006)
4. Arkansas (November 2006)
5. Florida (June 2007)
6. Iowa (May 2007)
7. Ohio (Conditional, May 2007)
8. Alaska (July 2007)
9. Arizona (July 2007)

Resource:
Miller and McKeon NCLB Discussion Draft, Title I, House Committee on Education and Labor (August 2007), http://edworkforce.house.gov/ (the documents are no longer posted on the committee’s site).
See Wayne Riddle, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act (Congressional Research Service: August 2007).
Author: DAD

Senate Committee Set for Farm Bill Markup

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, will finally hold their first markup of the 2007 Farm Bill on Wednesday, October 24. The Committee has delayed work on the bill, which Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) originally planned to mark up in September. Due to the hectic appropriations schedule, not to mention Harkin’s work as chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, the Farm Bill has been constantly delayed. However, committee staff has worked behind the scenes on the various titles of the farm bill, working on the contentious issues in hopes of finding a compromise before the bill made it to the markup.

On Wednesday, October 17, Sen. Harkin gave an update on where his proposals stand. Harkins hopes to bring a bill to the Senate floor that includes $4.2 billion over 5 years to expand food and nutrition programs, as well as $1.5 billion in new monies to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Program for school lunches. However, some staffers are worried that a lack of offsets will keep a majority of Senators from supporting new funding for nutrition programs. Meanwhile, debate continues over other, more contentious matters, such as where Harkin plans to get the new monies for his expansions.

Farmers currently get countercyclical payments when the price of a crop falls below a government-set national target. Sen. Harkin’s proposal would maintain that program but create another system that would be based on state price targets. Farmers could choose between this new subsidy or the traditional mix of farm supports. Sen. Harkin said it would free up about $3.5 billion to spend in other parts of the legislation, which is presently under tight budget constraints. The Farm Bureau, the country’s largest farming organization, is not pleased with the Chairman’s plans to use the savings to support nutrition, energy, conservation and fruit and vegetable programs. The Bureau wants the money to go towards strengthening other farm subsidies. Having the Bureau’s support could be critical to ensuring adequate support from Republican members of Congress.

However, in addition to Sen. Harkin’s claim that now is the time to invest in child nutrition, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a report showing that the nation’s school food offerings are beginning to become more nutritious. According to the report, the number of schools serving French fries is down from 40% in 2000 to about 19% in 2006. The percentage of schools that sold cookies or other high-fat baked goods at fundraisers dropped from 67% to 54% during the same six-year period.

In nearly half of schools, students can select bottled water instead of sugary drinks from school vending machines or snack bars, up from nearly a third of schools in 2000. Public health officials are optimistic about the changes, but agree that more efforts are necessary to keep making public schools healthier. Sen. Harkin will likely cite such statistics and opinions as his justification for increasing funding for nutrition programs.

Resources:
“School Nutrition Improving, Report Finds,” Education Week, October 19, 2007.
Catharine Richert, “Farm Bureau, Harkin Disagree on How Subsidy Savings Should Be Spent,” CQ Today, October 18, 2007.
Author: SAS

SCHIP Veto Sustained

H.R. 976, the State Children’s Health insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill, officially died as the House was unable to override the President’s veto, voting 273-156, falling 13 votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority. While six of the eight Democrats who votes against the bill’s initial passage chose to support the override, no Republicans changed their vote, choosing instead to send the issue back to committee. Now, the House and Senate, will each go back to the beginning, and craft new proposals.

Wasting no time, House Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH), introduced H.R. 3888, the More Children More Choices Act. The bill would fund the program at $7 billion per year until 2012 and at $8 billion thereafter. The legislation also includes a $1,400 tax credit for insured and uninsured children between 200 percent and 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Democratic leaders, however, were quick to dismiss the bill, which falls far below their proposal of funding SCHIP at $60 billion a year over the next five years. While Democrats may be willing to compromise, such a drastic cut in their proposal is not likely to gain any substantial support.

Meanwhile, with H.R. 976 being put to rest, the amendment dealing with a moratorium on the Department of Health and Human Services restricting, “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” is now in limbo. The moratorium would have lasted through May 2008, giving Congress additional time to find a more permanent solution to efforts by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to discontinue payments for non-medical payments to schools.

With the bill’s demise, the moratorium language now needs a new legislative vehicle. The most likely candidate now is either an individual appropriations bill, such as the Labor-HHS-Education bill currently on the Senate floor, or as part of the large omnibus appropriations bill that Congress will likely pass in the next month or two. The CMS proposed rule is currently in its public comment period, through early November. After that, there is an indeterminate amount of time for the Office of Management and Budget to approve the final rule and its eventual implementation. As such, Congress may find itself racing the clock to place a moratorium on the rule before CMS puts it into effect.

Resources:
Drew Armstrong, “Failure to Override SCHIP Veto Sends Democrats Back to Drawing Board, “CQ Today, October 18, 2007.
Stephen Langel, “Lawmakers Begin Search for SCHIP Compromise,” Congress Now, October 18, 2007.
Author: SAS

Senate Starts Debate on Labor-HHS-Education Bill

The Senate finally began debating the fiscal year 2008 (FY08) Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill three weeks ago. Congressional leaders hope that this bill, which is the largest domestic spending bill, will be the first they send to the President. Senate Majority Leader harry Reid (D-NV) hopes to bring the bill to a vote by next Tuesday, and expects a speedy conference with the House. Appropriators are hoping to have the bill, which would provide $149.9 billion in discretionary spending for the U.S. departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, to the President by November 1.

On Wednesday, October 17, and Thursday, October 18 the Senate passed a number of amendments, including one from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) to provide an annual report card for the Department of Education. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) passed two amendments to express the sense of the Senate regarding science teaching and assessment and to provide funds for partnership grants for teacher preparation under Title II of the Higher Education Act. Meanwhile, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) is trying to gain support for an amendment that will add an additional $25 million to career and technical education funding. The money would come from the U.S. Department of Education’s administrative funds, a tactic the House used to shift money around to various programs in its own version of the bill. It remains to be seen if such movement will make it through conference.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill is being fast-tracked for political reasons, as opposed to actual policy concerns. Following the President’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill, Congressional leaders want to send the nation’s largest domestic spending bill to the President, knowing full well he will veto the bill as it currently stands. As such, Congress can still pass a large, veto-proof omnibus appropriations bill, but will likely use the veto of the SCHIP and Labor-HHS-Education bills to try and paint the President, and his Republican supporters in Congress, as cold and unconcerned with domestic policy. However, the version Congress sends to the President may still closely resemble whatever is added as part of the omnibus, so the spending priorities that make it through conference will likely make it into the final package.

Resources:
Kelsey Lamb, “Reid Sets Vote on Labor-HHS for Next Week; Chamber Approves Several Amendments,” Congress Now, October 18, 2007.
Chris Dally and Greg Vadala, “The Week Ahead: Appropriations on Deck in Senate, as House Takes Up Sovereignty and Discrimination,” CQ Today, October 18, 2007.
Author: SAS

Senate Releases Partial NCLB Draft

On Wednesday, October 17, the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) released the first set of their No Child Left Behind Reauthorization drafts. The drafts do not include the pistons of the law, which are the accountability and intervention sections of Title IA. The drafts also do not include Title IIA.

That the Senate did not release the most critical sections of the law may indicate real trouble with the House discussion draft. According to Democratic staff in the House Committee on Education and Labor, they have reviewed the comments to the draft, revised many sections and have sent it to the Legislative Counsel for drafting. Yet, they note, there remain challenges within the Democratic caucus and with the Republican members of the House. Challenges may be a well-chosen euphemism. The Republican staff is less measured in their statements. They note that contentions remain over the choice and SES provisions as well as the multiple measure provisions. It is getting edgy and the Senate education staffers are, no doubt, watching the political theater in the House with great interest.

The Senate drafts do include most of the subsequent titles and we have begun to review the material and will begin to deliver analysis shortly. The Senate’s released draft titles are:
• TITLE I
o Migrant Education
o Advanced Placement
o High Schools, including High School Improvement Grants and Secondary School Innovation Fund
o Mathematics, including Math Now and Math Skills
• TITLE II
o Math and Science Partnerships
o Innovation for Teacher Quality, including Transition to Teaching and National Writing Project
o Education Technology, including Grants to States, National Activities, and Ready to Learn
o American History and Civics, including Traditional American History, Presidential and Congressional History, Civic Education, National History Day, and Close Up
• TITLE III
o Language Instruction for English language learners and Immigrant students
• TITLE IV- and- TITLE V
o Safe and Drug Free Schools
o 21st Century Community Learning Centers
o Summer Term Education Programs
o Public Charter Schools
o Voluntary Public School Choice
o Magnet Schools
o Fund for the Improvement of Education
• TITLE VI -and- TITLE VII
o Rural Education
o Indian Education
• TITLE X of the McKinney-Vento Act
o Homeless Education

Author: DAD

New School Improvement and Assistance Section

No Child Left Behind’s (NCLB) accountability and intervention sections are the law’s pistons. If they do not run well, the law will not perform well, which is why policy makers are so closely scrutinizing the new sections 1111 and 1116 of the House discussion draft. A previous Update examined the multiple measures of discussion draft section 1111. This Update reviews the critical provisions of the new school and local educational agency (LEA) improvement and assistance provisions of section 1116.

A common criticism of NCLB’s sanctions in section 1116 is that they are too rigid. The current law requires that LEAs implement a series of cascading consequences to school according to the number of consecutive years that schools have failed to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP). It does not consider that some schools need a great deal of help while others do not. As a result, the reauthorization clamor has been to grant state educational agencies (SEA) and LEAs more discretion to target their interventions according to the nature and the extent of the failure.

Recognizing the law’s limitations, the House discussion draft attempts to do just that. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, the discussion draft would allow LEAs the discretion to differentiate between those schools that require different levels of interventions. Instead of a seven-year cascade ending with school restructuring, the new section 1116 proffers a new six- to seven-year timeline that focuses on high need schools. Figure 1 depicts the timeline, which is described in more detail below.
Figure 1:

Year 1: When a school does not make AYP, during the course of the following year the school must develop a comprehensive school improvement and assistance plan. The discussion draft details:
• Who must be consulted when making this plan,
• That it must cover a three-year period; and
• Specific and required elements of the plan.
These elements have been criticized because they read like the summary of a school leadership manual. The elements of the improvement and assistance go on for seven pages and include:
• A retrospective review and analysis of the causes for not making AYP, including an analysis of teacher assignment and expertise;
• A forward looking analysis of strategies and policies that will help remedy the identified causes;
• An analysis of the school’s capacity to carry out the identified strategies;
• An analysis of responsibilities among the school, LEA and SEA required to carry out these plans;
• An identification project timelines, student academic objectives and other benchmarks of success for the project.

Year 2: If the school fails to make AYP for a second consecutive year, it must implement the LEA-approved three-year plan. At this time, the LEA must also designate every school that has not made AYP for 2 consecutive years as either a Priority School or a High Priority School. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, this designation is crucial because it is a direct response to the common complaint that the current seven-year cascading consequences do not distinguish between those schools that need a lot of help and those that need only a little.

This draft focuses on those schools that need a lot of help, the High Priority Schools. Priority Schools are simply those that do not qualify for High Priority Status. An LEA designates a High Priority Schools if it is in improvement and:
• It is a secondary school that has a graduation rate of 60% or less.
• The over 50% rule: More than half of the students in the school are not proficient, or in the case of a State approved for use of growth models, did not meet the growth target in reading or language arts or mathematics.
• The 2 groups or more and less than 50% rule: For more than one of the groups in the school, fewer than half of the students in the group are proficient or not meeting their growth targets in mathematics and in reading or language arts.

There are two important caveats to the rules of High Priority School identification. First, LEAs do not designate High Priority Schools on the basis of the percentage of students in any group who are proficient in reading or language arts or mathematics if such percentage meets or exceeds the State’s relevant annual measurable objective. Second, an LEA may use an alternative identification model if the SEA applies to and receives approval from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to run an alternative model. It is uncertain how this second caveat will play out, if it makes it into law, but it will certainly be a very popular one.

Years 2- 4 or 5: As the LEA completes the designation, all schools that did not make AYP for 2 consecutive years must implement the three-year plan they developed the year before. Note that the LEA may extend a High Priority School’s three-year plan to four years if the school can demonstrate that the implementation of the plan has resulted in continuous and substantial progress on indicators used to determine AYP. To keep the focus on those schools that need a lot of help, High Priority Schools are granted priority access to LEA and SEA technical assistance and resources and the LEA must provide them extensive technical support.

As a part of the improvement and assistance plan deployment, all identified school must also provide ongoing professional development based on the review and analysis undergirding the improvement plan, with particular attention paid to teacher and principal effectiveness. The section does not define the meaning of effectiveness, but provides a listing of sample activities that could advance effectiveness.

In addition to the school plan and the professional development, the schools must also choose from a list of specific measures that vary depending on grade level and school designation. If the school is a High Priority School it must choose options (i), (ii), and (iii). High Priority secondary schools must also choose (vii). Priority Schools only have to choose two or more from the menu, as long as they are not already doing it in their school improvement plan.

Like the elements of the improvement and assistance plan, these options go on for several pages and also read like a school leadership manual. Briefly, they are:

i. Evidence-based or proven instructional programs aligned with State standards for all students, including students with diverse learning needs. Examples include implementing post secondary and work ready curriculum and individualize student support;
ii. Formative assessments and data based instructional decision-making, based on the school's needs analysis for the improvement plan;
iii. Parental choice options that include supplemental educational services and option for students enrolled in the school to transfer to another public school served by the LEA that has not been identified for school improvement;
iv. Extended learning time programs, including extended day, extended week, and extended year programs;
v. Supervised or centrally developed intervention models or strategies for low performing schools;
vi. Improved supports including specialized instructional services family supports and parental involvement;
vii. Activities that serve to personalize the secondary school experience, increase student engagement, attendance, effort, and enable the school to provide the level and intensity of student support needed.

A school may exit the improvement and assistance regimen if it manages to make AYP for two consecutive years or for two out of the three years, or four in the case of an improvement plan extension for a High Priority School.

Years 5 to 6 (or 6 to 7, with extension): If after three years of implementing the school improvement and assistance plan (or four if granted an extension) the school is still unable to exit improvement and assistance status, then the LEA beings a two-year redesign process. The process is considerable for High Priority Schools and light for Priority Schools.

High Priority Schools, over a period of two years, must:
• Close the school, which could be reopened only after a comprehensive redesign of its instructional program and staffing of the school; close the school and reopen it as a charter school; or
• Reconstitute the school’s leadership and staff and significantly revise the instructional program in the subject areas for which the school was identified as not making AYP; and
• Enter into a formal contract with an intermediary who will have the authority to administer the school; or
• Require the school to enter into an agreement with a nonprofit entity with demonstrated experience and effectiveness in whole school reform.

Because of the severity of the redesign, LEAs must limit the number to the lesser of (1) 10% of schools in the district or (2) 50 schools. High Priority Redesign Schools that exceed the 10% cap will fall into the Priority Redesign Schools category.

The Priority School redesign procedure is considerably less severe, so much so that it would likely have little to no impact on the school improvement plan the school would be deploying. It only requires a revision of the instructional and leadership and support program and a performance review of the school leadership and staff.

To be sure, the discussion draft makes a considerable effort to grant LEAs more discretion to target their interventions according to the nature and the extent of the failure. There is heavy focus on the worst performing schools, almost to the exclusion of all others, and this has created a new set of political problems. The Republicans in Congress do not like that school choice is only required for High Priority Schools and they argue that the draft weakens accountability for too many schools, but it is a provision many requested from this reauthorization.

Currently, the House Committee on Education and Labor continues to receive and digest the many comments submitted to them on the draft, and it is certain that many address the new section 1116. This section will, no doubt, change in the next reiteration of the draft, but it is very likely to retain the basic schema described above. We will continue, of course, to track and analyze the draft as it evolves.

Author: DAD

House Committee Discusses National STEM Standards

On Wednesday, October 10, the House Science and Technology Committee held a hearing to discuss ways to guarantee students are receiving the best education possible, especially in relation to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The hearing provided an opportunity for a range of stakeholders to give their response to the National Science Board (NSB) recommendations, including the Board’s proposal to create a congressionally chartered National STEM Education Council to help foster and guide STEM education improvements. Panelists seemed less than supportive of any movement towards aligning states’ curriculum through a nongovernment council. Panelists included:

• Dr. Steven Beering, Chairman, National Science Board;
• Ms. Judy A. Jeffrey, Director, Iowa Department of Education and Representing the Council of Chief State School Officers;
• Dr. Francis (Skip) Fennell, President, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and Professor of Education at McDaniel College;
• Ms. Chrisanne Gayl, Director of Federal Programs, National School Boards Association (NSBA);
• Dr. Robert Semper, Executive Associate Director, The Exploratorium and Representing the Association of Science-Technology Centers; and
• Ms. Susan L. Traiman, Director, Education and Workforce Policy Business Roundtable.
In the same period that the National Academies’ report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, was being developed, the NSB initiated a process to explore how to improve STEM education throughout the nation. As part of this effort, the Board established a STEM education commission to advise it on how to accomplish this goal. At present, there are no consistent STEM content standards in use among the states and no consistency in the sequence in which STEM courses are taught. A chronic shortage of highly qualified STEM teachers is a major impediment to improved student performance in STEM subjects.

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), ranking member of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee, assured panelists that Congress is not interested in imposing na¬tional standards, but that America’s STEM education system should at least adopt a national sequence. Rep. Ehlers introduced a bill earlier this year that proposes voluntary national standards for K-12 math and science. Advocates such as Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), who introduced a companion bill, are skeptical that mandatory standards would be successful. Educators and administrators remain skeptical of any national standards, mandatory or voluntary.

Ms. Gayl, who noted that the NSBA does not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach, said schools would appreciate dissemination of best practices and suggested content guidelines, but she cautioned against strong federal oversight. Gayl said the United States is home to 14,000 school districts, which need the flexibility to select their own curriculum and guidelines to fit their needs, but warned that it is a “slippery slope” between content guidelines and national standards. Agreeing that some government involvement would be helpful, Ms. Jeffrey supported recommendations to coordinate federal agencies, which she said often duplicate programs.

Congress will continue working on STEM education issues, following up on their passage of H.R. 2272, which provides $33 billion over the next three years to support 25,000 new math and science teachers through professional development and graduate education assistance, authorizes grants to support baccalaureate degrees in math and science with concurrent teacher certification, and establishes a public-private partnership with the business community to identify high-needs fields. Although the House is in the middle of reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, Rep. Ehlers said it is unlikely to see any language regarding national STEM standards in any reauthorization package produced by the House Education and Labor Committee.

Resources:
House Science and technology Committee Press Release:
http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1989
Erin Uy, “National STEM Standards Meet Opposition at Hearing,” Education Daily, October 12, 2007.
Author: SAS

OIG Title I Audit

The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a final audit report questioning the way a local education agency (LEA) spent Title I funds. The audit was issued on October 9, 2007 and is available on the OIG’s website at: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2008/a02g0020.pdf.

The purpose of the audit was to determine if the LEA spent Title I funds on allowable costs. The OIG cited multiple concerns, including the failure to maintain time and effort records documenting the time employees spent on Title I programs, a failure to properly allocate salary charges, a failure to adequately track property purchased with Title I funds and to ensure such property was used only for Title I purposes, and violations of Title I’s supplement not supplant restrictions. Not surprisingly, the OIG determined the LEA lacked sufficient internal controls to ensure federal funds were spent appropriately.

Based on the OIG’s findings it would be easy to conclude the LEA had serious and systemic problems in its management of federal funds. However, on closer inspection the issues raised by the OIG, while certainly signs of non-compliance, are not all that unusual. The most interesting aspects of the audit report are: (1) the OIG’s comments regarding internal control systems; and (2) the legal authority the OIG relied on to justify its conclusions.

Internal Controls

One of the OIG’s primary concerns was the LEA’s failure to ensure transactions were properly approved. For example, the LEA authorized work to commence under contracts that had not been approved by the School Board. All of the questioned contracts were ultimately approved; however, approval was sometimes granted two or three months after work began.

Most people can agree that failure to obtain required Board approval is a significant lapse in internal control; however, some of the other “internal control” violations cited by the OIG are not as obvious. In some cases the LEA could not produce original documentation supporting procurement transactions because several boxes stored at a warehouse were damaged. The LEA could provide electronic versions; however, since those versions did not show the approval signatures the OIG could not verify whether the transactions were properly approved. Similarly, the OIG criticized the LEA’s practice of retaining invoices to prove items were received as opposed to maintaining “receiving reports.” The invoices had been signed by the school principals as certification that the items were received but because district policy required particular “receiving reports” the OIG rejected the invoices. This focus on the importance of approvals is consistent with monitoring findings issued by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s (OCFO) Internal Control and Evaluation Group when it participated in recent Title I monitoring visits. Both the OIG and the OCFO have identified the requirement to have transactions reviewed and approved by an independent and appropriate official as a key factor in ensuring federal funds are spent on allowable costs.

One other interesting concern the OIG raised was the LEA’s failure to update its operational policies and procedures. The LEA maintained a governance manual, but the manual had not been updated since 1991. Because the manual was out of date it was not effective in providing standards for the control of LEA operations.

These “internal control” findings are extremely important. As we have previously reported, ED has begun to assess “risk” levels in the states. One of the factors ED uses to assess risk is audit and monitoring findings that reveal internal control deficiencies. Findings such as the ones detailed in the audit report have the potential of increasing ED’s perception of risk levels in the state.

Legal Authority

To support its conclusions the OIG primarily relied on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 and the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement. OMB Circular A-87 sets out the federal cost principles that apply to all costs charged to federal grants. In particular, A-87 requires costs to be adequately documented; thus, the OIG concluded that, “to be allowable under Federal awards, costs must be adequately documented.”

The OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement sets out guidance to auditors in conducting the required annual audit for entities that spend more than $500,000 in federal funds in a year (also known as the “single audit”). Part 6 of the Compliance Supplement provides a description of the components of an internal control system and provides examples of good controls over federal funds. Part 6 of the Compliance Supplement is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/07/pt6.pdf.

What is interesting about the OIG’s reliance on these documents is not that they are inapplicable, but that the OIG did not rely on the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). Regulations typically have higher precedential value than OMB Circulars, and EDGAR requires both proper documentation and sufficient internal controls over federal funds as part of a sound financial management system. In recent months there has become increasing confusion about what grants management standards ED is applying to LEAs in state-administered programs such as Title I.

Rather than relying on EDGAR some ED offices are relying on state and local policies and procedures, as well as the general statements in the OMB Circulars, to evaluate LEA compliance with grants management requirements. This appears to be based on a 1988 policy statement that federal agencies should defer to states in state-administered programs when it comes to setting the standards that apply to LEA-level financial management, procurement and inventory management systems. Whether the OIG is intentionally deferring to this policy statement is unclear, but the failure to cite to EDGAR is a departure from the OIG’s normal practice when auditing fiscal issues.

The good news is that Brustein & Manasevit plans to cover all of the issues raised in this audit report in more detail at its Fall Forum in Clark County Nevada. We will have sessions on EDGAR, OMB Circular A-87, time distribution, internal controls, risk management, and preparing for audits. We will also have representatives from ED and the OIG in attendance. Hopefully, some of the lingering questions raised by this audit will be addressed then. More information about our Forum is available at: http://www.bruman.com.

Author: SLK

Supreme Court Affirms Reimbursement for Parentally-Placed Private School Children

On Wednesday, October 11, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a federal court ruling that children with disabilities who are placed in private schools by their parents, even without first attending public school, are entitled to tuition reimbursement when the public school cannot provide a free and appropriate education (FAPE).

Tom F. received tuition reimbursement for his son’s private school placement for two years because the school district was unable to provide his son a FAPE. Later, when the school district determined it could provide a FAPE in a public school, Tom F. requested a due process hearing. Tom F. challenged the appropriateness of the individualized education program (IEP) and placement, contending that the IEP was inappropriate and continued private placement was necessary.

A hearing officer found that the public placement was inappropriate and granted Tom F.'s request for tuition reimbursement. On appeal, a state review officer affirmed the hearing officer's decision. The school district appealed again and the U. S. District court reversed the decisions of the impartial hearing officer and state review officer holding that IDEA does not require a school district to reimburse a parent if the child has never been enrolled in public school. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the decision. The Second Circuit held that the IDEA was not meant to deny reimbursement to students who have never been enrolled in public school.

With Justice Kennedy recusing himself, the Court was split 4-4. While the ruling upheld the lower court decision in a brief per curiam opinion, it means New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F., a Minor Child, does not set precedent on this issue. Therefore, the case is resolved but the issues remain outstanding.

Source: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/10/supreme-court-affirms-reimbursement-for.php
Author: TRW

NCLB Reauthorization Dims

A month ago, a 2007 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorization became less likely. The President held a reauthorization event at the White House Rose Garden where he emphasized the administration’s key goals. They are, not surprisingly, nearly identical to the objectives of the House Republicans which House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) laid out in a September 10 letter to George Miller (D-CA), the Chairman of the House Committee on Education. In that letter, Boehner expressed the Republican dissatisfaction with the current discussion draft and laid out the party’s conditions for reauthorization. Those conditions include:

1. Flexibility and local control: Allowing 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: Not restricting current education choices for parents in any way.
3. No new testing.
4. No loopholes in accountability: Rejecting any loophole for chronically underachieving schools to evade identification as a school in need of improvement or avoid restructuring.
5. No national test: 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: 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. Streamline federal education programs and do not create any new programs.

The confluence of the President’s statement with Boehner’s requirements may have been an important signal because, later in the week, Howard “Buck” McKeon, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, stated that the conversations on the discussion draft were falling apart because Miller was not willing to make major concessions on these Republican points. Unless Miller makes significant changes, said McKeon, he would have to pass his bill without bipartisan support. “We’re still better off with current law,” concluded the Raking Member.

So what if Miller tries just that, passing his committee’s bill without the Republicans? It would be difficult. There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives and, in the 110th Congress, 232 are Democrats, 202 are Republican and one seat is vacant. Miller would have to secure 218 seats for a majority. That means Miller cannot lose more than 16 Democrats on the issue. Yet, of the 232 Democrats 40 are freshman Democrats, many of which campaigned against NCLB in 2006. Given that the unions are strongly against the current discussion draft and that they will play an important part in the reelection of many of the Freshman Democrats, a passage on Democratic votes alone would be difficult; and, the forecast is even more difficult in the Senate.

The Senate is nearly split with 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents, who caucus with the Democrats. If anything is to move in the Senate, it has to have bipartisan support because the Senate requires 60 votes for cloture to cut off debate on a matter in order to vote. Like the House, the votes do not favor the passage of a partisan ESEA bill in 2007.

Resources:
Steven Dennis, “Talks Stall on No Child Left Behind,” Roll Call, Oct. 11, 2007.
Author: DAD

One Week Before SCHIP Vote (old)

Three weeks ago, the House’s scheduled vote on overriding the President’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program reauthorization bill (SCHIP). House leaders spent the last week working tirelessly trying to garner more support from the 159 Republicans that voted against the bill’s passage. Opponents of the bill, as it stands, only need 145 votes to sustain a veto, meaning Democrats need to convince at least fifteen Republicans to switch side if they want to override the President.

H.R. 976, the reauthorization bill, provides for a $35 billion expansion of SCHIP over five years, to a total of $60 billion. The President, who proposed a $5 billion expansion, vetoed the legislation last week, citing excessive spending and tax increases as his basis for attempting to kill the bill. To pay for the greater expansion, Congress increased taxes on cigarettes, a tax that the Congressional Research Service claims will be passed on to low-income Americans. Republicans, reluctant to agree to any tax increase, claim that they will remain steadfast and will vote to sustain the veto. Moderate Republicans that voted for the bill are trying to suggest minor changes that might reign in spending, but Democrats seem unwilling to negotiate after the President’s veto.

The Senate meanwhile, seems to have the 67 votes necessary to override the veto, but because the bill originated in the House, it must act first. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is the most outspoken Republican pushing for the override. Grassley has spent time during the last week attempting to convince his colleagues in the House to pass the bill, but House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), claims that he still has the necessary votes to sustain the veto and put the bill to its final rest.

Resources:
Alex Wayne, “Democrats Say They Aren’t Interested in GOP-Touted SCHIP Compromise,” CQ Today, October 10, 2007.
Author: SAS

Congress and White House Continue Budget Debate

The Budget debate raged on last month, and both Congress and the President traded remarks regarding the fight over fiscal year 2008 (FY08) appropriations. While the Senate took a week-long break, House leaders continued commenting on the current standoff with some asking for a budget summit while others levied threats regarding other White House initiatives. When the Senate comes back next week, there will still be a lot for work to do, and not very much time to do it.

On October 7 at the National Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, Maryland, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) spoke with the President regarding the appropriations problem. Both agreed that a government shutdown would be bad policy, but the White House continues to assert its stance that Congress should not exceed the spending limits proposed in the President’s Budget. The President has also stated his opposition to any sort of budget summit before Congress passes any of its spending bills. Instead, he has continued to call for Congress to conference on the twelve different spending bills and send them to his desk.

Meanwhile, House Budget Chairman John Spratt (D-SC), speaking at the National Press Club on Tuesday, said that House Democratic leaders might hold up passing an emergency appropriations bill for the Iraq War until next year in order to gain “leverage” with the White House in fiscal 2008 spending negotiations. Another option, for the sake of finishing work on appropriations before Christmas, Democrats may be willing to lower their spending now, only to restore that funding in next year’s war supplemental, a bill that the President is very unlikely to veto.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has stated his intention to send at least one spending bill to the President before the beginning of November. Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) suggested that his subcommittee’s bill might be the first to reach the President’s desk. Next week, after finishing work on the Commerce spending bill, the Senate plans to move on to the Labor-HHS-Education bill. Harkin expects a quick conference, and wants to send the bill to the President by November 1. Once the President signs the bill, or follows through on his veto threat, Congress will have a clearer picture of what direction they need to go in order to get their spending priorities past the President’s desk.

Resources:
George Cahlink, “Spratt: House Democrats Could Delay War Supplemental to Gain Spending Talks Leverage,” Congress Now, October 9, 2007.
Alan K. Ota and David Clarke, “White House Dashes Talk of Budget Summit,” CQ Today, October 10, 2007.
Author: SAS

OCFO Reorganization in Effect

On October 2, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) put into effect a realignment that the office began working towards recently. Among other things, the new reorganization has:

• Created the Financial Management Operations (FMO) Reporting and Analysis Group, combining the functions of the Grants Management Improvement Team with those of the financial and performance reporting functions already in FMO;
• Established four new organizational subcomponents in FMO to more closely follow OCFO’s business processes, including creating a Receivables Group, which combines the work of the Debt Management Group with the accounts receivables staff;
• Created the Grants Initiatives and Support Staff in Financial Systems Operations (FSO), to work with systems staff to evaluate the impact of government-wide grant policy on their systems, and to manage the Application Control Center;
• Combined the travel policy team with the travel system functional team in FSO;
• Moved the functions of the Financial Transaction, Payments Processing and Reporting Group from FMO to the Financial Systems Transaction Group in FSO;
• Created a single organization to oversee the agency's audit resolution activities by migrating the Internal Control Evaluation Staff (ICES) staff to Financial Improvement and Post Audit Operations (FIPAO).
• Finally, the grants policy analysis and training functions are now part of the newly created Risk Management Service in the Office of the Secretary.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on IDEA Private Placement Right to FAPE

On Monday, October 1, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., on Behalf of Gilbert F., a Minor Child. The Supreme Court will decide whether children with disabilities who are placed in private schools by their parents, without first attending public school, are entitled to tuition reimbursement when the public school can not provide a free and appropriate education (FAPE).

Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), “[i]f the parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency, enroll the child in a private preschool, elementary school, or secondary school without the consent of or referral by the public agency, a court or a hearing officer may require the agency to reimburse the parents for the cost of that enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made FAPE available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment and that the private placement is appropriate.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c) (emphasis added).

Tom F. received tuition reimbursement for his son’s private school placement for two years because the school district was unable to provide his son a FAPE. Later, when the school district determined it could provide a FAPE in a public school, Tom F. requested a due process hearing. Tom F. challenged the appropriateness of the individualized education program (IEP) and placement, contending that the IEP was inappropriate and continued private placement was necessary.

A hearing officer found that the public placement was inappropriate and granted Tom F.'s request for tuition reimbursement. On appeal, a state review officer affirmed the hearing officer's decision. The school district appealed again and the U. S. District court reversed the decisions of the impartial hearing officer and state review officer, and held that IDEA does not require a school district to reimburse a parent if the child has never been enrolled in public school. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the decision. The Second Circuit held that the IDEA was not meant to deny reimbursement to students who have never been enrolled in public school.

If the Supreme Court affirms the decision by the Second Circuit, parents will have the right to obtain reimbursement from the public school even if the child was never enrolled in a public school special education program. Parents, however, will still be required to show that the district's proposed program was inappropriate and that the private special education program they chose is appropriate, consistent with the established tuition reimbursement remedy authorized by the IDEA.

Source: http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/07/nyc.tomf.htm
Author: TRW

Congressional Staffers Discuss NCLB High School Proposals

Thursday, October 4, the Alliance for Excellent Education hosted a forum where local, state, and national education leaders convened to discuss federal strategies for improving the achievement of the nation’s struggling high school students. The first session of the forum involved a discussion regarding High Schools and No Child Left Behind.

Panelists included:
• Jill Morningstar, House Education and Labor Committee – Majority Staff;
• Kirsten Duncan, House Education and Labor Committee – Minority Staff;
• Melissa Rohrbach, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee – Majority Staff; and
• Lindsay Hunsicker, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee – Minority Staff.

According to the Senate staff members, a Senate draft will likely include a second¬ary-school program modeled after Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) Graduation Promise Act, which will direct $2.5 billion for low-per¬forming high schools to implement comprehen¬sive improvement strategies. The Senate is also contemplat¬ing an investment parallel to Title I, specifically directed to secondary schools. In addition, the Senate may be looking at teacher preparation and profes¬sional development as a possible answer to rais¬ing high school curriculum to a level that’s more applicable to college and the workforce.

On the House side, majority policy adviser Jill Morningstar delivered good news to middle school advocates, saying the com¬mittee is looking forward to receiving Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s (D-AZ) Success in the Middle Act, H.R. 3406, as an amendment to the draft NCLB bill, once the committee moves forward with a mark up. Morningstar said the legislation will provide resources to the middle schools that feed into some of the lowest-performing high schools around the country. She was unable to provide a specific schedule for when House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) would finally move forward with the bill, but hinted that a markup may be held sooner than later.

Resources:
Kris Kitto, “Senate Eyes High School Reform in New Law,” Education Daily, October 5, 2007.
Author: SAS

House Passes Inspectors General Reform Bill

H.R. 928, the Improving Government Accountability Act, passed the House on Wednesday, October 3, by a vote of 404-11. The bill will give inspectors general (IGs) more autonomy with the agencies they oversee. The bill would set seven-year terms for the more than 60 IGs and would restrict the circumstances under which an inspector general could be fired. The legislation would give IGs greater budgetary independence and would create an independent council intended “to increase the professionalism and effectiveness” of those serving in the post.

A number of amendments were adopted on the House floor, including one that requires IGs to notify Congress if their budget requests are inadequate, balancing the need for IGs’ independence with the need for streamlined budget authority. Another amendment requires annual inspector general reports on program redundancy within federal agencies. Once again, the hope is that these provisions will help keep IGs independent, but will still require that Congress hold them accountable.

Although the bill passed by an overwhelming majority, the President has discussed a possible veto threat against the bill. The White House argued in a statement of administration policy that the bill would improperly diminish presidential control over budgets and interfere with presidents’ constitutional authority to remove inspectors general when warranted. However, the odds of holding to such a threat in the face of such overwhelming support for the bill is unlikely. When asked about the large amount of minority support, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) speculated that Republicans were “hard-pressed to vote against an effort to prevent waste, fraud and abuse.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) plans to combine S. 1723, her own IG reform bill, with legislation from Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) that seeks to increase oversight of federal contracting. The Senate hopes that the larger package will be up for markup sometime in November. However, as is the case with most pending legislation, the bill is subject to the frantic end of the year schedule that Congress works through.

Resources:
Kathleen Hunter, “House Passes Provisions for Enhanced Independence of Inspectors General,” CQ Today, October 3, 2007.
Author: SAS

House Republicans Introduce WIA Bill

Thursday, October 4, Republican members of the U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor introduced H.R. 3747, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act. The legislation builds upon reforms proposed by Republicans in recent years to strengthen and improve America’s job training system. The bill constitutes the first significant step Congress is taking towards reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). However, future steps will be impeded by the waning Congressional schedule and the focus on fiscal year 2008 appropriations and other higher priority issues.

The Workforce Investment Improvement Act would help improve job training opportunities for Americans striving to get back to work by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracy, increasing cooperation among workforce development partners, allowing faith-based service providers to participate in the job training system, and promoting the development of regional strategies to foster economic development, expand employment and advancement opportunities for workers, and promote the creation of high-skill and high-wage opportunities.

Although the Republicans made a big production over the bill’s introduction, the committee is neck deep in No Child Left Behind reauthorization at the moment. As such, movement on this bill is unlikely to come any time soon. Another factor in the bill’s movement is whether Democrats, and specifically Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA), will support the bill. While the Democrats have not come out with their own detailed proposal, they will likely want to introduce their own bill. As such, H.R. 3747 will act as a platform for Republicans to push their own job training priorities, possibly working provisions from the bill into whatever legislation the Democrats introduce.

Resources:
House Education and Labor Minority Press Release: http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=264
Author: SAS

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)