Forum on Teacher Quality

On Tuesday, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) held a forum on teacher quality. The panelist included:



• Beatrice Briman, Managing Research Scientist at AIR;
• Dan Goldhaber, Research Associate Professor at the University of Washington;
• Susan Moore Johnson, the Carl H. Pforzheimer, Jr. Professor of Teaching and Learning at Harvard University;
• Michele Rhee, the Chancellor for the District of Columbia Public Schools;
• Brad Thomas, Professional Staff Member for the House Committee on Education and Labor; and
• Alice Johnson Cain, Senior Education Policy Advisor to Chairman George Miller in the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Lynn Olson, the Managing Editor of Special Projects at Education Week moderated the discussion.

The conversation made two issues clear. The first point was that human capital is critical, but the federal effort to improve teacher quality has not proven particularly successful. According to research conducted by Professor Dan Goldhaber, it is clear that state certification is not a reliable measure of teacher effectiveness as measured by student academic outcomes. Often teachers who have failed their certification exams have produced tremendous student academic outcomes, while teachers who have passed their certification exams have produced awful results, Goldhaber found. The current proxy for teacher quality and effectiveness, most agreed, needs to be more sophisticated.

The second point of clarity was the disagreement on the proper federal role in this debate. Alice Johnson Cain made a strong defense of George Miller’s Teach Act. The bill, which Chairman Miller partially incorporated into the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) House Discussion Draft, seeks to improve the recruitment, professional development and career development of teachers through a variety of innovative approaches such as merit pay and teacher career academies. But the economist (and Republicans) in the room cringed at the prescriptive approach and the researchers lamented about the lack of reliable research and data underlying such plans. They argued that the current and proposed federal policies, intended to serve as an assurance of basic quality instruction, have the detrimental effect of focusing educators on compliance and not academic outcomes.

The most evident consensus of the event was that those working on teacher quality policy have ample obstacles to tackle as Congress works on the reauthorization of the ESEA.

Resources:
American Institutes for Research, http://www.air.org/.
Dan Goldhaber, Research Associate Professor of Public Affairs, http://evans.washington.edu/fac/Goldhaber/
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

President Signs Head Start Bill

On Wednesday, President Bush signed H.R. 1429, the Head Start Reauthorization bill, into law. Congress made a big push last month to send the bill to the President, in lieu of other education-related reauthorization bills. The reauthorization of Head Start had been pending since 2003.



The new bill authorizes increased spending for the program, starting at $7.35 billion for fiscal 2008. The bill seeks to improve the quality of Head Start teachers, tighten program accountability and update the current system of standards and assessments. Under the final bill, the income level at which families become eligible for Head Start will increase from 100% of the federal poverty level to 130%, but the neediest children receive priority. The measure will also require that half of Head Start teachers nationwide have at least a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or a related field by 2013.

The President signed the bill, despite Congress’ failure to add a provision he sought regarding faith-based Head Start providers. The President pushed for a provision that would allow faith-based providers to discriminate in their hiring practices based on religion. The Republican majority of the 109th Congress attempted to add the provision when they tried to pass a reauthorization bill, but their efforts failed. The current Democratic majority threw out the President’s proposal at the outset of its work on the bill. However, despite the lack of consideration for his priorities, the President applauded the efforts to reauthorize an important early education program.

Resources:
“Head Start Extended Five Years,” Associate Press, December 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Rural Schools Funding In Danger Again

Rural school funding is becoming an issue once again as Congress winds down for the year. Last year, Congress labored on various proposals to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act, also referred to simply as county payments. In lieu of a long-term proposal, Congress passed a brief one-year extension of the program. Congress is now working on a three-year proposal, but is hitting a few roadblocks along the way.



The county payment program provides funding for more than 700 counties in forty-one states for operating schools in hard to reach rural areas. California, Oregon and Washington are the biggest beneficiaries of the program, a point which has drawn some ire from the other 38 states who participate. Congressional leaders have created a new proposal that would restructure the funding formula, directing funding to the neediest counties. However, because rural school districts in the big three states depend heavily on the government funds, the new proposal includes a transition period that will slowly redistribute the funding, in hopes of preventing a hard financial hit to districts that currently receive more funding than they will under the new formula. The extension would run through 2011.

The proposal is part of H.R. 6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN Energy) Act. The House passed the bill last January, and the Senate initially passed its version in June. Currently, the House has signed off on certain Senate changes, but the bill has to get through the Senate a final time before it can move forward. Yesterday, even after a failed cloture vote in the morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NY) was able to get the bill through by a vote of 86-8, after dropping certain provisions that Republicans opposed. So, because of the changes Reid was forced to make, the bill will head back to the House next week before it can be sent to the President.

Resources:
Sarah D. Sparks, “Rural School Support Hangs on Energy Bill,” Education Daily, December 14, 2007.
Geof Koss, “Pared-Back Energy Bill Clears Senate,” Congress Now, December 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Moratorium Language Caught in the Veto (Again)

This week, Congress sent a slightly revised State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill to the President and, as expected, he vetoed it. Like the prior SCHIP bill that the President vetoed in October, this also contained moratorium language in section 616. The section would prevent the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (a part of the Department of Health and Human Services) from implementing proposed rules relating to reduced federal financial participation for rehabilitative services and for administrative and transportation costs related to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act services. Having failed to override the veto in October on nearly identical legislation, the Democratic leadership chose not to consider an override until January 23.



So what is next for the moratorium? According to Congressional staffers, there is broad bi-partisan agreement to include the moratorium in some bill before the close of the year, but the viable bills are few and the prospects are dim.
Recognizing the diminishing opportunities and the importance this may play in the upcoming elections, Representative John Boozman (A-AR) introduced H.R. 4355, a bill to impose a moratorium on certain Medicaid payment restrictions on December 11th. The bill places a moratorium on the restriction of payments for a year after the date of the enactment of the law. Yet, this bill will not move until January, if at all, and when it does it will face opposition from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

On December 4th, HHS Secretary Leavitt wrote to Senator Max Bacus (D-MT), the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, regarding the agency’s opposition to the moratorium language. In the letter, Secretary Leavitt wrote that “the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto of any bill that… undermines efforts to promote fiscal solvency in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. For example, legislation should not repeal the Medicare funding warning or erode the programs' fiscal integrity by overturning regulatory policies developed by the Administration.” Secretary Leavitt, it appears, is ready to fight Congress on this issue.

If Congress is unable to pass moratorium legislation in a timely manner, it will still have a final opportunity to act under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C 801-808). According to the act, an agency must submit final rules to both houses of Congress and the General Accounting Office before they can take effect. Although rarely used, action by Congress and the President could have an impact on the rule. We will continue to monitor the issue as it develops.

Resource:
“Secretary Leavitt Letter to Congress on Medicare Physician Payment Legislation,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, News Release, December 4, 2007, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2007pres/12/pr20071204b.html
Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Passes the Farm Bill

The Senate finally passed H.R. 2419, the 2007 Farm Bill today, by a vote of 79-14. Despite the bill’s passage, months after the House passed their version, interested parties will still have to wait for a finished Farm Bill. The House and Senate bills now head to conference, where lawmakers will have to work out considerable differences. Congressional leaders do not expect a finished bill until late January.

Currently, the Senate version expands the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) into every state. This program provides fresh fruits and vegetables for public school children, part of continuing national efforts to fight childhood obesity. The bill directs $225 million for the program in fiscal year 2008, if the funding is available. From there, it calls for annual appropriations to dictate the spending levels. Senator 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 is an insufficient number of schools that meet the 50% requirement, SEAs are directed to give priority to schools with higher proportions of students 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.

The House bill authorizes $70 million for expanding the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) into 35 schools in each state. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) would then distribute additional funds, as necessary, to states based on population. Unlike the Senate version, the House funding is fully authorized and is not contingent on available funds. However, in both versions, actual annual funding is subject to the politics of the appropriations process. The House version also reserves 5% of state grant for state administrative uses. The Senate bill does not provide for administration.

Senator Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) amendment imposing national standards on the foods sold on public school campuses never came to the Senate floor for a vote. The standards would apply to any elementary and secondary schools that receive funding from any national school lunch or other food-related programs and they would carry over into competitive foods that are sold outside of the school cafeteria, including vending and soda machines. The proposal would also trump any state standards already in place, whether they are weaker or stronger than the federal mandate.

Sen. Harkin and his supporters spent the last month publicizing the amendment, including articles in the New York Times, attempting to get support from the public. Despite the amount of work that Harkin and his staff put into the amendment, he was unable to get a vote on the issue. Because of the agreement limiting number of amendments under consideration, Harkin’s proposal may simply have fallen too low on the priority list. However, Harkin continues to state his commitment to passing the national standards, possibly as a rider on a different piece of legislation.

Resources:
Catharine Richert, “Farm Bill Headed for Senate Passage,” CQ Today, December 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Appropriators Close to Omnibus Deal

Congress may finally come to an agreement regarding fiscal year 2008 (FY08) spending. House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) plans to introduce an omnibus spending package that he and his colleagues drafted on Monday. The omnibus bill includes funding for the eleven appropriations bills for FY08 that have yet to pass. The new deal, which brings total spending down nearly to the President’s request of $933 billion, signals Democrat’s willingness to submit to Republican demands for lower spending in order to avert a government shutdown.


Although the newest proposal is closer to the President’s request, Democrats are working to make sure this does not translate into significant program cuts from their original proposal. Instead, Chairman Obey is removing a majority of earmarked spending projects, in order to bring spending down to the levels desired by the President and his supporters in Congress. Nevertheless, many programs may still receive less funding than they would have under the Democrats’ original proposed levels. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with losing their spending projects, but most are still willing to support any deal that will avoid a government shutdown. Senate leaders have yet to confirm their assent to such a proposal, though the time crunch may not leave them with much of a choice.
The government is currently operating under a continuing resolution (CR), funding agencies at FY 2007 levels. That CR runs out at midnight tonight. On Thursday, Congress passed an additional CR to run through Friday, December 21, giving them a week to get the omnibus bill through both Houses of Congress and onto the President’s desk. The president signed the CR today. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) hopes to be able to adjourn next week, allowing members to go home for Christmas, but the adjournment date will rely heavily on whether or not Congress can pass the omnibus. If negotiations falter, Congress may pass a fourth CR, carrying over until January, preventing a government shutdown over the holidays.

The debate centers over the President’s unwillingness to compromise on his proposed total discretionary spending level of $933 billion. The Democrats in Congress originally came out with over $955 billion in discretionary spending, more than $22 billion over the President’s request. Under those spending levels, the Defense appropriations bill is the only one that became law. The President vetoed the Labor-HHS-Education bill, the largest domestic spending bill, back in November. After a failed override attempt, appropriators decided to “meet the President halfway” by bringing the total spending level down to about $944 billion. Over the weekend, after a series of failed negotiations with Congressional Republicans and the White House, Chairman Obey dropped the proposal, claiming that the other side was not proceeding in good faith.

This debate is largely one of political impression. The President is trying to prove that he is relevant and a true fiscal conservative. He has the support of Congressional Republicans that can either claim a victory by getting the $933 billion cap or cite the fiscal mess as evidence of poor Democratic leadership. The Democrats loath the capitulation but they have few options at this point. They cannot fail to pass their appropriations as the Republicans did in 2006, nor can they tolerate a government shutdown. Historically, government shutdowns reflect more negatively on Congress than the White House. These political obstacles make it difficult for Democrats to negotiate with any authority, which is why they are now proposing the lower spending level. The lack of earmarks may simply be Chairman Obey’s way of trying to retaliate at Republicans who support the President.

Although neither the President nor Republicans in Congress have openly supported the new proposal, opting to wait until Obey shares the bill with the public this weekend, the White House has hinted that it would support the bill, so long as it comes in, at, or close to the $933 billion cap. Republicans criticized the Democrats for taking so long to compromise on spending. Democrats held to their initial proposals for months, trying to make political statements regarding priorities for programmatic spending. Possibly holding on a bit too long, Democrats have left themselves only a week to reach a deal before the holiday recess. Meanwhile, Democrats contend that Republicans are to blame for their refusal to negotiate at all. Regardless of which side bears the blame, the White House will reap the benefits as it can claim a victory over Congress, assuming the $933 billion cap holds.

Resources:
David Clarke and Liriel Higa, “Lawmakers Edging Toward Final Deal on Year-End Appropriations Plan,” CQ Today, December 13, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...