President Vetoes SCHIP, CMS Rule Now Faces Uncertainty

Wednesday, October 3, the President vetoed H.R. 976, a bill to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The President pointed to the increased spending and tax hikes that Congress passed in order to pay for what he claims would lead to socialized health care. The bill expands the SCHIP program by $35 billion over five years by raising taxes on tobacco products to an even $1. The President originally proposed a $5 billion expansion, but lawmakers say that, due to inflation, such a small expansion will not even cover the same number of children that are already covered under the program.

The biggest impact the veto has on the education community concerns an amendment to the bill that addresses the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) cut in funding for reimbursements for administrative and transportation costs for students with disabilities. The amendment places a moratorium on the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take any action that would limit Medicaid payments to school districts. According to Section 616 of the conference report:

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

While the moratorium would only extend until May 28, 2008, it would represent a considerable victory for school districts and states that are resisting the recent regulatory actions by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to cut Medicaid funding by reducing school-based and rehabilitative services for children with disabilities. The threatened veto, however, places that victory in jeopardy. There is little likelihood that the Democratic majority can secure enough votes in the House and Senate at this point.

The Senate has the 67 votes necessary to override the veto, but the House has to act first, and presently it is shy of the 250 votes needed. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) scheduled the override vote for October 18, giving Democrats two weeks to try and sway more Republicans to vote their way. Meanwhile, Republican leaders claim they will still sustain the veto and that Congress should move on to trying to pass a new SCHIP bill that the President will sign. In the meantime, assuming the override fails, the CMS amendment will need to find a new vehicle for passage.

Resources:
Stephen Langel, “Republicans Confident Bush Veto of SCHIP Will Be Upheld,” Congress Now, October 3, 2007.
Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Senate Appropriators Ask For Help From Advocates

The Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee staff held a “stakeholder’s meeting” on Wednesday, October 3 to discuss the subcommittee’s fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill’s immediate future with health, labor, and education advocates. Throughout the meeting, staffers for Subcommittee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) pleaded with advocates to contact members of Congress and the White House, lobbying for final passage of the bill as it currently stands. The bill is tentatively scheduled to come to the Senate floor the week of October 15, when the Senate returns from its week-long Columbus Day recess.

The Senate Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill provides about $11 billion more than the President requested, making it a prime target for a Presidential veto. Chairman Harkin asked that advocates focus their immediate efforts on helping to ensure that the bill passes through the Senate quickly. There is little doubt that Democrats have the votes necessary to pass the bill, but there is concern over how long it takes to bring the bill to a final vote. Harkin and committee staffers are afraid that an overabundance of amendments will bog down progress on the bill.

Senate leaders are hopeful that they can move the bill through a floor vote in a week, and appropriators expect a quick conference with the House. Sen. Harkin wants to be able to send the bill to the President for the veto showdown by November 1. Unless Congress decides to move the Defense spending bill forward, the Labor-HHS-Education bill should be the first to reach the President’s desk.

If the President follows through on his veto threats, the bill will likely be added to an omnibus bill, which lumps various spending bills together. Harkin and his staff have all but conceded that an omnibus bill, or multiple omnibus bills, are likely unavoidable at this point. However, before then, Democrats will probably try to hold an override vote, more for show than anything else. After the Democrats make their political statement about priorities, Harkin says that Congress will probably have to pass an additional continuing resolution, carrying through into December, to give appropriators enough time to finish work on the omnibus package(s).

Author: SAS

Read More...

Summary only...

Congressional Efforts Heat Up on School Nutrition Issues

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

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

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

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

Read More...

Summary only...

President Signs Higher Education Reconciliation Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More...

Summary only...

Congress Passes 6-Week CR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More...

Summary only...

SCHIP Heading Towards Veto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More...

Summary only...

Discussion Draft Review: Graduation Promise Fund

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More...

Summary only...

Discussion Draft Review: Graduation Rates

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author: DAD

Read More...

Summary only...