Legislation and Guidance
- ED Proposes New Title I Regulations
- Senate Passes Inspectors General Bill
- Congressional Leaders Working on Multiple Budget Deals
- House Passes Medicaid Moratorium
- Miller Sponsors Digital Age Education Bill
- Farm Bill Extended Despite Administration Objections
Reports
Legislation and Guidance
ED Proposes New Title I Regulations
In January, Secretary Spellings stated that she would act if Congress failed to move forward on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). “We hope they [Congress] will do it,” said Spellings. “But if they don't, I'll take administrative steps at the Department, as I have in the last three years, to start to work on some of these matters.”
This process began in March when Spellings announced a differentiated intervention pilot program (Outside Source) under NCLB. Under the pilot, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) will approve up to 10 states to operate their own differentiated accountability system. Then, on April 1st, Spellings announced that ED will nationalize the way states are permitted to calculate graduation rates under NCLB. “I will take administrative steps to ensure that all States use the same formula to calculate how many students graduate from high school on time, and how many drop out,” said Spellings.
However, the breadth of the regulations goes far beyond the graduation rate. Most in Washington expected that the notice of proposed rule making would also contain efforts to cement what ED views as essential choice and supplemental educational services (SES) practices into the law. They were right.
On April 23rd, ED published the notice of proposed rule making. The proposed regulations seek to clarify and strengthen current Title I regulations in the areas of assessment, accountability, public school choice and supplemental educational services. (See 73 Fed. Reg. 22020-22044) (Outside Source) (April 23, 2008). Notably, it proposes to do the following:
- Establish a uniform definition of “graduation rate” that is consistent with the definition agreed to by members of the National Governor’s Association (NGA).
- Commentary: Spellings made the point that this would not catch anyone by surprise and she was correct. The proposed rules seek to codify the formula proffered by the NGA. This requires states to have the data capacity to track student transfers. Those states that do not have this capacity will be required to use the Average Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR) as an interim measure. The proposed regulations would not permit States to use the AFGR to calculate graduation rates beyond the 2011–2012 school year.
- Require states to disaggregate graduation data by subgroup for the purposes of reporting and making adequate yearly progress (AYP).
- Commentary: The regulations would require the use of disaggregated subgroup data for AYP purposes beginning in the 2008-2009 school year for states and districts, and in the 2010-2013 school year for school level accountability. For the benefit of the visual learners, the proposed regulations include a table detailing when the disaggregated data must be reported for reporting and accountability purposes (at 22024).
- Require states to set graduation goals and annual objectives;
- Commentary: ED chose not to prescribe a set graduation goal or rate of continuous and substantial improvement. ED has approved many state workbooks that contain graduation rate targets and low rates of improvement for the purposes of AYP. The proposed change will have a significant impact on those states that have to raise the bar considerably. What ED will deem an acceptable rate of improvement is not yet clear, but they will have to be “substantial” and that will certainly exclude flat rates of progress.
- Clarify that a district may not limit school identification to those that missed AYP only because they did not meet their goals in the same subject for the same subgroup for two consecutive years;
- Commentary: ED is clarifying their resistance to a frequently requested workbook amendment. LEAs may not only identify the schools if the same subgroup failed to meet the objectives in the same subject for two consecutive years. ED argues that this is important because the law requires proficiency across subjects and the LEA should provide interventions or support when a subgroup struggles with reading but not with math. Interestingly, this excluded method is a supported provision in the House Discussion Draft released last summer by Chairman George Miller (D-CA), but that is not going to advance in Congress anytime soon.
- Increase the rigor of school restructuring requirements under the law;
- Commentary: ED makes the point that restructuring is not corrective action; it must be more rigorous and have real consequences. ED seeks to codify this sense of urgency in order to address what some (originating with Rick Hess (Outside Source) at the American Enterprise Institute) say is the Wizard of Oz dilemma. The dilemma refers to the wizard behind the curtain in the movie. Once Dorothy pulls back the curtain to reveal the Wizard (Outside Source) at the control, his power to scare vanishes. Likewise, after running the gauntlet of NCLB’s sequence of interventions with nothing actually happening to improve schools, does the power of the law vanish? The law’s supporters do not want to test this possibility.
- Require timely and more notification to parents regarding public school choice and SES;
- Commentary: NCLB’s school choice and SES provisions may be the Administration’s most prized ESEA legacy. The proposed rules seek to codify the practices that ED believes may result in greater participation that may, in turn, ensure its longevity as a part of ESEA. Specifically, the proposed rules would require the LEAs to provide to parents an explanation of the available school choice “sufficiently in advance of, but no later than 14 calendar days before, the start of the school year….”
- Increase parental access to information on district implementation of choice and SES;
- Commentary: In addition to the 14 day requirement, LEAs would have to explain the benefits of receiving SES to the parents in the annual notice. LEAs would also be required to provide considerably more information to parents about the implementation of the public school choice and SES requirements, including the number of eligible students, the number of participating students, the location of SES providers and the list of available schools eligible to participate in public school choice. ED wants to be sure parents are informed about their options.
- Require states to develop, implement and report the standards and techniques they use to monitor how districts implement SES;
- Commentary: ED believes that the increased public transparency will strengthen the criteria that states use to monitor and implement SES. It may also clarify the SEAs’ expectations for their LEAs carrying out the programs.
- Require a state to examine evidence of SES provider effectiveness as a condition for approval and to report those reviews;
- Commentary: The proposed regulations attempt to codify the minimum review standards for SES providers in order to focus the States’ review on parental satisfaction and their record of student improvement.
- Require districts to exhaust their choice and SES duties before reallocating the 20 percent spending requirement for other purposes;
- Commentary: ED is closely monitoring the participation rates for school choice and, according to a recent study (Outside Source; PDF; 1.04MB; 112pp) by the RAND Corporation on behalf of ED, ineffective parental notification is a cause for the low participation. To compel LEAs to provide more information, the proposed rules would allow LEAs to count the costs of providing outreach and assistance to parents towards meeting its 20 percent obligation. Moreover, it would condition the reallocation of the unused 20 percent obligation on a checklist of assurance an actions designed to increased parental information and participation. The proposed rules would establish a floor of activities designed to promote school choice and SES.
- Clarify that the measures of student achievement may include multiple question formats of varying difficulty on a single assessment;
- Commentary: This clarification appears to address the popular political argument that the single annual test is a poor way measure of learning because it cannot capture creativity and it lacks necessary sophistication. The regulations clarifies that the law allows for "multiple measure" exams, which should be sophisticated enough to measure the full range of cognitive complexity.
- Require States to explain how reliability components of their accountability program (such as “N” size and confidence intervals) result in statistically reliable information;
- Commentary: The technical nature of data reliability will only increase as information systems improve and testing becomes more sophisticated. It is important to assure the stability and reliability of the data, but states have used those measures, such as “N” size and confidence intervals, to provide themselves more flexibility within their accountability system. Given the technical nature, ED has not chosen a single “N” size or uniform confidence intervals. Instead, they have shifted the burden onto the States to demonstrate to ED the rigor of their reliability measures. Such technical oversight can be difficult, which is why ED is also submitting the next proposed rule, creating the National Technical Advisory Council.
- Require the creation of the National Technical Advisory Council to advise the Secretary on technical issues regarding standards, assessments and accountability systems; and
- Require States and districts to report their National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) performance on their report cards.
- Commentary: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s report, The Proficiency Illusion (Outside Source)(Thomas B. Fordham Institute: 2007), made a point that resonates loudly in Washington: that proficiency in one state means a very different thing in another and there are few good ways to compare one state’s success to that of another. As noted in the forward of the report: “Mr. and Mrs. Smith know that little Susie is ‘proficient.’ What they don’t know is that ‘proficient’ doesn't mean much. Standards-based education reform is in deeper trouble than we knew.” (at 2). In this proposed rule, ED attempts to provide parents a proficiency benchmark that they can compare from state to state and that requires an explanation of the differences between the NAEP data and the state data in a manner that parents can understand. There is, of course, some resistance to this because NAEP is not designed to be a national standard or exam, nor does it mesh well with state test results because it measures different criteria. There is also an opportunity cost to States currently administering or hoping to administer the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) examination. Parties will, no doubt, address these concerns during the 60 day comment period that began on April 23.
As noted, ED published the notice of proposed rule making in the Federal Register on April 23rd. Interested parties have until June 23rd to comment on the proposed regulations. Once the 60 day comment period closes, ED officials stated that they will issue final rules in November. Within six months of the effective date of the final regulations, states would be required to submit to ED, for technical assistance and peer review, a revised Accountability Workbook that reflects these new requirements.
It is important to provide ED comments to the proposed rules. Please contact us to facilitate your comment drafting and submission.
Resources
“Proposed Regulations for Title I (Outside Source),” United States Department of Education, April 23, 2008.
Senate Passes Inspectors General Bill
Wednesday, the Senate unanimously passed S. 2324, the Inspectors General Reform Act. The bill seeks to strengthen the autonomy of the Inspectors General (IGs) by eliminating cash bonuses, increasing their base pay, giving them more control over their budgets, and by requiring the President to alert Congress of the reasons for any dismissals of IGs, making it more difficult to fire them. The bill has a House companion, House Resolution 928, which passed out of the House last October. The two bills are now ready for conference, despite a veto threat hanging over the legislation.
The two bills share a number of provisions specifically focused on the standard to which IGs are held. Both bills call for the appointment of IGs with "demonstrated ability" in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration or investigations. The bills also create a council to review allegations of wrongdoing made against IGs and their staffs. Under both bills, no IG can accept a bonus. The White House did not comment specifically on these provisions of both bills. The dispute is over the autonomy of the IGs and how much control the President will retain over their offices.
Last year, the House bill drew objections from the White House for attempting to limit the President’s authority. In response, the Senate worked to create a bill that was able to win bipartisan support, leading to slightly different approaches in three areas. The House bill provides IGs with seven-year terms, lets IGs submit budget requests directly to Congress and permits the White House to fire them only for cause. The Senate bill does not provide a guaranteed term in office, requires the White House to show how much money each IG requested and the amount recommended in the President's budget and requires a notification about any effort to remove an IG.
House and Senate aides are already meeting to reach a compromise on the bill that they hope can win White House support. The House bill passed by a vote of 404-11, which should give the bill a veto-proof majority in both chambers of Congress. However, the compromise bill could lose some hardliners who want tougher restriction on White House control. If negotiators can reach a compromise that can get past the President and still retain a majority of support in both chambers, then it may be the only controversial bill to get passed into law this year.
Resources
Greg Vadala, “Senate Passes Bill on Inspectors General,” CQ Today, April 23, 2008.
Stephen Barr, “Compromise Takes Shape for Inspectors General Bill,” Washington Post, April 25, 2008.
Congressional Leaders Working on Multiple Budget Deals
House Budget leaders met with the fiscally conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats this week to iron out differences on the budget caps set up in each chamber’s budget resolution (BR). The 48 Blue Dogs are unsure about supporting a budget which includes a $70 billion fix for the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The Blue Dogs, as well as a majority of Senators, want appropriate offsets. However, Republicans in both chambers are not going to support any tax increase to offset the AMT fix, so budget leaders are left with a $70 billion check that they cannot pay. This disagreement has held up the BR past the self imposed April 15 deadline for passing a joint resolution, which sets spending caps for fiscal year 2009 appropriations.
Traditionally, budget leaders are supposed to pass a joint BR by April 15. Since this is a very rare occurrence, budget leader usually have an extra month to work out a compromise. If the BR is not finalized by May 15, appropriators will “deem” their own spending caps, based on their chamber’s BR. This obviously causes problems once the individual appropriations bills head to conference, since both bills were passed using different caps on funding. This may not be as much of an issue this year, since appropriators may hold off on most non-defense domestic spending until next year, when a new President takes office. As such, lawmakers are debating whether or not they should add billions in domestic spending to the pending supplemental appropriations bill.
Oddly enough, Republicans and anti-war Democrats are all trying to keep Congressional leaders from allowing domestic spending into the war supplemental. For several weeks, House and Senate Democrats have been crafting a war bill that would cover not only war costs, but possibly offer an extension of unemployment benefits, increased food stamps spending, more money for wildfire protection and new funds federal infrastructure projects. Backers say the domestic spending would help jump-start the slowing economy. Republicans refuse to accept additional spending to the $108 billion supplemental, claiming that political agendas should not endanger a bill designed to get money and resources to military service members. On the other side of that same coin, anti-war Democrats do not want to add any additional spending to a bill that they believe should be strictly tied to a withdrawal plan for military forces in Iraq.
House Appropriators may be more in line with those who want to keep the bill free of other encumbrances, but Senate appropriators seem more willing to add additional spending, especially in light of the plan for final FY09 spending to wait until January. With this support aligned against domestic spending, it is unclear what the President will do if there are too many other projects added to the bill. He may have the support to sustain a veto, but he may be unwilling to delay the funds needed for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The entire process will hinge on whether or not Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) will allow domestic spending. The Senate is scheduled to mark up the bill sometime in the next two weeks.
Resources
David Clarke, “Time Running Out for Budget Deal,” CQ Today, April 18, 2008.
Vicki Needham, “House, Senate Budget Leaders Prepare for Thursday Meeting With Blue Dogs,” Congress Now, April 23, 2008.
Ashley Roque, “Anti-War Democrats, GOP Join Forces to Fight Domestic Spending on War Bill,” Congress Now, April 23, 2008.
House Passes Medicaid Moratorium
On Wednesday, the House passed House Resolution 5613, the Medicaid Safety Net Act, by a vote of 349-62. The bill is heading to the Senate, where it can expect a much more contested debate. Although leaders on Congress expect the bill to pass, the real question is whether or not it can pass by a veto-proof majority. The President, a vocal opponent of the bill, may have enough Republican support in the Senate to ensure that the bill will not become law.
House Resolution 5613 will place a one year moratorium on Medicaid rules regarding rehabilitation services, targeted case management, school-based transportation and outreach, provider taxes, hospital outpatient services, graduate medical education and intergovernmental payment transfers until April 1, 2009. The regulations, proposed by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last year, are part of the Administration’s continuing efforts to cut costs in light of Congress’ unwillingness to accept the President’s proposed budget cuts every year.
Democrats have argued that delaying new regulations will shift billions of dollars in costs to states facing budget crises all over the country. Congressional leaders are claiming that an additional year will give them time to investigate the probable impacts these regulations will have on entities that rely on Medicaid reimbursements. The Administration, on the other hand, is arguing that these rules will help prevent fraud in state Medicaid programs and assist in controlling the costs of the program. The President believes this moratorium is simply a way for Democrats in Congress to hold out until the next Administration, which they hope will favor their decision to permanently block the proposed regulations.
As the bill heads to the Senate, Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will need to work out a deal with Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) who seems committed to gaining enough votes to uphold a veto. House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) tried to win Republican support by adding a provision that allocates an additional $25 million annually to fighting fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program. This amendment succeeded in winning over House Republicans, but may not be enough to get the support it needs in the Senate. It is not clear whether or not Grassley has the support he needs to sustain a veto, but he may have just enough to force the majority leadership to do some horse trading to ensure the bill’s success.
Resources
Stephen Langel, “Medicaid Legislation Breezes Through House on Way to Fight in Senate, Expected Veto,” Congress Now, April 23, 2008.
Miller Sponsors Digital Age Education Bill
Last week, House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-CA) co-sponsored House Resolution 5848, The Preparing Teachers for Digital Age Learners Act. The bill is geared towards training K-12 teachers in education technology, helping prepare them for student learning in the digital age. This type of training seems to be a theme in most higher education-related efforts on Capitol Hill recently. Many of the new bill’s provisions already appear in the House’s version of the Higher Education Act (HEA) reauthorization. Chairman Miller and his co-sponsors hope that support for this bill will send a signal to other HEA conferees about the importance of this type of legislation.
Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) introduced the bill last week to replace the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology Program (PT3), which exists in the current version of HEA. Unfortunately, Congress has eliminated funding for that program since 2004. House Resolution 5848 provides grants to a consortium that includes post secondary institutions, a state or local educational agency, and a for-profit business or nonprofit group that may contribute to technology-related reform. The bill’s proposed cost is $100 million, providing grants of no more than $2 million during a three-year period.
The bill requires a consortium to provide teacher candidates with technology education while they are training at a K-12 school, as well as technology tools and resources that they may apply in the classroom. Ensuring the students receive the type of education necessary to be competitive in the 21st century global market. The first step in this process is to make sure teachers are adequately trained and familiar with the latest in education technology. If the proposal galvanizes HEA conferees into action, the actual bill will not likely move on its own, but as part of the larger reauthorization bill.
Resources
Erin Uy, “Miller Backs Legislation for Teacher Technology Training,” Education Daily, April 21, 2008.
Farm Bill Extended Despite Administration Objections
Lawmakers passed another week-long extension of the Farm Bill this week, but claim that they are very close to a final deal. Despite previous reservations, the President signed off on the latest extension, but announced his serious concerns over the latest compromise. In light of the long, slow progress Congress is making on the current proposal, the White House suggested a long-term one-year extension of the Farm Bill, giving lawmakers more time to find the necessary compromise. If Congress submits a final bill that the President finds unsatisfactory, he may veto it, and signal Congress that he is no longer interested in their proposals, and will not sign another short term extension.
Yesterday, Farm Bill conferees announced that they have tentatively agreed to a new proposal which includes a $10 billion increase for programs under the nutrition title of the bill. This is $500 million above the previous proposal. Because there still is no agreement on overall spending, conferees did not break down this increase any further, so interested parties are still in the dark regarding specific funding levels for individual programs, including the fresh fruit and vegetable program (FFVP). Congressional staffers believe that the probable funding for the FFVP expansion will be below the annual $225 million that Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) was hoping for, though they do not know how far below.
With every week that Congress delays in submitting its final proposal to the White House, school administrators are left in the dark about their probable allocations for school lunch and snack programs. All across the country, costs for providing nutritious foods to public school students are increasing. School administrators are hoping to receive increased federal funds to help offset the rising prices, but Congress cannot come to terms on the Farm Bill. Until States know how much money they will receive for expanding the FFVP, and exactly how those funds are going to be allocated, they are forced into a holding pattern on preparing budget plans for the next school year.
Resources
Charles Abbott, “Key Lawmakers Agree on Nutrition Aid Boost,” Reuters, April 24, 2008.
Catharine Richert, “White House Objection to Offset Puts Another Wrinkle in Farm Bill Talks,” CQ Today, April 24, 2008.
Reports
A Nation Still at Risk
On Wednesday, April 24th, the Forum for Education and Democracy held a press event at the National Press Club to unveil their new report, Democracy at Risk: The Need for a New Federal Policy in Education. The event commemorated the 25th anniversary of the landmark 1983 report, A Nation at Risk (Outside Source) which launched the nation into decades of education reform with a concise and compelling observation: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”
In Democracy at Risk, the Forum attempts to capture the same sense of urgency by stating that “two decades later, we are further away from the goals that emerged from A Nation at Risk than we were when they were announced” (at 1). The current federal educational policy framework has not fostered important changes in public education and drastic changes require a new framework. What does this new structure look like? There are four major components:
- Pay off the education debt. By that, the Forum intends to seek more federal investment and more investment in education opportunities and out of school health and welfare matters that support learning. States should develop an “opportunity index” reflecting the availability of well qualified teachers, strong curriculum, books computers and other learning resources.
- Invest in a new “Marshall Plan” for teachers and school leaders. The federal government should underwrite the preparation of teachers, it should promote high quality teacher residency programs and state and districts should improve their professional development, career ladder and teacher leadership programs.
- Support educational research and innovation. Educational research comprises only 0.2 percent of the federal research budget. This must improve and the federal government should learn to distribute best practices better.
- Engage and educate local communities. The federal government should ensure that schools and communities interact more productively. The federal government should create incentives to bring schools to the centers of communities and it should urge employers to give parents time to participate with the school on a frequent basis.
These points, of course, are not new. This has been the fodder of education policy debate for over 30 years now, but the timing is unique. As Congress reconsiders a redesign of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) the Forum has been and is working diligently with the Congressional leadership and the Democratic Presidential campaigns to advance their framework.
The Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor George Miller sat on the event’s second panel and reflected on the discussion draft and the reauthorization outlook. “This is the right time to pause and reflect,” said Miller. “My staff and I tried to rewrite the law and since then we have had time to think about where we want to go. We now have too many issues that the federal government is trying to lead. We can lead two or three but not 18.” After observing that the next law may indeed look different, potentially signaling a decline in support for his own discussion draft, Miller concluded by stating that “we [the federal government] have an obligation to poor and minority students and we have an obligation to assure quality teachers. The rest is a work in progress.”
To learn more about the report see The Forum for Education and Democracy (Outside Source) .
Resources
Amanda Paulson, “Despite 25 Years of School Reform, U.S. Schools Still Fall Short,” Christian Science Monitor, April 24, 2008.
Pending white paper (Outside Source) by the U.S. Department of Education discussing the 25th anniversary of a Nation at Risk, to be published on April 26th.
