Legislation and Guidance
- Fiscal Year 2009: Expect FY08 Levels until February 2009
- Civil Rights Groups Object to Alabama bid for SES-Choice "Flip-Flop" Pilot
News
- Pushing to Make Education a Top Priority in Presidential Race
- Arizona Superintendent Refiles NCLB Suit Against Federal Government
- Hearing on the Impact of Rising Food Costs on Child Nutrition Programs
Reports
Legislation and Guidance
Fiscal Year 2009: Expect FY08 Levels until February 2009
In mid June, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies (Labor-HHS-Education) approved its fiscal year 2009 (FY09) appropriations. The subcommittee appropriated $7.8 billion more than President Bush requested and about $8 billion more than the agencies are receiving in the current year. Later in June, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY09 program appropriations for Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS) and Education, providing $9.5 million above the President's request for the agencies.
June's momentum, however, soon vanished. The full House Appropriations Committee never voted on the bill and staff in the Senate stated that they would not advance the bill to the Senate floor until the House completed its work. Meanwhile, the President stated that he would veto any spending bills that exceeded his requests. The confluence of these things leads many to speculate that Congress would not finish its appropriations on time this year and that they would provide funding through a continuing resolution (CR).
This week, the speculations of a CR were confirmed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stated that it was unlikely that Congress would pass any fiscal 2009 spending bills this year. Instead, Congress would have to approve a CR to fund the government at current FY08 levels. Earlier in the week, even Defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) stated that the fiscal year 2009 process was dead. "I don't think we'll even get a defense bill this year," said Chairman Murtha. And if we don't have a defense bill we will certainly not have a health education and labor bill. The Democratic leadership has stated that they expect a CR, whenever it is passed, to run through February or March of 2009 until a new administration takes control.
Resources
Jennifer Bendry, "Murtha says appropriations process is 'dead,'" Congress Now, July 9, 2008.
Vicki Needham, "Reid: Congress Unlikely to Pass any Fiscal 2009 Spending Bills," Roll Call, July 10, 2008.
Civil Rights Groups Object to Alabama bid for SES-Choice "Flip-Flop" Pilot
Several civil rights groups are lobbying the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to deny Alabama's bid to join ED's "flip-flop" pilot program. The pilot allows states to offer students in low-performing schools free tutoring before the option to transfer to a higher-performing public school, in the reverse order from what the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) normally requires. The Alabama school reform organization, Citizens for Better Schools — aided by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights (CCCR) — argued that a waiver would compound segregation in the state. "Choice Transfer is a proven tool in achieving some form of integrated education in America's schools," CBS Executive Director Ronald Jackson wrote in a letter to ED Secretary Margaret Spellings. "Granting Alabama a waiver of this venerable education reform tool will gut federal education policy that No Child [be] Left Behind."
The request is significant not only because it could affect ED's decision-making, but also because the groups intimated that they would take even stronger steps to curb the program. CCCR Executive Director Dianne Piché said the program may contravene the NCLB statute. When queried about the possibility of a lawsuit against ED for sponsoring it, Piché replied, "It's always an option." NCLB requires schools in their first year of improvement to offer free transfers to other public schools, and those in their second year of improvement must offer supplemental education services, such as free tutoring, in addition to transfers. In 2005, ED began permitting some districts to switch this timeline.
After determining that the number of students participating in SES rose in those districts participating in the pilot program, the agency permitted all states meeting certain criteria to apply for the flexibility this year. Alabama is one of eight applicants. The state has had a checkered history on educational equity. It faced a state adequacy and equity lawsuit over school financing in 1991, and CCCR alleged in 1999 that the state violated Title I's "supplement-not-supplant" requirements. In its application for the pilot, Alabama claimed that the distance between sending and receiving schools was as far as 40 miles, and many parents objected to sending their children to schools in other communities. Other states have also reported a small number of students exercising the option to transfer.
The state amended its application July 3, a day after CBS sent its letter, to permit districts in the state to choose whether to offer choice, SES, or both interventions in the first year of school improvement. But Piché remained unconvinced.
"I'm not sure [the change] cures the fundamental problem," she said. "In a state like Alabama, from a civil rights matter, the right to public school choice particularly is critical to maintain at the earliest possible stage of the school improvement process." From a broader legal standpoint, Piché drew a distinction between the recipients of Title I funds, school districts, and the poor children who, under the law, are beneficiaries of the school-choice provisions.
"The right to transfer out of a substandard school is a provision that … we feel confers a right that no executive branch official has the authority to waive or defer," she said. A spokeswoman said ED received the letter and officials are reviewing it. She could not comment about the letter while the pilot applications are being reviewed. Spellings will make the final approvals. She is expected to grant the flexibility to additional states this month. Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Utah also applied for the flexibility.
Resource
Stephen Sawchuk, "Groups Object to Alabama Bid for SES-Choice Flip-Flop Pilot," Education Daily, July 10, 2008.
News
Pushing to Make Education a Top Priority in Presidential Race
With less than five months before the election, education advocates are coming together to try and make the issue more of a priority for Presidential candidates. National surveys and various polls are showing that education is still a priority for voters than in previous elections, but it still lags behind in both media coverage and candidate focus. In a recent effort to push the issue, some high profile advocates are using polling data to force candidates to take stands on a number of educational issues.
Reverend Al Sharpton has joined New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein in heading the Education Equality Project, a fast-growing national coalition of educators, politicians and academicians that aims to focus attention on the real issues of education reform. The group sees itself as working against a system more interested in the political interests of adults than the education rights of children. The group is trying to work around old relationships between teachers unions and policy makers, which they claim keeps unsuccessful teachers in classrooms, fails to place the best educators where they are needed most and rewards longevity over effectiveness. Rev. Sharpton and Chancellor Klein have somewhat of an uphill battle this election season.
The Public Education Network released a national poll that looks at top concerns for voters this election season. As expected, gas prices (22 percent) and economy (19 percent) hold the top two spots. While education (12 percent) is listed as the third most important issue, data shows there is still quite a gap between education and economy in regards to priorities for this election.
This marks a change from two years ago, when education was seen as the most important issue local leaders need to address. It dropped 4 points, from 16 percent in 2006 to 12 percent this year. While its importance has declined somewhat since 2006, education remains a crucial topic on which the public will base their votes for president. In a second poll that PEN conducted in 2006, a majority of voters (56 percent) said that a candidate's position on education was "one of the most important" or "very important" in helping them decide, as opposed to the 48 percent who said so this year. While the issue remains important, advocates like Sharpton and Klein have more work to do if they expect the presidential candidates to focus more on education.
Resources
"Focus on School Reform," Washington Post, July 7, 2008.
Community Accountability for Quality Schools," Public Education Network, June 2008.
James Michael Brodie, "Group: Education is Civil Rights Issue," Education Daily, June 12, 2008.
Arizona Superintendent Refiles NCLB Suit Against Federal Government
Last month Arizona Superintendent Tom Horne refiled a case against the United States Department of Education (ED) regarding the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) regulations relating to the accountability for English Language Learners' (ELLs). Student proficiency in the State is measured by the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) test, and in 2003 Horne claims that he entered into a verbal agreement with ED, allowing schools the right to omit ELLs scores in the first three years of English instruction. This is because state legislation requires that the AIMS test only be given in English, an obvious hurdle for students who speak English as a second language. However, in a 2005 audit, ED allegedly backed out of the verbal agreement when it required Arizona to include ELL scores after only one year of English instruction to measure accountability under NCLB.
Horne refiled the suit after the July 2006 suit was dismissed from court because Arizona must first file a complaint with ED. After Arizona complied and ED stated that it would continue to require the state to include first year ELL scores in the data, Horne refiled, asking ED to acknowledge that it reneged on the alleged verbal agreement, and calling for a refund of the money spent on school improvement due to the inclusion of first-year ELL scores and the ‘failing' labels that resulted from such inclusion. Horne stated that without the inclusion of these scores, Arizona schools would meet federal standards and would have made the adequate yearly progress required by NCLB. Opponents of the lawsuit believe that NCLB has only highlighted the State's neglect of ELL students, and that the suit is a waste of funds that could be spent on the improvement of ELL education.
The decision from this case will have serious implications for English immersion states. In 2000, Arizona became an English-only State, requiring that all public education be conducted only in English, disallowing students any educational instruction in their native tongue. Superintendent Horne has argued that the federal requirements make it nearly impossible for the State to effectively run an English only program because students in such a program require more time to first learn the language and then to learn the substance.
Resources
James Michael Brodie, "Arizona Refiles 2006 NCLB Lawsuit Over Failing Schools," Education Daily, July 08, 2008.
"Horne re-files Lawsuit against Federal Government (Outside Source; PDF; 30KB; 1p)," Arizona Department of Education News, June 23, 2008
Mary Ann Zehr, "Arizona's Tom Horne Sues the Federal Government Over ELLs," Education Week, June 23, 2008
"Secretary Spellings Announces Final Limited English Proficiency Regulations," United State Department of Education, press release, September 13, 2006.
Hearing on the Impact of Rising Food Costs on Child Nutrition Programs
On Wednesday, the House Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing in response to the rising prices of food and the effects upon federal nutrition programs. Committee Chairman Rep. George Miller (D-CA) led the discussion and observed that a weak dollar, an increased international demand for food, and an increase of biofuel production are several factors in the complex price equation. This price increase hits school lunch programs especially hard.
The federal government subsidizes school nutrition programs. On average, the federal government provided $2.47 to the programs per free meal served in the 2007-2008 school year. However, along with subsidies come strict nutritional guidelines and requirements for pricey foods, such as fresh fruits, vegetables, and milk. This rate is adjusted each year according to increases in the Consumer Price Index, but many argue that this is not enough. Dr. Katie Wilson, of the School Nutrition Association, testified that lunch production costs around $3 per meal, and even at this rate, programs are barely making due. Dr. Wilson suggested to the committee that the cost of living be reevaluated more frequently than on the current annual schedule, as market prices are rarely locked in for more than six months.
Another witness, Mr. Pavel Matustik, of the Santa Clarita Valley School Food Services Agency, noted that a one cent increase in the cost of milk would mean an increased cost of $40 million for U.S. school lunch programs, and that, on average, the cost of milk increased by four cents in California. He went on to ask why milk must be served at every school lunch and breakfast in light of the heavy price tag that the commodity carries.
Several witnesses vocalized the serious need for national nutrition standards passed by the federal government. Dr. Wilson and Mr. Matustik both noted that such measures would save the American people and school lunch programs millions of dollars. The necessity for such standards stems from the production of arguably unhealthy foods that do not meet the nutrition requirements necessary to allow schools to use them in lunch production, but drive the prices of healthier foods up in the market. Unhealthy processed foods are available at lower prices because costs can be spread across the various stages of production, while the cost of eating healthily steadily increases.
Biofuels and corn were a major part of the discussion according to witness Scott Faber, of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. He reported that over sixty percent of the increase in corn prices is due to ethanol production. All witnesses agreed that ethanol production was a major part of the increase in the cost of food. Although ethanol use accounted for less than four percent of fuel intake in 2007, according to Mr. Faber, government food-to-fuel mandates support the production of the biofuel as a result of national pollution concerns. The price of milk, meat, eggs, and other staple foods, have also seen significant increases due to the increased cost of agricultural production stemming from increased land use for corn production. Each witness agreed that ethanol production, and the food-to-fuel mandates that support it, have very serious implications on the cost of food and ultimately on nutrition.
Kate Houston made the point that food costs account for well under half of the operational costs of the school lunch program. This point was echoed by Dr. Wilson and Mary Wootan, of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. School lunch programs are charged operational costs from the district for expenses such as electricity, gas, water, and trash removal, which eat away at a large portion of the budget. In a recent USA Today article, Mrs. Wootan candidly stated, "You don't charge the math department overhead." Many programs are being forced to decrease their workforce along with the quality of the food, while the biggest concern is that they will soon have to decrease the number of lunches they provide.
All committee members agreed that the price of food will only increase in the near future. The witnesses' estimates were as high as nine percent between 2008 and 2012, on top of the seventeen percent increase seen in the price of staple foods this year. With nutritional integrity at stake, the school lunch program has been put in a precarious position between economic realities and the nutritional needs of the millions that it feeds. Although USDA economist, Ephraim Leibtag, suggested an increase in operational efficiency as a solution, it is clear that increased funding is also needed to continue the school lunch program without decreasing the amount of lunches it provides. At the same time, the federal government is expecting an increase in the number of children who receive free lunches in the coming school year, which will put the program in an even greater crunch. While many call for the federal government to increase the reimbursement rate from the USDA in the coming 2009 reauthorization, the future of federal nutrition reimbursement is unsettled.
Resources
Greg Toppo, "School Cafeterias Struggling to Keep Food on the Table," USA Today, July 8th, 2008.
Roger Thurow and Anna Prior, "Summer Camp as Food Relief," The Wall Street Journal, July 8th, 2008.
Greg Toppo, "Beef Recall Spotlights the Real Cost of Cheap School Lunches," USA Today, April 30th, 2008.
"Soaring Food Prices Are Making it Harder for Schools and Child Nutrition Programs to Provide Healthy Meals to Children, Witnesses Tell House Education Committee (Outside Source)," Committee on Education and Labor, Hearing, July 9, 2008.
Reports
ED Releases Biennial Title III Report to Congress
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) released their biennial report to Congress regarding the implementation of the Title III state formula grant program. The report provides a snapshot of the status of the ED's efforts to hold states accountable for ensuring that all limited English proficient (LEP) students attain English language proficiency (ELP) and are achieving in the content areas of mathematics and reading or language arts at the same high level set by the states for all students. Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act specifies that states must develop standards and targets for the acquisition of English and for the demonstration of academic content knowledge by LEP students. This report is one way in which ED works to collect data from states to determine how well these goals are being met.
In its report, ED found that as of 2006, nearly three out of four LEP students were born in the United States, and more than half of immigrant students still entered American schools in kindergarten or first grade. In the same year, only 24 states plus Puerto Rico reported meeting their own targets for improving LEP students' language ability, and 28 states reported meeting targets for students becoming proficient in English. During the past year, many states have had to revise or even redo incorrectly calculated or reported data about English learners, making the true state of English language learners' (ELL) education hard to decipher.
Federal money for language acquisition has increased, from $681 million in FY 2004 to $700 million in FY 2008. But Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA), who recently returning to Capitol Hill after major surgery to remove a malignant brain tumor, argued the $163 grant per LEP student provided by Title III for 2008 would not support implementation of the programs. Unfortunately, with the annual appropriations process bogged down in both the House and the Senate, ELL education advocates are left in limbo regarding the future of their federal grant.
Resources
"The Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program (Outside Source; PDF; 4MB; 214pp)," Office of English Language Acquisition, U.S. Department of Education, June 2008.
Sarah Sparks, "Slow ELL Progress Spurs Title III Change," Education Daily, July 9, 2008.
