The National Governor's Association wants Congress to give states lots of running room when it comes to crafting their accountability plans, according to an interim proposal outlining NGA's priorities for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (aka the No Child Left Behind Act.)

The governors are asking lawmakers to reshape the federal role in K-12, focusing it on sharing information and research, and helping states collaborate on "innovations to better serve students." They like the idea of federal incentives, but not a lot of federal control.

For instance, NGA doesn't want the federal government to dictate how failing schools should be turned around, dealing yet another blow to the department's four School Improvement Grant models, which just about everyone is down on these days.

And it doesn't want the feds pushing any particular set of standards (pretty interesting for the organization that helped make the Common Core State Standards Initiative a reality.)

Interestingly, the proposals call for scrapping maintenance of effort, which requires districts to keep up their spending at a certain level in order to tap federal Title I funds. That same idea is in a draft bill released last month by U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee. Some folks think the elimination of MOE—a provision that mostly catches the attention of true-blue policy nerds—could end up being a big sleeper issue in the debate over ESEA reauthorization.

Also, the NGA doesn't want to get rid of Race to the Top entirely. But it wants to see the program "reformed" to put more of an emphasis on state collaborations, presumably meaning that more states to could get the money.

And NGA wants the department to do a better job of recognizing "differences in capacity of states" to apply for the grants. (Politics K-12 translation: Give rurals a chance. And stop letting Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island—the Race to the Top double-dippers—have all the fun.)

What's not in the recommendations: The proposals are very different from what business and civil rights groups are asking for in the renewal. There's nothing in there, for instance, asking that states and schools be held responsible for the performance of particular subgroups, such as English-language learners.

And there's nothing about encouraging states to tie teacher evaluations to student test-scores. In fact, the "human capital" section is about as broad as it gets—saying simply that the federal government can "accelerate state work to improve teaching."

The proposal shows that NGA, like just about every organization in Washington, has gone through quite a metamorphisis when it comes to K-12 policy. The group released a set of NCLB reauthorization proposals back in 2007 that didn't go nearly as far in scaling back the federal role.

It's important to note that these are "interim" proposals, which means the NGA's education committee has voted to approve them. But they haven't been voted on by the full organization. That will happen at NGA's winter meeting, later this month. (For those wondering whether these recommendations were contentious or sailed through the NGA's education committee—there's no way to tell. The NGA doesn't publish roll call votes taken at its committee meetings.)

Big hat tip to Mike Petrilli, of Flypaper fame, (and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute) for the link to the proposals.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

By Sean Cavanagh

Charter school advocates have sounded a warning about an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from the Obama administration that they say could undermine the ability of teachers in those schools to participate in state retirement plans.

The notice, released by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service in November, says that federal officials are seeking to clarify what kinds of pension systems quality as "governmental plans," which would affect the regulation of them.

Details of what's in the works drew a strong response from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which issued a statement saying the changes "would force states to prohibit public charter school teachers from participating in state retirement plans."

Charter schools do not appear to be specifically mentioned in the notice, but the schools organization believes its members would be affected, based on its reading of the proposed language and definitions.

By the alliance's interpretation, the proposal could affect the ability of states' pension systems to meet the definition of a "governmental plan," if they allow charter employees to participate. As a result, if the proposal was made final, states would not "accept the risk of allowing charter school teachers to continue their participation in state plans," the organization states.

"These regulations have not yet been proposed formally," the group said. "[W]e have the unique, and critical opportunity to address these regulations now."

Public comments on the notice are due by Feb. 6, and the charter school group is urging its members to voice their concerns to Capitol Hill lawmakers, as well as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Specifically, it wants the regulations to be crafted in a way that protects charter schools.

According to the alliance, 24 states have laws that mandate charter participation in state-sponsored retirement systems, and 18 permit it. Every state that allows public charter schools either requires or permits charter school participation in state retirement plans.

The alliance estimates that more than 90,000 employees, most of them teachers, would be affected, if the regulations as now envisioned took effect. The regs would not only jeopardize the retirement plans of charter school workers who are currently participating in the plans, but would also prevent charters recruiting or retaining teachers from public school systems, the organization argues.

The Obama administration has been a major supporter of charter schools, encouraging their growth through policies such as the Race to the Top program.

Both the president and Duncan have described charters as laboratories for testing innovative ideas that are difficult to set in motion in traditional public school settings. They have also backed charters playing a major role in federal efforts to turn around low-performing schools.

It's unclear whether the administration agrees with the charter school advocates' interpretation of the notice—or whether it was even intended to affect charters. Officials from the Treasury Department and Department of Education have not yet responded to requests for comment Thursday evening.

Todd Ziebarth, the vice president for state advocacy and support for the alliance, said it was possible the administration's regulations were aimed at dealing with a host of pension issues "and they didn't intend to trap charter schools in the net."

But the group was sufficiently troubled by what it saw in the advance notice to launch a campaign for changes, he said.

Not all charters participate in state pension systems, Ziebarth noted, "but at the end of the day, we want charters to have that option."

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:23 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

States that have seen big explosions in population—including Nevada, Utah, and Arizona—also would see a big jump in federal funding for teacher quality under a little-noticed provision of a draft bill to renew the No Child Left Behind Act, introduced by U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House education committee.

But other states that have lost people in recent years—including New York, Michigan, and Kline's home state of Minnesota—would see a dip in funding, according to an analysis Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington that champions progressive policies.

The reason? Kline's proposal would change the formula for distributing about $3 billion in Improving Teacher Quality State grant money, or Title II, in Washington-wonkspeak. The funds help states provide professional development, reduce class size, and generally boost teacher quality.

Right now, that money is distributed largely based on poverty (65 percent) as opposed to population (35 percent). The Kline proposal would change that to 50-50.

For some states, the change would be a big deal. Nevada (home to U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader) would see a huge jump of 57.5 percent in its teacher quality money, from $12.4 million in fiscal 2012 to $19.6 million under the bill's formula.

But West Virginia would lose 38.3 percent of its funding, bringing it down to $12.6 million in fiscal 2012. New York, which has a huge, influential delegation in the House, wouldn't be far behind. It would lose 32.2 percent of its funding, or $63 million, bringing its total to $132.5 million.

In other cases, the shifts would be pretty small. Missouri, for instance, would only lose 0.6 percent of its nearly $42 million in funding that it got this year, or about nearly $260,000. And Kansas, which gets about $19.2 million would see only a 1.2 percent jump, or nearly $230,000. Thirteen states would break even under the change.

CAP, for one, is not a fan of the formula shift. The organization wrote that the change "would substantially dilute" the program's focus on the neediest students. "The clearest loser, however, is a federal focus on redressing poverty," write the report's authors, Jeremy Ayers, a senior education policy analyst, and Raegan Miller, the associate director for education research.

And teacher-quality money may not be the only formula fight. U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., introduced a bipartisan bill that seeks to ensure that high-poverty rural schools get their fair share of Title I money, which provides grants for disadvantaged students. That's sure to pit big suburban districts (like Montgomery County, Md.) against smaller rural areas, including parts of rural Pennsylvania.

There are lots of other goodies in the analysis, including a look at the draft's decision to scrap maintenance of effort. Check out the whole thing here. (Title II chart starts on page 4.)

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

President Barack Obama's sweeping plans to shake up higher education funding will need to get through a politically polarized Congress, and the initial reviews from some top education lawmakers indicate a rocky road ahead.

The president's wish list includes creating a form of Race to the Top, and the Investing in Innovation program for colleges. And he wants to rejigger funding for campus-based aid programs so that they go to institutions that give students good bang for their buck. More here.

Reaction on Capitol Hill was mixed.

U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said he'd take a look at some of the affordability proposals. "Competition and transparency are basic principles Republicans have long supported to help lower costs in higher education, and institutions have a responsibility to do everything they can to provide a good education at an affordable price," he said in a statement.

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., was less enthusiastic. He said that taking away campus-based financial aid hurts students, not colleges.

Within the same paragraph of his State of the Union address, the president first promised to increase student aid, and then threatened to reduce it, saying that if tuition goes up, taxpayer funding will go down. But federal taxpayer funding for colleges and universities is almost all through grants and loans that go to about 20 million students, so his threat to reduce federal spending for colleges is really a threat to cut federal aid to students....Colleges do need to become more efficient. I've suggested that they could offer three-year degrees to some students. Colleges could also operate more in the summertime, which would make more efficient use of campuses and reduce their costs.

Key Democrats were more receptive.

"I applaud the President's focus on making college affordable and accessible for all students," said U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate education committee in a statement. He said he's looking forward to reviewing the proposal.

And U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House education committee, gave the proposals the thumbs-up in his statement:

The cost of education is one of the most urgent kitchen table issues for the middle class. Congress needs to join the President in addressing these issues. The President's Higher Education Proposal rightly calls on colleges, universities and states to maintain a commitment to keep college costs low making it easier for American families and their children to afford a college education.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Go-to source Jack Jennings, who has led the Center on Education Policy since he founded it 17 years ago, is retiring Jan. 31. His partner-in-crime, Diane Stark Rentner, also known as the director of national programs for the center, will become the interim director.

Under Jennings, the center has analyzed the implementation of No Child Left Behind, the turnaround of the country's low-performing schools, and the status of state high school exit exams. Heck, If it weren't for Jennings & Crew, we might not know that Education Secretary Arne Duncan's claim that 82 percent of schools this year would "fail" under NCLB was way off base.

A former longtime aide to Democrats on the House education committee, Jennings is a legend on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers in both parties singled him out, by name, during hearings to thank him for his expertise. And nearly every version of the Elementary and Secondary Act has his fingerprints on it. He has a Wikipedia-esque knowledge of every corner of the law, but he can explain it in simple terms even a reporter can understand.

As he retires, he's leaving behind some parting thoughts—a post-game analysis of sorts of the last half-century of education reform, and recommendations going forward. He writes: "We can talk for another 50 years about making the schools better, and succeed for some.We can adopt piecemeal approaches that have some effect. But if we want broad, major improvement for our nation's schools, we have to act boldly, not just talk or try partial fixes." It's worth a read.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

The White House wants another Race to the Top competition for states, this time aimed at making higher education cheaper and better.

President Barack Obama's plan, which he is fleshed out in a speech at the University of Michigan this morning, would create a new, $1 billion version of his signature Race to the Top competition for states to improve their higher education systems.

To snag the grants, states would have to smooth the transition between K-12 and college education by aligning entrance and exit standards between the two systems. That proposal would appear to build on an incentive in the original, $4 billion Race to Top for K-12 (Race to the Top Classic), which rewarded states for many things, including if they signed onto the Common Core State Standards Initiative—an effort by states to create more uniform, rigorous standards that prepare students for post-secondary education.

That may be a tall order in the current cloudy economic forecast, in which nearly every state has squeezed funding for post-secondary education in recent years.

"We're telling the states, if you can find new ways to bring down the cost of college and make it easier for more students to graduate, we'll help you do it," Obama said in his speech. "We will give you additional federal support if you are doing a good job of making sure that all of you aren't loaded up with debt when you graduate from college. And states would have to maintain adequate levels of funding for higher education."

The adminstration also is seeking to create a $55 million grant contest, dubbed the "First in the World" competition, to help institutions scale up promising strategies in areas such as technology and early-college preparation.

Obama is also calling on Congress to rework federal, school-based financial aid programs, including the Perkins Loan program. Right now, that aid is distributed under a formula that rewards schools in part for longevity. Under the change, colleges that keep tuition low and graduate a relatively large share of Pell Grant-eligible students would be rewarded with a larger share of the grants.

"We are putting colleges on notice...you can't assume that you'll just jack up tuition every single year," Obama said. "If you can't stop tuition from going up, then the funding you get from taxpayers each year will go down. We should push colleges to do better. We should hold them accountable if they don't."

And Obama is proposing a new $55 millon competition that would dole out money to colleges and universities to scale up promising practices in areas including technology and early college preparation. At first blush, that program appears modeled on the Investing in Innovation grant program, which offered similar rewards to schools and non-profits.

The administration is also planning to create a "College Scorecard" to make it easier for students and parents to choose a college they can afford, and that will help advance their career goals. The so-called "shopping sheet" would include post-graduate earnings and employment information, according to published reports.

The proposals would all require congressional approval.

UPDATE: So far, GOP lawmakers, at least in the House, didn't immediately throw cold water on the proposals. But they don't sound like they're jumping up and down with enthusiasm over them either.

Here's a snippet from a statement by Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee:

"Competition and transparency are basic principles Republicans have long supported to help lower costs in higher education, and institutions have a responsibility to do everything they can to provide a good education at an affordable price. We need responsible solutions that will serve the students of today and tomorrow without increasing the federal role in our nation's education system. The president has proposed a number of interesting ideas that deserve a careful review."

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a huge fan of English immersion programs. Romney's state used a CNN-sponsored debate in Florida to reiterate his love for programs that teach kids only in English. He's said in other debates, and in his recent book, that kids don't learn as well in bilingual education classes.

And, in response to a question about why his wife, Callista, would make a good first lady, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich talked up her expertise in arts and music education, an area that has faced major cuts both at the federal and local levels.

In fact, Callista Gingrich made a video extolling the virtue's of music education and bemoaning cuts to music education at the local level.

"Many schools are threatening to cut or eliminate entire music programs," she says in the video, released in December. "Many studies suggest a strong link between music and academic achievement. ... To eliminate music from our schools is to diminish a large part of our cultural experience. Together, we can work to support music education in our nation's schools and preserve our cultural identity."

So does that mean a President Gingrich would support sending money to schools to support music education? If so, that could be a pretty tough sell with Republicans in Congress who are bent on slimming down the U.S. Department of Education.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A top GOP lawmaker's plan for rewriting the No Child Left Behind Act amounts to a "rollback" of the law, 38 business, civil rights, and other advocacy organizations said in a letter, sent Jan. 24 to its sponsor.

The draft from U.S. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chairman of the House education committee, "would thrust us back to an earlier time when states could choose to ignore disparities for children of color, low-income students, English-language learners, and students with disabilities," the letter says.

The letter was signed by a number of organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Federation of Teachers, the Education Trust, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the National Council of La Raza.

Where do the groups' concerns stem from? Under the current law, states have to test students in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. They have to set annual achievement goals for all students, including racial minorities, and students in special education. Schools that don't meet those targets are subject to increasingly serious, federal sanctions. Under the Kline plan, states would still have to test students. But they wouldn't have to set goals for student achievement anymore. And they wouldn't have to intervene in schools that aren't making progress with particular subgroups.

The letter shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the debate over the renewal of the ESEA. Most of the same groups released a similar letter in the fall, raising more or less the same concerns about a renewal bill sponsored by U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Michael B. Enzi, R-Wy., the chairman and ranking member of the Senate education committee. The Senate measure also doesn't require any special, federally-mandated interventions for schools that don't make progress with subgroup students.

Kline, in a statement, indicates that he doesn't think his proposal amounts to a watering down of accountability for schools:

'"The Student Success Act opens doors for superintendents, teachers, principals, and other education leaders to implement innovative approaches to meet the needs of individual student populations. In no way does the proposal allow states and school districts to shirk the fundamental responsibility of helping every child succeed in the classroom. I am disappointed critics have chosen to disregard this responsible proposal and vilify the motives of state and local leaders—leaders who have been clamoring for exactly the kind of flexibility and opportunity provided in the Student Success Act."

It's important to be clear that Kline's proposal is just a draft. He'll put forth a full-fledged bill soon.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:43 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, any day now, is supposed to announce which states will get waivers from parts of the No Child Left Behind Act, in exchange for embracing certain education reform priorities.

But a pair of Democratic education leaders in Congress have some concerns about aspects of the 11 state applications submitted so far, and they're urging Duncan to adhere to the very high bar he says he'll set for approval.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and U.S. Rep. George Miller, of California, sent a letter to Duncan on Jan. 17 outlining what they see as specific problems in the initial applications. The department has been working with states to make changes and tweaks to their approaches, but those discussions have not been made public.

"We felt the first round of applications didn't go far enough to maintain the strong accountability approach that was expected," a Harkin aide said. "We wanted to make sure that even though some of the first-round applications don't look like they are there yet, [the department] would work with states to reach a high bar."

The lawmakers don't name specific states, but it's clear they think there need to be big changes to nearly all the applicaitons before they're approved.

For instance:

•At least nine of the 11 state applications would create a "super subgroup" essentially lumping together students with disabilities, English-language learners, and racial minorities, according to a report by the Center on Education Policy, a research and advoacy organization in Washington. Harkin and Miller are worried the concerns of specific subgroups could get swept under the rug in that arrangement.

•The lawmakers want to make sure states really emphasize graduation rates in their accountability systems. "Low graduation rates cannot be obscured through changes in test scores or vice-versa," they write. A report from the Alliance for Excellence in Education, in Washington, questioned whether states are really doing a good job of ensuring that graduation rates count for accountability purposes.

•Teacher evaluation is another area of concern. At least six states that applied haven't yet adopted the specifics spelled out in the waiver guidelines, according to an Education Week analysis. And a report by the Center for American Progress, in Washington, also questions whether states have the capacity to deliver on the evaluation portion of the applications.

It's notable that Harkin would have an issue with states' handling of the teacher-evaluation requirement. His own bill, introduced with U.S. Sen. Michael B. Enzi, the top Republican on the education committee, doesn't call for evaluations at all, unless a district or state wants competitive grant money.

But that bill is the product of bipartisan negotiations, while the letter reflects Harkin's own priorities for reauthorization, which includes teacher evaluation for everyone, a Harkin aide explained. (Harkin's original bill did ask all districts to craft evaluations, but that language got jettisoned to garner GOP support for the measure.)

Why so much focus on this first round of waivers? The applications that get approved now will set the bar for future rounds, as states seek to copy successful strategies, a Miller aide said. And, if a bunch of states end up using similar accountability systems, that could be incorporated into a future reauthorization of the law.

Of course, the lawmakers might be assuaged by some of the changes the Education Department has already demanded states make to their waiver applications—but unfortunately, we don't know what those changes entailed. The department refuses to make public the formal feedback letters it has issued to states, which outline the department's concerns and ask for changes.

Duncan's reponse to the lawmakers' letter? He promises that no child will be left, well, behind:

"ESEA flexibility will allow states to target aid where its needed the most while not compromising an inch on achievement gaps," said Justin Hamilton, Duncan's spokesman, in an email. "States will have the flexibility to craft local plans for local issues, but they must address the needs of every child."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED

From guest blogger Nirvi Shah:

Alexandria, Va.—Long-awaited rules about what school breakfasts and lunches that cut salt and fat, limit calories, and increase servings of fruits and vegetables became final Wednesday, about a year after they were proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The sweeping changes, which school districts must act on in the 2012-13 school year, were made based on recommendations from the medical community, and could have a huge influence on children's health in the U.S., because many kids get more than half the calories they eat in a day at school.

The announcement was made here at Parklawn Elementary school, with First Lady Michelle Obama, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and celebrity chef Rachael Ray on hand to eat along with children, who were choosing from the kind of menu that will soon be required of all schools in the country. Students at Parklawn Elementary were eating turkey tacos with brown rice, and had a choice of different types of fresh melon or strawberries and kiwi as a side dish, among other items.

"It's a red-letter day for nutrition," Secretary Vilsack said in a call with reporters. "This is the most significant change we've seen in nutrition standards in a generation."

Their original proposal for the new school-meal rules was tweaked based upon tens of thousands of opinions and actions by Congress, which successfully chipped away at some of the changes USDA wanted to make.

Among the key changes the new standards require: Students must be provided with double the amount of fruits and vegetables as in the past; all grain products served must be whole-grain rich; all milk offered must be low-fat or fat-free; there are limits on sodium; and meals will have calorie minimums and maximums.

Plans for other big changes the USDA hoped to make were squelched, however. Congress prevented the agency from limiting servings of starchy vegetables, including white potatoes, corn, lima beans, and peas. The USDA also wanted to end the practice of counting tomato paste, including the sauce on a slice of pizza, as a serving of vegetables. But politics got in the way of that change, too. The political backlash came despite bipartisan support for the bill that required the changes to school meals, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.

Here's a comparison of how the proposed changes compare with what was ultimately decided by USDA.

"Our kids would eat candy for breakfast, follow it up with French fries... and then come home for a big chocolate sundae," Mrs. Obama said. "It's our responsibility to make sure they don't do that. And when we're doing what we're supposed to be doing at home, the last thing we want is for these things to be undone at school."

Vilsack said the 32 million students who eat school meals each day will still see fewer starchy vegetables because there are minimum requirements of many other types of veggies—dark green, orange, and red—that must be served in a given week.

Margo Wootan, the director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said she welcomed the updated standards despite the political "shenanigans."

At the Kids' Safe and Healthful Foods Project, an endeavor of the Pew Charitable Trusts, project director Jessica Donze Black was also enthusiastic.

"The updated nutrition standards for school meals are now in line with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the federal government's evidence-based guidance to promote health, reduce the risk of chronic diseases and decrease the prevalence of obesity," she said. "The focus on improving school meals comes at a critical time for children's health. Nearly one in three adolescents in the United States today is overweight or obese, and young people increasingly suffer from diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure."

Beyond the health benefits, Mrs. Obama said the improved meals will help students' academic performance.

"Kids can't be expected to sit still and concentrate when they're on a sugar high," she said, "or, when they're hungry."

Some school districts, which have been adjusting their lunches to boost the amount of whole-grain items served, adding more fruits and vegetables, and serving low-fat and fat-free milk, have said the new meals will be too expensive to prepare, and despite a required boost in school-meal prices charged to students and more money from the USDA per meal, they will struggle to pay for all the the new requirements.

"We can spend a little bit now and and see it go a long way," Ms. Ray said a little while before joining Parklawn 2nd and 4th graders in the lunch line.

Others have found that students aren't fans of healthier meals.

The School Nutrition Association did endorse the changes however.

"These national nutrition standards will help school nutrition professionals build on their successes," said SNA Chief Executive Officer Frank DiPasquale. "For schools hampered by tight budgets or limited equipment and staff,the School Nutrition Association will continue to provide training and support to help school nutrition professionals achieve the new meal pattern."

Photo: First lady Michelle Obama takes her seat as she has lunch with school children at Parklawn Elementary School in Alexandria, Va. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend