July 2010 Archives

President Barack Obama offered a forceful defense today of his signature education initiative, the $4.35 billion Race to the Top program, which rewards states for making progress on raising standards, improving teacher quality, establishing data systems, and turning around low-performing schools.

The program—and Mr. Obama's prescription for turning around those low-performing schools—has come under sharp criticism lately from civil rights groups, who say distributing funds through competitive grants hinders poor and minority students, whose schools may not have the resources to compete for the dollars. His speech to the National Urban League this morning offered a rebuttal to such criticism and echoed much of what U.S. Secretary Arne Duncan said to the same group yesterday.

Mr. Obama argued that the steps that Race to the Top encourages states to take, including lifting the cap on charter schools and using student data to inform teacher evaluation, are the right ones.

"None of this should be controversial. There should be a fuss if we weren't doing these things," Mr. Obama said.

And he touted the program's other aims, including encouraging states to work together to adopt higher, more uniform academic standards. That's a departure from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, which he said inadvertently rewarded states for lowering standards. And he said Race to the Top would help states develop richer assessments that do a better job of gauging what students know so that teachers can improve instruction, instead of "teaching to the test."

Obama made it clear he doesn't want to see wholesale changes to the program, which two congressional committees recently voted to extend for an additional year, albeit not at the level the administration asked for in its budget request. Recently, the House voted to trim $500 million from the program to help pay for a $10 billion to stave off teacher layoffs, but the legislation did not gain support in the Senate.

"I'll continue to fight for Race to the Top with everything I've got, including using a veto to prevent folks from watering it down," Mr. Obama said.

UPDATE (11:45 a.m.): Michele just talked to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who was originally on the press release as a supporter of this new framework. He told her that the critical framework was "prematurely released" and that his National Action Network, the NAACP, and the Urban League, are actually not supporters of the framework. He added that these three groups didn't have "concerns" about the President's education agenda, but "questions," which were addressed in a Monday meeting with administration officials. In fact, the Rev. Sharpton said, "I agree with [the president]...I'm prepared to fight for a lot of what he's saying."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

President Obama hoped to quell concerns about his administration's signature education initiative—the $4 billion Race to the Top program—with a speech this morning to the National Urban League.

"I know there's also been some controversy about the initiative [Race to the Top]," the president said, according to excerpts of the speech released to reporters. "Part of it, I believe, reflects a general resistance to change; a comfort with the status quo. But there have also been criticisms, including from some folks in the civil rights community, about particular elements of Race to the Top."

"For anyone who wants to use Race to the Top to blame or punish teachers—you're missing the point," Obama said. "Our goal isn't to fire or admonish teachers. Our goal is accountability. It's to provide teachers with the support they need to be as effective as they can be."

It's clear Obama is trying to put to rest the notion that Race to the Top requires states to fire teachers who aren't effective. The competition rewards states for tying student-achievement data to teacher effectiveness, and using those results to reward teachers who are helping students grow academically. States are also encouraged to use the student achievement data in teacher evaluations and in making tenure decisions.

Obama also addressed criticisms of the School Improvement Grants, which were financed at more than $3.5 billion last year, in part because of a major infusion of cash under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The grants require states to use one of four models to intervene in their lowest-performing schools. In nearly all cases, the models require states to fire the principal of an underperforming school, and three out of the four models call for removing teachers.

But Obama said he isn't out to remove teachers. In fact, he says, he wants them to "have a fulfilling and supportive workplace environment, and the resources—from basic supplies to reasonable class sizes—to help them succeed." And he says he wants the nation's children to idolize effective teachers the way they now look up to sports starts and other celebrities.

Why this speech now?

Earlier this week, a number of civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Urban League, released a framework that is critical of both Race to the Top and the SIG grants.

And just a few weeks ago, the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, passed a resolution expressing no confidence in Race to the Top. And that's on top of pushback in Congress on both Race to the Top and the SIG models, much of which stems from the changes to the teaching profession that those programs call for.

Plus, the midterm elections are approaching, and Democrats in Congress are expected to lose seats in both chambers. They may need all the help they can get from the two largest teachers' unions, which are known for having effective get-out-the-vote machines.

In giving this speech, Obama is letting the nation know that he stands behind these programs—and that he isn't out to get teachers, but wants to support them. We'll see how his message is received.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan defended the Obama administration's education reform agenda before the National Urban League today, declaring that some of the arguments being made to justify a new framework that several civil rights groups released on Monday were flat out wrong.

The Urban League, which joined at least six other civil rights groups in calling for Duncan to reverse course on Race to the Top, charter schools, and turnaround models for low-performing schools, welcomed him with open arms. They interrupted his 30-minute speech several times with applause. Hugh B. Price, the former president of the Urban League, even called the Obama-Duncan education agenda the "most muscular federal education policy I've ever seen," adding, "We've got your back."

This is a fairly dramatic about-face from the run-up to Monday's release of the highly critical framework, which was supposed to be unleashed with a public relations boom—complete with a press conference featuring prominent black leaders such as the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson calling for a new education direction. Instead, the whole thing fizzled, and left this blogger puzzled as to how strongly the groups still support their own framework.

It all started when Monday's press conference was canceled over the weekend because of a "conflict in schedules." Yet that same Monday morning, the key players were able to convene at the Education Department for a meeting with Duncan and White House Domestic Policy Director Melody Barnes. The framework was nonetheless quietly released. However, Sharpton and his National Action Network dropped off the list of signatories.

UPDATE (7/29, 10:35 a.m.): The Rev. Sharpton's group confirms he is in fact a signatory and supporter of the framework.

UPDATE (7/29, 11:53 a.m.): The twists and turns of this soap opera continue. I just talked to the Rev. Sharpton. He told me that the critical framework was "prematurely released" and that his National Action Network, the NAACP, and the Urban League, are actually not supporters of the framework. He added that these three groups didn't have "concerns" about the President's education agenda, but "questions," which were addressed in a Monday meeting with administration officials. In fact, the Rev. Sharpton said, "I agree with [the president]...I'm prepared to fight for a lot of what he's saying."

After Monday's meeting, the civil rights groups released a new statement declaring that the meeting "led to a deeper understanding and meaningful dialogue" and more confidence in the administration. On Tuesday, the NAACP, the Urban League, and the National Action Network sent out another statement, reaffirming their commitment to work with the administration on education reform, citing "broad areas of agreement."

(I'm still waiting for an answer as to whether Sharpton and his network do or do not stand behind the new framework, since they aren't listed on the actual document as supporting it.) UPDATE (7/29, 10:35 a.m.): As stated above, the Rev. Sharpton is a supporter.UPDATE (7/29, 11:53 a.m.): Now he's officially not a supporter.

Now back to Duncan's speech.

In answer to the group's call that he forgo competitions like Race to the Top and concentrate on increasing spending on all students, Duncan said: "Some people say that grant programs like Race to the Top are bad for low-income and minority students. ... But the fact is, Race to the Top has done more to dismantle the barriers to education reform ... than any federal law in history."

He said those who think the Education Department isn't investing heavily in formula programs, too, are either "intentionally misleading or profoundly misinformed."

And to answer their charge that he back off from his enthusiasm for charter schools, Duncan said: "Should we stifle the growth of high-quality public charter schools? ... Absolutely not. Tens of thousands of minority parents are on waiting lists for these schools. ... To suggest that charters are bad for low-income and minority students is absolutely wrong."

He also announced the formation of a new commission that will examine fiscal equity among schools.

Many folks who represented groups that signed onto the critical framework spoke after Duncan, but did not raise much, if any, of the criticism they unleashed in their written document.

John A. Payton, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, didn't address those issues in his remarks following Duncan. And Price, as explained above, praised Obama and Duncan (granted, Price is the former president of the Urban League). He even talked about some "terrific charter schools."

Sharpton, when given an opportunity to talk about what he'd like Obama to say in a speech the president is scheduled to give tomorrow before the Urban League, focused on raising expectations—and also didn't raise any of the central criticisms in the civil rights framework.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday, Congress officially passed an emergency spending bill—without the edujobs money. Right now, there just doesn't seem to be a legislative vehicle for the $10 billion that supporters say is needed to help prevent hundreds of thousands of layoffs around the country. That despite fervent lobbying efforts by education organizations.

As we mentioned earlier, advocates were eyeing legislation giving aid to small businesses as a potential next vehicle for the education jobs funding, but it's not clear if that's going to work out.

The jobs money is stuck partly because of opposition from moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Senate. The reasons include the bill's price tag, not just those controversial offsets involving high-profile Obama administration education priorities.

One of the bill's key House champions explained the situation this way:

"The Senate is completely dysfunctional on these issues," Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said in an interview today with National Journal.

Miller said in the same interview that work will continue on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act through August, and that he wants to be "be ready" to advance the bill, if possible, during a potential lame-duck session, which would take place after the 2010 midterm elections.

Yesterday, I asked Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,about the timing on ESEA renewal, which has been pending since 2007. He said he wasn't sure whether the legislation would move this year, but also emphasized that discussions continue. And, like Miller, he held out the possibility of getting the bill through in a lame-duck session. That seems like a long shot to me, considering the bill hasn't been considered by either committee yet, but anything is possible...

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The federal Race to the Top program would be renewed for another year under a spending bill approved today by the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that deals with education spending—but wouldn't receive nearly as much money as President Barack Obama has sought.

Under the measure, which passed by voice vote with Republicans audibly voting "no," the Obama administration's signature education reform initiative would get $675 million in fiscal 2011 for another round of grants. That's a lot less than the $1.35 billion the administration asked for, and even less than the $800 million provided by a measure approved earlier this month by the Senate subcommittee's House counterpart.

Still, it looks like the Race to the Top competition, which received $4.35 billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, may be on track to stick around for another year. That could be good news for states that officially didn't make the list of finalists today in the second round of the grant competition.

Also under the Senate language, districts would be allowed, for the first time, to compete alongside states for the funds.

Separately, the subcommittee rejected the administration's bid to consolidate a number of smaller programs in the U.S. Department of Education, in part because there hasn't yet been a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Some key programs were eliminated, however, including the $66.5 million Even Start family literacy program, and an $88 million program aimed at creating small learning communities within large schools, particularly at the post-secondary level. Instead, to help support high school redesign, the measure would double the administration's High School Graduation Initiative, which was was created last year and financed at $50 million.

Another key administration initiative, the Investing in Innovation Fund, which received $650 million under the recovery act, was also extended, albeit not at the level the administration wanted. The program, known as i3, would get $250 million under the bill, not as much as the $400 million the House subcommittee included; the president had wanted $500 million.

And the Teacher Incentive Fund, which helps districts create pay-for-performance programs, would get the same level as last year: $400 million.

Overall, the Education Department would receive $66.4 billion in fiscal 2011, compared with $67.4 billion in the president's request.

The administration had been hoping for a big increase for the School Improvement Grant program, which helps finance interventions in the lowest-performing schools. The program would be financed at $625 million. That would be an increase from fiscal year 2010, when the program got $546 million, but not nearly as much as the $900 million the administration is seeking.

There was some encouraging news for supporters of prekindergarten programs: The bill would include $300 million for a new Early Learning Challenge Fund to encourage states to improve their early-childhood education. Democratic leaders tried to get a much bigger version of that program into a bill to overhaul the student loan program, but it was stripped out.

The two key formula grant programs would see modest hikes:

*Title I grants for districts would get $14.9 billion, a $450 million increase over fiscal year 2010 and the president's request.

*Special education state grants would be financed at $11.9 billion, a $420 million increase over fiscal year 2010, and $170 million more than the president wanted for for fiscal year 2011.

And in a policy shift, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program could be used to help schools increase learning time, either by extending the school day or the school year. The program had previously been centered primarily on after-school and summer programs. It would see a $100 million increase, bringing it to a total of $1.3 billion.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Education Secretary Arne Duncan picked 19 finalists, including Hawaii and Arizona as surprise picks, to compete in the interview portion of the Race to the Top Round Two competition. That means each state will assemble a group of five people to come to Washington the week of August 9 to make their final, last-ditch pitches for a portion of the $3.4 billion in federal money still left in the pot.

The finalists, which beat out 17 other states that applied in the second round, are: Arizona, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. These finalists all scored above 400 points on the 500-point grading scale. Arizona vaulted from a surprising 40th place finish in the first round to make the finals this time.

The winners will be announced in late August or early September and will share the remaining Race to the Top funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (Unless, of course, Rep. David Obey manages to get his way.)

UPDATE (1:40 p.m.): Duncan is taking questions now at the Press Club, but he said that the average score from Round 1 to Round 2 increased by 23 points. He said, "The improvement was absolutely inspiring."

In our predictions, State EdWatch's Lesli Maxwell and I ended up doing pretty well, matching 17 of them. (We had guessed 20 finalists.)

Going into the interview portion of the second-round competition, the end result is far more predictable than the first round.

If you'll remember from the first round, Duncan surprised a lot of people by picking 16 finalists, which many considered a lengthy list given that he promised to set a a very "high bar" for the competition. Then he turned around and again surprised folks by picking only two winners, Delaware and Tennessee, to share $600 million. That left a lot of money on the table for Round Two, and statements from Duncan that there would be 10 to 15 winners.

We now know that the round-one interviews didn't move the scores very much—the average change was 4.6 points on a 500-point scale. So the real guessing game is which states have already scored near the bottom of the finalists' list, because it's likely those states won't be able to budge their scores much.

And the number of winners—whether it's closer to 10 or 15—will depend on which states win. After all, if New York, Florida, and California win and are awarded the maximum amount allowed by the Education Department's rules, they'll eat up $2.1 billion, or more than half of the remaining funds. Altogether, the states are asking for $6.2 billion, far more than the $3.4 billion that's available.

A more extensive analysis, with reaction from some of the key players, will be going up shortly at edweek.org.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The finalists for the Race to the Top Round 2 competition are supposed to be announced on Tuesday by Education Secretary Arne Duncan during a 1 p.m. speech to the National Press Club, which you should be able to watch via webcast through the club's website. The Education Department is expected to issue a press release about the same time. Of course, stay tuned to Politics K-12 for the latest.

Together with my colleague Lesli Maxwell, from State EdWatch, we've come up with our guesses for who will make the cut for Round 2 and a chance at some of the $3.4 billion in federal stimulus funding still on the table.

Lesli and I are guessing there will be 20 finalists, given that Duncan has said there will be 10 to 15 winners in Round 2. So the list of finalists has to be longer than that to give the in-person presentations to the judges some real meaning when they start the week of Aug. 9 in Washington, D.C.

We made our picks based on the final state scores from Round 1, with a dark horse candidate (Oklahoma, which made some significant education reform changes in recent weeks) included for good measure. And Lesli explains why California and Maryland make our list.

So, here's our list. After you're done looking at our takes, let us know in the comment section who would make your list.

Arkansas
California
Colorado
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Seven leading civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the National Urban League, called on U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today to dismantle core pieces of his education agenda, arguing that his emphases on expanding charter schools, closing low-performing schools, and using competitive rather than formula funding are detrimental to low-income and minority children.

The groups, which today released their own education policy framework and created the National Opportunity to Learn campaign, want Duncan to make big changes to his draft proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

UPDATE (11:35 a.m.): The Education Department just now offered this response: "We're listening. The administration is dedicated to equity in education and we've been working very closely with the civil rights community to develop the most effective policies to close the achievement gap, turn around low performing schools, and put a good teacher in every classroom. The civil rights community has thoughtfully helped guide our thinking on these critical issues and we need their continued leadership as we move forward to overhaul NCLB."

What's even more interesting is that a big event planned to release the framework this morning in conjunction with the National Urban League's annual conference was mysteriously cancelled (or postponed, depending on whom you ask) after a lot of press releases went out last week trying to drum up interest. The official explanation is that there was a "conflict in schedules." However, I can't help but wonder if the facts that President Obama has agreed to deliver a major education reform speech at the conference on Thursday, and that Duncan is scheduled to address the conference on Wednesday, had something to do with it. Surely the Obama administration was none too pleased to see that these groups planned to criticize his education reform agenda.

In addition, the National Action Network, led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, was listed on the press releases that went out late last week announcing the event as a supporter of the new framework, but in the framework released today, the group is conspicuously missing.

The groups that signed on to the framework want Duncan to dial back his enthusiasm for and "extensive reliance" on charter schools as a solution for turning around persistently struggling schools in urban areas. They also object to core components of his four models for turning around the nation's worst schools, saying that school closure and wholesale changes in school staff should only be used as a last resort. And they take sharp issue with the Race to the Top program, declaring that a reliance on competitive funding and hand-picking winners means the majority of low-income and minority kids, who may reside in the losing states, will not benefit from additional federal funds.

The supporting groups are: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National Urban League; The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; National Council on Educating Black Children; Rainbow PUSH Coalition; and The Schott Foundation for Public Education.

If you think back to the 2008 campaign season, and the split that emerged on education issues within the Democratic Party, this tends to lean more towards a Broader, Bolder agenda—and group of folks—although there are elements of the Education Equality approach embedded in this document as well.

In addition to wanting Duncan to reverse course, the groups want the Department of Education to add or strengthen a few things in the ESEA blueprint, including universal access to early education for all children in all states. They want to strengthen the ability of students in low-performing schools to transfer to higher performing ones, although Duncan has been backing away from current choice provisions already embedded in the No Child Left Behind Act. And they want, among other things, for the feds to hold states and districts more accountable in how they spend and distribute money from school to school.

One thing Duncan already has agreed to do: require parental engagement as part of the school turnaround process. That's another recommendation in the civil rights groups' proposal.

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

Back when it was looking like Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, was going to trim unspent funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to pay for edujobs, I thought it was pretty likely he'd take money out of the $650 million Investing in Innovation or 'i3' Fund. Instead, he ended up targeting the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund.

The i3 fund, which is meant to scale up promising practices, seemed like a good target because it hasn't had nearly as high a profile as Race to the Top, which President Obama has personally championed. And, arguably, the program is a lot more likely to generate cries of conflict of interest, no matter who wins the grants. (Example: In numerous public comments, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has touted as success stories groups such as KIPP and Teach for America, both of which stand a good shot a winning an i3 grant.)

But, when the offsets were announced, it was Race to the Top, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and charter schools taking the hit.

Why those programs and not i3? I spoke yesterday to Charlie Barone, a former staffer for Democrats on the House Education and Labor Committee, turned lobbyist-extraordinaire, and he speculated that many folks in the House of Representatives were asked by non-profit organizations in their districts to write letters of support for i3 applications. As Michele reported, there are 1,698 applications for the fund, many of whom sought their congressperson's support, creating a sort of built-in public relations and lobbying campaign.

That doesn't seem to have happened, Barone said, to the same extent with TIF and Race to the Top.

"There is an awareness gap between i3 and RTT; i3 may not have been cut because so many congresspeople were asked to write letters of support," he said.

Why does this matter now, especially since it appears unlikely that Race to the Top or the Teacher Incentive Fund will be used to offset an edujobs bill (if there even is one once the Senate gets through with it)?

Well, it may be important for future appropriations. You may have noticed that the bill approved last week by the House subcommittee that oversees education spending included almost as much as the president asked for i3—$400 million on a request of $500 million, as opposed to Race to the Top, which got just $800 million, though $1.35 billion was requested. (No official TIF numbers just yet.) If lots of folks in Congress think organizations in their districts have skin in the i3 game, it may really help that program's staying power.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The education blogsphere has done a good job picking apart the weaknesses in Michael Winerip's New York Times story about a persistently low-performing school in Vermont that had to replace its principal to qualify for federal school-improvement grant money, even though it seems most everyone thought Joyce Irvine was doing a great job.

The story highlights the potential weaknesses of a one-size-fits-all federal approach to turning around low-performing schools in states and districts. Replacing a principal, which is required in most cases by federal regulations, is not a sure-fire solution to turning around a school, especially in rural and other hard-to-staff areas where finding good leaders is already tough.

In reaction to the story, This Week in Education took note of an important fact missing from the story: Scores of students who recently arrive at a school don't count for No Child Left Behind "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) purposes. And Eduwonk offers more critique, including important details that test scores have actually gotten worse under this acclaimed principal.

The story includes all of these anecdotes about the great strides Wheeler Elementary School is making in the six years since Irvine became principal, from offering a dental clinic to teaching kids to play the violin to offering field trips for the school's staff to the Kennedy Center in Washington to learn more about the arts.

But can these kids read?

I think the story's omission of Wheeler Elementary's test scores deserves more attention, and I wanted to provide links to the Vermont Department of Education's AYP data for Wheeler so you could check out the scores for yourself. Of course, we could argue all day about the merits of using test scores, but for right now, NCLB and its AYP requirement is the law of the land.

It's important to note that schools qualify for turnaround aid, and must adopt one of four federally prescribed models (all of which generally, although with some exceptions, include replacing the principal) not for posting one year of low test scores, but for several years of them.

So let's look at the AYP-related indicators for Wheeler since Irvine was principal, from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

In 2006, 31 percent of Wheeler's kids scored in the lowest achievement tier on reading tests. In 2010, 52 percent were in the group at the bottom. (2010 wasn't a blip either, as the group of kids scoring at the bottom has gradually grown.) If you take out English-language learners, who have more challenges to overcome in learning to read and then taking a test, 23 percent scored at the bottom in reading in 2006, 44 percent did so in 2010. The same trend is seen for non-disabled students. As eduwonk states, clearly scores are going in the wrong direction.

A March 11, 2010 Burlington Free Press story quoted Burlington schools superintendent Jeanne Collins talking about how the district started its plan to improve the school before the feds forced them to.

"We did not wait for the feds to tell us this," she said. "We've taken the steps to create a new school with a five-year plan to integrate the school more fully and give all the kids a better chance at passing or achieving the standard on [tests]."

So a big part of the district's plan to turn around Wheeler seems to hang on the school's conversion to an arts magnet. A Sept. 9, 2009 back-to-school article in the Burlington Free Press explained the school's conversion into an arts magnet:

"School officials hope the makeovers will attract more middle-income families to the two former neighborhood schools in the Old North End of Burlington, a high-poverty area."

The focus doesn't seem to be on improving the academics of the existing kids, but to bring more middle class families in. To be sure, concentrated poverty does not provide a good learning environment, but hanging a school's transformation on turning it into an arts magnet to attract middle class kids doesn't seem to be a well-rounded solution either. The goal of the federal school improvement program is to improve the school and student outcomes by improving instruction, not by changing the composition of the student body. Will test scores go up at the school once more middle class kids fill the classrooms? Probably. But will test scores go up for the individual kids who are low-income, ELLs, or disabled? That's the bigger question.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:33 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

You think getting the edujobs bill through the U.S. House of Representatives was hard, what with the whole Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., versus the Whithe House thing, and the veto threat, and the Polis letter?

Well, that was a cake-walk compared to what is likely to happen in the Senate.

Over at This Week in Education, Alexander Russo has a headline saying that the bill is "dead." I think that's probably premature, although it's true that gaining support for increased domestic spending, controversial offsets or not, in the Senate is and was always gonna be tough sledding.

Still, the lobbying blitz continues. But it's tough lift, particularly as the mid-term election draws closer, and right now, some key centrist GOP senators and conservative Democrats appear to be leaning against the measure. Not a great sign.

It's possible, folks tell me, that the Senate may take a stab at passing the House bill, but if that happens, it will mostly be an empty move to show the world (and the House) that there just isn't support for that version of the legislation.

Although edujobs was originally supposed to be part of the war supplemental, supporters now say a measure aimed at the Small Business Administration might be the best vehicle.

As for that $800 million package of cuts to Race to the Top, charters, and the Teacher Incentive Fund, no official word yet, but for now it appears unlikely, folks say, that those offsets will be part of the final package. (Of course, that would mean the Senate would have to find another $800 million in cuts...which could be messy.) Still, I think that those programs will most likely be spared, given this letter and also the veto threat.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Financial disclosure forms that top members of the Executive Branch fill out are meant to shed light on, or even prevent, any conflicts of interests by forcing key officials to reveal their assets, gifts, and past jobs. These things rarely yield anything too interesting (although this year we learned that President Obama's dog, Bo, a gift from the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, was valued at $1,600).

But in the interests of keeping you all informed about the goings on at the Education Department—and so that officials know we do read these forms—I present to you the calendar year 2009 financial disclosure statements for Secretary Arne Duncan, now-chief of staff Joanne Weiss (ex-Race to the Top guru), chief messaging and strategy guy Peter Cunningham, and key ESEA reauthorization player Carmel Martin.

I also requested the forms of chief operating officer Tony Miller and innovation and i3 boss Jim Shelton, but the folks in the department's ethics office told me both have been given extensions to turn their homework in late.

As the Chicago media already reported, Duncan is worth between $1.58 million and $3.7 million. We don't know exactly how much because officials only have to report ranges.

My reading of Duncan's disclosure form also shows he reported three gifts, non-government-related travel expenses, or reimbursements: $350 from Fight for Children as part of his attendance at their annual gala in May 2009; $1,515 for an airline ticket and hotel from longtime friend John Rogers; and another $656 for the same things in July 2009, in connection with two Hoop it Up trips. (Hoop it Up says it's the largest three-on-three basketball tournament in the world.)

The other three senior staff members—Cunningham, Martin, and Weiss— reported no gifts or non-government travel expenses paid for by others.

The majority of this form focuses on where officials have their assets (stocks, mutual funds, retirement funds) and how much is in them. A quick review of Duncan's top officials' disclosures shows run-of-the-mill investments, which seem to add up to less than Duncan's. But you take a spin through them and let me know if you spot anything interesting.

By the way, you can't just call the Education Department and get these forms. You have to fill out an official request, and then wait up to 30 days (or more) before you get them.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Attention state education agencies: Don't send those Gates-financed consultants home just yet.

It's still early in the congressional budget process, but it looks like the Obama administration's signature K-12 initiative—the $4.35 billion Race to the Top program—has a better chance of being extended into fiscal year 2011, which begins Oct. 1.

The bill financing the U.S. Department of Education next year, which was approved on a party-line vote of 11 to 5 by a House appropriations subcommittee today, includes $800 million for another year of Race to the Top. The program was originally created under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the economic-stimulus program approved by Congress last year. That's not quite as much as the $1.35 billion Obama asked for in his budget request—and in a personal pitch.

But the extension may be a bit of a surprise to some, given that the bill's sponsor, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, recently championed a bill that would cut $500 million from the current pot for Race to the Top in order to help finance a $10 billion measure aimed at staving off what supporters say could be hundreds of thousands of teacher layoffs. That measure passed the House earlier this month and is awaiting Senate action.

It's not clear yet whether the House subcommittee went along with Obama's plan to extend the Race to the Top program to districts. Right now, it's just for states.

In another win for the administration, the bill would also extend the now-$650 million Investing in Innovation grant program for another year. The program, which was also created under the stimulus, would get another $400 million in fiscal 2011, which is pretty close to the $500 million the administration asked for.

Overall, the Education Department would get $71.9 billion. That's less than the $73.4 billion the President asked for, but an increase over last year's $64.3 billion.

The bill would include modest hikes for special education and Title I grants to districts. Title I would get $16.2 billion, a little more than the president's request of $15.9 billion and a roughly 3 percent increase over last year. And the measure would include nearly $13 billion for special education, about a 4 percent boost over last year.

Career and Adult Education was funded at the president's request of $1.94 billion, a slight bump over last year's $1.92 billion.

"The bill tries to strike a balance between maintaining broad-based federal assistance to schools and school children and advancing efforts to reform public education," Obey said.

Republicans, though, worried about the bill's price tag.

"We need to set priorities, we need to fund our must-do items, like Pell Grants and special education," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., the top Republican on the education spending subcommittee. "We need to ask ourselves if those nice-to-do-programs can be eliminated."

There was mixed news for the Promise Neighborhood initiative to create schools that offer a range of support services to students and their families, such as health care and pre-kindergarten. That program would get $60 million under the bill, a pretty steep increase over the $10 million it got last year (which will be used for planning grants), but not nearly as much as the $210 million the administration asked for.

And the Head Start program, which is administered through the Department of Health and Human Services, would see slightly less money than the president asked for, $8.1 billion, compared with $7.2 billion last year. That's $124 million less than the president asked for.

To be sure, today's actions are just step one. The full committee must approve the bill, and the full House. And it's not clear if the Senate will share these priorities. Still, the fact that Obey is willing to extend Race to the Top next year is a good sign, if you're a fan of the program.

On the other hand, it appears as though the panel rejected the administration's proposal to consolidate many of the department's smaller programs into broader funding streams.

Reporters weren't given copies of the bill, just summary tables. So it's still unclear just how much money some key programs got, such as the Teacher Incentive Fund, which doles out pay-for-performance grants to districts and which is also a huge Obama priority.

During the markup, Tiahrt introduced some education amendments that ultimately weren't accepted, but were interesting from a policy and political perspective.

For instance, Race to the Top could have gotten even more money if an amendment by Tiahrt had passed. He wanted to increase funding for the program up to the level of the president's request of $1.35 billion, but only if the money would have come out of the Americorps Program, which Rep. Tiahrt said has had management problems. But the amendment was defeated.

Another Tiahrt amendment would have dealt with merit pay. Under the bill, an unspecified merit pay program—probably the Teacher Incentive Fund?—would need to get 75 percent of teachers to agree to participate in order for that program to receive a grant. Tiahrt tried to get that number reduced to 50 percent.

But Obey said there needs to be strong teacher support if merit pay programs are to succeed.

"If you're going to change the system, that system has to have buy-in," Obey said. "You either work things out at the beginning or you get shredded at the end. And that produces no reform."

The amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, with 11 Democrats voting against it, and 5 Republicans voting for it.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 7:54 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Melody Barnes, who works on K-12 issues at the White House, told reporters today that President Obama really, really wants to see money to help save education jobs. But the president doesn't want it to come at the expense of his education redesign priorities.

"We don't have to make a choice between reform and making sure that teachers will stay in the classroom," Barnes said on a media conference call in which the administration worked to get out the message to reporters that Congress should a) pass edujobs, and b) use something other than top White House education initiatives as an offset.

That's not different from what the administration said earlier this month. But it's important to note that officials want to share the message with a broader audience. To help underscore the point, the department invited state chiefs, including Eric J. Smith from Florida, to the call. Smith, whose state was a Round 1 finalist in Race to the Top, spoke about how that competition has helped move the needle on reform in his state.

So just which programs would U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan want to cut instead? He wouldn't specify that on the call today.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

After getting pushback from local education advocates who have been feeling left out of the school turnaround process, Education Secretary Arne Duncan announced today that districts will be required to involve parents and the community as a condition of receiving school improvement grants.

In a speech to the NAACP in Kansas City, Mo., Duncan said he would change the administration's ESEA draft to acknowledge the key role that communities play in turning around persistently failing schools. Even members of Congress have been critical of the lack of community involvement in the Education Department's four required models that are attached to $4 billion in SIG funding.

According to prepared remarks, Duncan said:

"You also made it crystal clear to us in recent meetings at the department and at the White House that the community must be at the table when decisions are made around how to improve struggling schools. And we agree.

So, today, I'm announcing that—based on your input and the very productive engagement we have had around the school improvement grant program—we will revise our ESEA reauthorization proposal to require parent and community input.

That means notification, outreach, public input, and honest, open discussion about the right option for each community. This is really common sense, and most superintendents understand this. But we also know this is very hard work, and it's a challenge to build consensus around these very tough interventions."

Duncan's speech didn't provide any details on how such a requirement would play out logistically, or practically. Already, the popular "transformation" model requires districts to "provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement." The new plan would extend this requirement to all models, and leave many of the details on how exactly to obtain such engagement or input to local districts. The administration's goal is not to give parents and the community veto power over any particular turnaround model a district chooses, according to sources, but to involve them in the process as a school goes through its improvement steps.

Still, this is pretty vague language, so it will be interesting to monitor just how much punch this proposal carries, or if it makes the four turnaround models any more palatable to critics.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The pros and cons of Congress' proposal to trim $500 million from Race to the Top to fund edujobs have sparked quite the discussion on this blog.

Most of the commenters seem to think edujobs is a far better use of taxpayer money than Race to the Top.

But here's one interesting argument in favor of cutting Race to the Top, and not for obvious reasons. Mike Petrilli over at Flypaper says that to leave Race to the Top Round 2 at a bloated $3.4 billion forces Education Secretary Arne Duncan to fund some very mediocre proposals. And that's not very reform-y at all. In fact, Petrilli isn't a fan of continuing to bail out states and fund teacher jobs, but he argues that Congress should cut even more from Race to the Top, whether or not the money goes to the states for education jobs.

What do you think of this line of reasoning?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

This week, the Senate is back and word is that lawmakers will start trying to figure out how to pay for the edujobs bill.

In fact, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan spent last Friday in Washington state stumping for the edujobs bill, alongside Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a key member of Congress who hasn't always seen eye-to-eye with the administration on K-12 policy issues. (For instance, last year, she spoke out against a measure that would have increased funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund—a major White House priority—because the boost would come at the expense of the formula-based grants aimed helping states improve teacher quality.)

But if Duncan wants to get edujobs through the Senate without those "wrong offsets," he may need help from folks like Murray, who sits on both the Senate education committee and the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees K-12 spending, and has many fans in traditional education organizations.

And, besides helping to push edujobs, Murray and other Washington state officials may also have something to gain from face time with Duncan. Washington is hoping to snag a Round 2 Race to the Top grant even though it has no charter school law.

In fact, Murray and Duncan went to an innovative public school, in part so that the Evergreen state could show the secretary that public schools can help try out new and different approaches in the same way that charters can.

What's more, Murray, who is up for re-election this fall, is also fending off a pretty strong challenge from Republican Dino Rossi, a businessman. She's considered likely to keep her seat, but I'm guessing she figures a little publicity showing that she's working with the administration to help steer federal dollars to Washington probably couldn't hurt.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Depending on which state you live in, the edujobs bill may not be such a good deal—especially if your state might win a Race to the Top grant.

Given all of the debate about the Congressional proposal to siphon off $500 million from the Race to the Top program to give every state an additional chunk of money to save teachers' jobs, it seems valuable to look at the trade-offs states would have to make.

First, let's be clear about two things: States that have no chance of winning a Race to the Top grant in Round 2 would be better off if the edujobs bill passes, from a purely fiscal standpoint. So would states that are sure-fire bets to win in Round 2. (But is there such thing as a sure thing?)

States that would not be better off with edujobs are those that would rank near the cutoff point for the Round 2 winner's circle, since a loss of $500 million from the $3.4 billion left in Race to the Top could mean that one or two otherwise winning states could become losers. In most cases, states' Race to the Top grants would be larger than their edujobs allocations, which Michael Griffith over at Education Commission of the States has helpfully calculated. (The state-by-state edujobs breakdown starts on page 3 of the ECS document.)

Consider:

• Louisiana, which placed 11th in Round 1, could win up to $175 million in Race to the Top versus $147 million under edujobs.
• Oklahoma, which is trying to make a good run for a Round 2 grant after finishing 34th, would get up to $175 million from Race to the Top versus $119 million under edujobs.
• New York, which placed 15th in Round 1, would get up to $700 million in Race to the Top versus $622 million under edujobs.
• Colorado, which placed 14th in Round 1, would get up to $175 million in Race to the Top versus $157 million under edujobs.
• Massachusetts, which placed 13th in Round 1, stands to gain about $45 million more from Race to the Top than from edujobs.
• And North Carolina, which placed 12th in Round 1, could get a sizable $105 million more if it wins a Race to the Top grant, versus the money it would receive under edujobs.

You get the picture. (UPDATE: And for more analysis, check out this new brief from ECS on the practical effect of a funding cut to Race to the Top.)

One interesting question is whether the members of Congress from those states recognize this, and whether that will play a role in shaping the edujobs vs. Race to the Top debate.

UPDATE: Check out the beginnings of a great discussion in the comments section below about the differences in how you can use edujobs vs. Race to the Top money. That is an important factor.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

With Congress out and the eduworld left waiting to find out the fate of $800 million in proposed cuts from the Obama administration's signature school reform vehicles, the most political thing going on now seems to be the NEA convention.

Check out my colleague Stephen Sawchuk's stellar coverage here, or, more specifically, zero in on:

• What caused Diane Ravitch to strip off her jacket in front of the union's assembly;
• Whether the union did, indeed, vote to throw EdSec Arne Duncan completely under the edu-bus;
• Whether delegates have even one iota of confidence in Race to the Top;
• How NEA President Dennis Van Roekel twisted himself into a "rhetorical pretzel" while trying to criticize Obama and not criticize him at the same time.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Thirteen senators are urging their colleagues to spare Race to the Top and other administration K-12 priorities and come up with another way to help finance aid to states to prevent teacher layoffs.

"The proposed education cuts are unacceptable," the group wrote in a letter to Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman. "Choosing between preserving teacher jobs and supporting vital education reforms is a false choice and would set a dangerous precedent. By reducing promised funding for these important reforms, Congress would be pulling the rug out from under the efforts of thousands of communities around the country working to improve their schools."

Their letter comes on the heels of a threat by the Obama administration to veto the entire bill if the cuts remain.

The effort was lead by Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and includes 12 other Democrats: Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Thomas Carper of Delaware, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Udall of Colorado, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Mark Warner of Virginia, plus one independent, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation late Thursday night to help prevent teacher layoffs, despite opposition from the Obama administration, which threatened to veto the measure if it includes $800 million in cuts to its key K-12 initiatives.

The legislation takes aim at three of the administration's most prized education priorities. That includes cutting $500 million from the $4.35 billion Race to the Top program, which rewards states for making progress on certain education redesign initiatives.

It also would cut $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, which doles out grants to support pay-for-performance programs, and $100 million intended to help start new charter schools. The TIF received $400 million in fiscal year 2010, plus $200 million in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed last year. The charter program received $265 million in federal funding.

The jobs measure passed as an amendment to a military spending bill that had already been passed by the Senate. It was approved on a vote of 239 to 182 late Thursday, with one member voting present.

The money cut from the education programs would go toward a $10 billion fund aimed at helping states keep an estimated 140,000 teachers on the job and toward providing nearly $5 billion to help close a major shortfall in the Pell Grant program, which helps low-income students gain access to college.

Peter Cunningham, a spokesman for U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, told me earlier this week that the administration supports the effort to save jobs, but thinks these are the wrong offsets and wants to help the Congress find the right ones.

But Rep. David R. Obey, the House Appropriations Chairman and the author of the bill, made no apologies for the education offsets he chose, which were part of a broader package of $16 billion in cuts to pay for the jobs fund, and other new domestic spending.

"The secretary of education is somewhat unhappy," Obey acknowledged. "One of the secretary's objections, evidently, is the fact that last year in the stimulus we provided him with a $4.3 billion pot of money to use virtually any way he wanted to stimulate educational progress--$4.3 billion. He has spent a small amount of that." Even if this legislation cuts $500 million, "that still leaves him with $3.2 billion that he can spend any way his department wants. ... The secretary is somehow offended because he only has $3.2 billion to pass around," Obey said. "To suggest that we're being unduly harsh is a joke."

The bill now moves to the Senate, which will be in recess until the week of July 12.

But, before that chamber considers the bill, moderate Senate Democrats and the administration may find another way to pay for the jobs package.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In the wake of President Barack Obama's veto threat, Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, defended his proposal to cut $800 million from the administration's education priorities to help pay for education jobs.

A fact sheet released by Obey's office says all of the money would come from new grants, so no one currently receiving funding would lose it. And it says there is no reason the programs couldn't see those funding levels restored in better economic times.

Then it takes each of the programs separately:

*Charters: The charter funding comes entirely from grants for new schools in an effort to defer "some funding for new activities and new starts, to address a more urgent need," the memo says. And, it says, there will still be $156 million left for new grants, which is more than twice the amount needed to cover existing grants.

*Teacher Incentive Fund: Even after taking $200 million out of the Teacher Incentive Fund, there will still be $400 million left, Obey's memo says. That's because the program got a major boost in fiscal year 2010 ($400 million), plus $200 million under the stimulus. Most of the money would be for brand new grants.

*Race to the Top: After taking $500 million out of the fund, there will still be $3.2 billion left, Obey's office says. Of course, the memo doesn't mention that the department has already set aside $350 million for a state assessment grant competition. If the offset passes and the department decides to keep the assessment program the same, the fund would have only $2.9 billion for new state grants.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Obama administration has signaled that it will veto the entire education jobs bill if the $800 million in cuts to its reform priorities remain.

Here is what the administration told Congress in a statement on the edujobs bill, which the U.S. House of Representatives will consider tonight:

"Since the quality of education we afford our children also is essential to our long-term strength and security, the Administration supports the proposed funding to avert the layoff of hundreds of thousands of public school teachers and deep cuts in Pell Grants that millions of students need to attend college."

But the administration went on to say:

"$800 million in rescissions from education reform programs—programs that will help schools upgrade their standards and instruction so as to better prepare more students to succeed in school and in life.

"The Administration is more than willing to work with the Congress to pursue fiscally responsible ways to finance education jobs; however, these rescissions undercut programs that have already received applications from more than three dozen States. It would be short-sighted to weaken funding for these reforms just as they begin to show such promise.

"The Administration urges the House to include education jobs funding in a version of H.R. 4899 that does not rescind education reform funding. If the final bill presented to the President includes cuts to education reforms, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto."

This follows a statement from the president earlier today decrying the cuts.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 6:07 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Imagine that you are a state education official who has spent months and months on Race to the Top, coaxing districts to sign memorandums of understanding and negotiating with union officials, tracking down data, and convincing the Gates Foundation to give you some planning money.

Would you be irked that some folks in Congress want to make the pot smaller, potentially meaning fewer winners in the grant competition?

Of course, the plan puts states in a bind. Many really want to see the $10 billion in funding to prevent teacher layoffs (and, folks could argue, states wouldn't need the money for educators so desperately if they hadn't played shell-games with the funding made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).

Still, some state officials have come out against the Race to the Top cut. Eric J. Smith, Florida's education commissioner, for one. His state was a finalist and ultimately placed fourth in the competition:

"Florida has a rich history of education reform that has produced significant academic progress for our students over the last decade. In many respects we have been ahead of the curve in making the kinds of meaningful changes that are necessary to bring educational success to every child and Race to the Top represents a monumental opportunity to accelerate our efforts. Should Congress pass such a measure, they would severely weaken the ability of Race to the Top to enact the changes our country's education system so desperately needs."

And this is from Paul G. Pastorek, state superintendent of education in Louisiana, another finalist, which placed 11th:

"The Race to the Top program is designed to move states beyond the political and financial barriers that have historically prevented meaningful education reform. Reducing Race to the Top funding would be an affront to the states and districts who have at great risk enacted legislative and policy changes designed to dramatically improve student outcomes. Shifting money mid-course will change the direction of the national reform agenda and will confuse and discourage those who committed to bold change."

Oklahoma's Race to the Top guru, Kathy Taylor said her state would be "very disappointed if RTTT funds were cut after the collaborative work our state produced to put together the application." But she added, "We can't control that, and we will continue to advocate for the full amount of the grant for which we applied."

Oklahoma placed 34th in the first round, but recently made some big changes that could boost its chances in the second round.

Finally, Elizabeth Carpentier, the deputy state superintendent in South Carolina, which placed sixth, sent me an e-mail saying her state was willing to commit scarce resources to its second-round bid in part because there was so much money left over in the fund.

And she said:

"I also think that the country needs a 'critical mass' of states working on these reforms if we are going to get the incredibly hard work done—common core standards, related assessments and materials, effectiveness measures, amendments to evaluation and employment decision procedures, measuring grades/subjects without accountability testing—it's going to take more than one state to get these systems up and running effectively. Reducing the funding pool reduces the number of awards and makes overall success with key reforms less likely, in my opinion."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:26 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

President Barack Obama is urging Congress not to cut his signature education reform initiative.

"The President believes that we need to keep teachers in the classroom, and we have worked with Congress to find a way to pay for it. But the President also feels very strongly that we should not cut funding for Race to the Top, one of the most sweeping reform initiatives in a generation," Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the White House, said in an e-mail.

[UPDATE (6 p.m.): The administration turned that up a notch tonight, warning Congress in a statement: "If the final bill presented to the President includes cuts to education reforms, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto."]

Still, the version of the $10 billion edujobs bill that the House could vote on as early as tonight is likely to include the $800 million in cuts to Race to the Top, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and funding for charter schools that Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, proposed. There are only five amendments set to be considered and none of them changes the offsets.

The cuts would help pay for a $10 billion fund to help states stave off teacher layoffs and $5 billion in new money for Pell Grants.

The House could also consider a change that would boost funding for summer youth jobs by $1 billion. That was supposed to be part of a tax bill that Democratic leaders in Congress have been trying to pass.

If the bill does pass, it's not the last word on the cuts.

Veteran education advocate, Joel Packer, the executive director of the Committee for Education Funding, told me there's still time for the administration and moderate Democrats to find other offsets. (Packer's organization emphatically supports the edujobs bill, even though it finds the cuts to other education programs "unfortunate.")

If the bill passes the House, it will still need to get through the Senate, which returns from the Fourth of July recess the week of July 12, giving opponents of the cuts (who apparently include Obama) time to propose an alternative plan.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So, yesterday we wrote about a proposal from Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis., to cut $800 million in Obama administration education priorities as part of a wider effort to provide $10 billion to thwart teacher layoffs and nearly $5 billion to fill a major shortfall in the Pell Grant program.

The proposed cuts include $500 million from Race to the Top, $200 million from the Teacher Incentive Fund, and $100 million intended for charters.

The U.S. Department of Education and some moderate Democrats are urging Obey to find other areas to cut instead. Even the Washington Post editorial board has weighed in.

Peter Cunningham, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education, reiterated to me today that the department would like to help Congress identify other offsets.

The question is, will Obey and company go along with that? And if they do, what could those other cuts be?

A House aide told me that the U.S. Department of Education and the White House knew about the proposed rescissions before the bill was released and failed to offer any workable alternatives.

I wonder which programs the administration put on the table or would want to suggest now.

In a letter to his congressional colleagues yesterday, Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., suggested trimming programs that are "already identified as ineffective by the Congressional Budget Office."

My guess, based on no inside information, is that the administration and others might point to programs that have been slated for elimination in the president's fiscal year 2011 budget.

Those could include, for instance, the $8.8 million Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners program. That program "supports culturally based educational activities, internships, apprenticeship programs and exchanges for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, children, and families of Massachusetts, and any federally recognized Indian tribe in Mississippi." Not exactly the sort of national competition the department is seeking through Race to the Top.

The administration might also point to the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership program, financed at $63.9 million, which offers grants to states to establish need-based post-secondary scholarships and has "accomplished its objective," according to the budget documents.

Of course, cutting just those programs doesn't quite get to $800 million, and even some of those small, narrow programs have powerful congressional champions. Any cut could be tough.

Where do you think the offsets should come from? Or did Obey make the right call?

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend