Senate majority leader predicts a lame duck
As this issue of the Federal Update was being completed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she might call House members back to Washington after the November 4 elections to put together a new federal spending package of up to $150 billion in hopes of stimulating the nation's flagging economy.

A stimulus package of that size would be far larger than anything lawmakers have considered since February, when they worked with the Bush administration on a $168 billion package that included tax rebates for millions of Americans. The new package could include a second round of tax rebates in addition to those provisions, according to an aide on Pelosi's staff who preferred not to be named.

The Senate could take up such a bill when it returns to Washington on November 17. Before Pelosi's announcement, the Speaker was "cold" on calling the House back into session before January 3.

After passing the emergency financial bailout bill and a continuing resolution that keeps the government's doors open until at least March 6, 2009, Senators and House members left Washington for home to campaign. But they left the door to a lame-duck session wide open. Senate Majority Leader Reid said in a media briefing on October 1 that the Senate's organizational meeting would be held the week of November 17 and would "be in session several days during that period of time." He added that the Senate would take up a land package at that point, which might be able to be done by consent. Everything else is up in the air. "We will wait and see what, if anything, the House does," Reid said. "If they do not do anything, we cannot do anything. So we will see what they do. Members should keep that time open." House and Senate members, consider yourselves duly warned. At this point, the House has not been as definitive, but it is important to note that the House did not adjourn sine die, but kept its options open for a return in December.

Continuing resolution passes, funding most education programs through March 6; action means no funding increases
The federal budget year ended on September 30 without approval of the Labor-Heath and Human Services-Education appropriations bill. As a result, the President signed HR 2638 into law, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, on September 30, which extends funding for most education programs until March 6, when the new Administration will have been in office for more than a month. It includes the following provisions that affect education programs.

For a comprehensive table on FY 2009 funding for selected education programs by the Committee for Education Funding, please click here.

The continuing resolution (CR) extends FY 2009 funds through March 6, 2009, and generally at the spending rates consistent with FY 2008 levels for the U.S. Department of Education, whose regular appropriations bills have not been enacted. The CR includes various exceptions, including Section 158, which provides a spending rate for Student Financial Assistance of Section of $18.6 billion of which $16.7 billion is for Pell Grants under Title IV of HEA of 1965, an increase over the 2008 funding levels. This is an increase of $2.5 billion in additional funds for Pell Grants to prevent cuts in financial aid during the upcoming school year. For the most part, all other elementary and secondary education programs will be funded at the FY 2008 levels. The CR also includes $393 million for the Reading First program, which was originally slated for zero funding in FY 2008 -- but the program still could be eliminated when Congress returns for the new session.

In addition, the Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act provides $15 million under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act for LEAs whose enrollments of homeless children and youth have increased as a result of Presidentially declared natural disasters in 2008 and $15 million for disaster relief to institutions of higher education. PEN was a major supporter of this provision, and worked with such organizations as the Coalition for Community Schools and First Focus to get it passed.

Since most elementary and secondary education programs are forward-funded (meaning that education funds that passed for a fiscal year are not available to school districts until the beginning of the next fiscal year), the delay in passing a continuing resolution so late into the federal budget year has minimal impact on school district planning, unless Congress cannot get a resolution on passing an appropriations bill after the March 6 deadline. (See the analysis below.)

Economic Stabilization Act provides additional funding for schools
On October 3, the House passed H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, by a vote of 263 to 171. The President signed the bill into law two hours later. Included are several provisions that will directly affect local school districts including:

• A two-year extension of tax benefits relating to college tuition and expenses, and out-of-pocket expenses for K-12 teachers.
• An $800 million extension of the Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) program. QZABs can be used for school construction and renovation, developing curricula, purchasing equipment, and training school personnel in schools that have 35 percent or more of their students eligible for the National School Lunch program. Schools located in an empowerment zone or enterprise community are also eligible.
• A $3.3 billion, four-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools program, which provides funds to rural schools and counties that are home to national forests, and that have been hurt by cutbacks in logging revenue.

By Arnold F. Fege

It has been two decades since Congress last failed, as it now has, to complete action on even a single annual appropriations bill -- a dubious distinction partly brought on by the unexpected financial bailout, but also due to venomous election-year politics and the threat of a White House veto. The last time all the spending bills were rolled into an omnibus bill was FY 1988, but it also happened in FY 1987 and 1951, according to the Congressional Research Service. It has been commonplace for education programs to be funded through continuing resolutions, but highly unusual not to have one single appropriations bill passed by Congress -- not even Defense Appropriations.

The Democrats made it clear that they did not want a replay of last year's protracted spending fight with President Bush, who threatened to veto bills that went beyond spending limits that he had set. However, considering the fiscal bind that Congress is currently in, it is a major risk to delay appropriations until the new Administration takes over. Here are the possible scenarios:

• If McCain wins the presidency, he has threatened to use the same veto pen as Bush, in which case it may be a long time before an education appropriations bill passes, if spending exceed McCain's limits. McCain has also said he would like to freeze domestic spending the first year.
• If Obama wins the presidency, he may not have much leeway to increase education spending significantly because the $700 billion financial bailout plan will strap additional funding. Prior to the bailout, Obama said that he would like to increase NCLB funding by $18 billion a year in new spending.
• On the other hand, Congress and the Administration may find it hard to freeze education spending when they have spent so much money on the private sector.
• Congress may not have the energy to do the FY 2009 work when the members return from the elections and find many other issues taking priority over education.
• If a freeze does pass, it is conceivable that school districts will not see a funding increase until at least 2010.

As teacher quality is one of Public Education Network's core priority areas, PEN has been tracking the federal initiatives that could enhance this work. Among the areas that might be of interest to LEFs are the partnership opportunities incorporated in Title II of the new higher education reauthorization. As promised in the last Federal Update, PEN has created a side-by-side analysis of Title II, detailing the recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Opportunity Act (P.L.110-315) in the form of the Higher Education Opportunity Act. Besides providing partnership opportunities, the new law contains a number of substantial changes that are likely to affect LEFs involved in teacher quality and professional-development work. LEFs should pay special attention to the Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant language. (For a Title II side-by-side analysis, please click here.)

Of particular interest to LEFs was the strengthening of the clinical provisions for teacher preparation programs. Please note some of the following major changes, which are also reflected in the side-by-side analysis.

• Pre-service clinical programs must now extend to at least a year, as well as be "rigorous" [Sec. 202(b)(6)(I)]. Research indicates that, to be effective, clinical programs must be extended beyond one term to as much as three terms. Such rigorous clinical programs can not only improve the quality and professionalism of the teacher force, but also dramatically increase teacher retention, thereby reducing the cost of continually recruiting and preparing vast numbers of new teachers.
• Clinical programs must "integrate pedagogy and classroom practice" [Sec. 202(d)(2)(B)]. Research shows that education programs that are successful in preparing students who effectively teach students with diverse needs are ones that closely integrate their theory and methods coursework into extensive clinical experience.
• Clinical programs must include "closely supervised interaction between prospective teachers and faculty, experienced teachers, principals, other administrators, and school leaders".[Sec. 202(d)(2)(A)(ii)]. Research also indicates that extensive clinical programs that prepare students to be effective teachers provide close supervision of their students during the clinical placement.
• Programs to prepare prospective teachers must "effectively teach higher-order analytical, evaluation, problem-solving, and communication skills" [Sec. 202(b)(2) and Sec. 200(23)(c)].

By Arnold F. Fege

Why don't we have more to report on NCLB? The short answer is that not much has been happening. Although PEN has been continuing discussions with staff members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and with individual members of Congress, very little will be happening until after the elections. Both Senate and House Committee staff members say they want to "hit the ground running" with draft proposals when the new Congress adjourns, and it is certain that other issues will prevent making education a priority. PEN has been meeting with various Hill staffs in an effort to:

• help draft language on parental involvement and public engagement;
• request a moratorium on the proposed NCLB U.S. Department of Education regulations on NCLB until it is authorized;
• draft a bill that creates a National Citizens Commission on Educational Equity, based on PEN's NCLB hearing model.

The long answer is that the news about NCLB doesn't matter right now. Sure, people are talking about it. The Fordham Institute put on an entertaining debate about the law. See the recaps (here and here) from Diane Ravitch and Deborah Meier, who argued against the law. The American Enterprise Institute held a seminar on testing that turned into a critique of NCLB. Science published a story stating what many people consider to be obvious: Schools won't be the goal of universal proficiency by 2014.

But the education policy world is thinking bigger than NCLB right now. Just look at two recent events that were held. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce had an event about "the state of education in America" without mentioning NCLB. On Monday, the Center on Education Policy held a forum on "rethinking the federal role in elementary and secondary education." NCLB was a prime topic and teed up the discussion. But the real purpose is to think beyond NCLB.

That brings me to why I haven't been feeding to this blog. There's nothing to say that will have an immediate impact. The Web at its best is a medium that tells you something that is happening right now. Nothing happening right now on NCLB is urgent. Everything is laying the groundwork for the future. Judging from recent events and the priorities of the presidential candidates, NCLB's future won't be determined for a year or so. We can speculate all we want (see Mike Petrilli's latest idea). But we won't know the parameters of the debate until we know the names of the players who will be participating in it. That includes the new president, his education secretary, and the lower-level political appointees at the Department of Education.

Meanwhile, two reports illuminate the limitations of NCLB. The majority of state education departments do not have the fiscal or technical capacity to aid low-performing schools, according to a recent study released by the American Institutes for Research (AIR). The study focused on five components of state support that it used as a framework to determine the low-performing schools' capacity to improve. These components were: (1) tools to support the school improvement process, (2) providers who deliver support, (3) support activities, (4) funding for school improvements, and (5) the content of the improvements themselves. Based on those components, the study found that 16 states have severe capacity limitations, 17 have mild capacity limitations, and 16 have moderate capacity limitations.

Another study conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Education Policy confirmed AIR's general conclusions. The study, "A Call to Restructure Restructuring," found that in the 2007-08 school year, there were 3,599 Title I schools that were involved in sanctioned restructuring under NCLB, a 56-percent increase from the previous school year. The report focused on the restructuring efforts of five states -- California, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio. It reported that despite restructuring efforts, only 19 percent of identified schools in those states were able to pull up the performance levels of their school systems and make their Annual Year Progress goals.

So what to expect from the PEN Legislative Update in the short term? Posting will be less frequent than the daily dose I provided from July 2007 to July 2008, and posting probably will return to increased frequency after the election and the next administration begins to take shape. Until then, no news may be good news.

In the midst of the current deficit discussion, PEN's partner, Public Agenda, has created an engaging and highly relevant economics curriculum module for high school and college students, titled Students Face Up to the Nation's Finances. The module includes discussion guides, surveys, readings, and a detailed Powerpoint presentation about the realities of America's growing national debt. Topics covered include political leadership, entitlement spending, tax policy, personal savings, and the federal budget. Now, more than ever, educating our nation's young people about America's debt is of the utmost importance. And with Public Agenda's new curriculum module, you'll be empowering students with knowledge that will enable them to engage in a crucial discussion about our nation's financial future. If you are interested in using this module to help students understand this critically important set of policy issues, please contact Public Agenda's Andrew Yarrow at ayarrow@publicagenda.org. You can also visit Public Agenda's websites at www.publicagenda.org and www.FacingUp.org/students.

The Public Education Network National Office provides the Federal Legislative Update exclusively for its members, staff and board of directors. The Updates are designed to provide LEFs the most recent federal legislative developments related to public education, community engagement. Readers are encouraged to send comments to Arnold F. Fege (Director of Public Engagement) or call 202-628-7460.