Home 
Federal Update Federal Update Archive Federal Update 09.23.06
Federal Update Federal Update Archive Federal Update 09.23.06
| Federal Update 09.23.06 |
 |
 |
|
FEDERAL UPDATE Week of June 19 -23, 2006 Subscribe to the Federal Update or any of several other NASBE free e-mail updates on education related issues by visiting www.nasbe.org/E_Mail.html. HOUSE COMMITTEE PASSES FY07 ED BUDGET, BUT THEN PULLS IT FROM FLOOR The House Appropriations Committee has given its approval to an FY07 education spending bill that cuts $500 million from No Child Left Behind Act programs in the aggregate, maintains most other spending levels at FY06 levels (which in nearly all instances are less than received in FY05), eliminates the education technology state grants, and provides only nominal increases to special education and school improvement grants. Among the programs receiving no funding increases are: Title I ($12.7 billion), Reading First ($1 billion), Impact aid ($1.1 billion), English language acquisition grants ($669 million), 21st Century Community Learning Centers ($981 million), and state assessment grants ($407 million). The committee maintained funding for the Perkins program at the current level, $1.3 billion, and rejected the administration’s proposal to shift all of the vocational education funds to a new high school reform initiative. The committee did include $310 million for Safe and Drug-free Schools, which is $36 million less than funded last year, but is more than that sought by the Bush administration, which had proposed eliminating all funding. Less fortunate was funding for the education technology state grants program, which the committee zeroed out, resulting in a loss of $272 million. The fate of the education technology program has been particularly vexing to educators. As recently as three years ago, the program was being funded at a robust $800 million, but has since been targeted for sharp reductions, as Congress and the administration believe the task of stocking classrooms with computers, connections, and instructional resources has been accomplished and can be ended. Among the few bright notes was an additional $150 million for special education state grants ($10.7 billion total), a new $200 million expenditure to expand states’ capacity to help chronically underperforming schools, and a boost of $51 million ($150 million total) for innovate education strategies grants (Title V). The committee passed the bill on a voice vote after defeating an amendment by ranking Democrat David Obey on a vote of 36-26 to add $420 million to special education, $300 million to Title I, $50 million for English language learners, and restore $300 million to the teacher quality state grants, and $272 to technology state grants. Despite the Appropriations Committee’s approval, House leaders pulled the spending bill from floor consideration because of concerns that spending levels for education programs (as well as the health and labor programs that are also included in the bill) would not be able to garner a majority of support among all legislators at this time. Program FY06 FY07 FY07 Admin. Request Committee passed Title I $12.7 billion $12.7 billion $12.7 billion Special education $10.58 billion $10.68 billion $10.73 billion Reading First $1 billion $1 billion $1 billion Perkins voc-ed $1.2 billion 0 $1.2 billion Tech prep $105 million 0 $105 million State capacity grants n/a $200 million $200 million Teacher quality grants $2.9 billion $2.9 billion $2.6 billion 21st Century Learning $981 million $981 million $981 million Title V $99 million $99 million $150 million Safe Drug-Free Schools $347 million 0 $310 million Tech. state grants $272 million 0 0 English lang. grants $669 million $669 million $669 million State assessments $407 million $407 million $407 million HOUSE HOLDS HEARING ON N-SIZE, STORIES OF EXCLUDING STUDENTS What’s your “N-size?” That was the question of the day at a recent hearing held by the House Education Committee in the wake of a series of Associated Press articles that highlighted the number of children, particularly poor and minority students, whose test scores are not included in adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations as required by the No Child Left Behind Act. The AP analysis that “about 1.9 million students - or about 1 in every 14 test scores - aren't being counted under the law's racial categories. Minorities are seven times as likely to have their scores excluded as whites…[and] more than one-third of Asian scores and nearly half of American Indian scores aren’t broken out.” The hearing examined how states set—and the U.S. Secretary of Education approves—the “Nsize” number for their state assessments. The N-size is the minimum number of students that must take the test for the scores of the group at large to be considered valid and reliable for psychometric purposes. States have established N-sizes ranging from 5 to 52, with most states setting the number at either 30 or 40. In defending the states’ N-sizes, Deputy Secretary Ray Simon explained to the committee that the exclusion rates are not as egregious as portrayed in the press because “students are included in every group to which they belong. For example, a Hispanic student who is from a low-income family and is an English language learner would be included in four separate subgroups: the “all school,” Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, and limited English proficient groups….Thus, even if there are too few Hispanics in this student’s school to meet the minimum group size for Hispanics, but the number of economically disadvantaged students exceeds the n-size, her assessment scores would be counted in the economically disadvantaged subgroup for accountability purposes.” Notwithstanding this defense, Simon also told the committee that the Department had rejected every state request to increase their N-size this year and that the Department would review every state’s N-size over the summer to determine if it was appropriate. Also appearing at the hearing was Ronald Peiffer, Maryland’s Deputy State Superintendent, who elaborated on the rationale and science behind Maryland’s decision to set its N-size at five, the lowest N-size among all 50 states. Peiffer also managed to dazzle, and at times befuddle, legislators with a discourse on psychometrics, statistics, confidence intervals, and the difference between validity and reliability when it comes to states assessments. Drawing a more human connection to the clinical subject was John Brittain, Chief Counsel and Deputy Director Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law . Brittain called the situation “unconscionable that such large numbers and percentages of African-American, Latino and Native American students’ scores are ‘left behind.’’” Brittain also managed to criticize the racial achievement gap that exists in the state of Connecticut and include a non-sequitar about the Hartford (Conn.) school district’s status as “in need of improvement” per NCLB accountability measures. He suggested that Congress “fix the "N" size loophole problem” by setting a maximum limit on the number of students that could be excluded from accountability calculations. QUOTE OF THE WEEK “The White House’s annual attempts to eliminate Perkins funding have become painfully predictable, it’s getting to be you can set your watch to them ,” Rep. John Peterson (R-PA).
|