U.S. Department of Education

The parade of bills that could replace No Child Left Behind continues this week with Wednesday’s markup of Rep. John Kline’s (R-MN) version. All signals suggest that this won’t be the year Congress finally updates the nation’s most comprehensive education law—and the substantial differences between Kline’s and Sen. Tom Harkin’s bills have a lot to do with these dim prospects. We’ve already seen what Harkin’s Strengthening America’s Schools Act would mean for English Language Learners (ELLs). Today we’ll take a similar look at Kline’s bill, the Student Success Act (SSA).

Last week, Higher Ed Watch took a look at some of the gainful employment policy questions raised in the over 900 public comments submitted to the Department of Education. While policy discussions will ultimately be the most important considerations as the regulatory process moves forward, it's also important to remember that these issues do affect real people. So today we're looking at what some current and former students at these programs had to say in their comments.

Ambition and hope do not pan out in Wisconsin

For many low-income and non-traditional students, going to college can be a source of hope and a chance for a better life, even in spite of fears about not having succeeded academically in the past. That sense of opportunity is prevalent in a combined set of 13 comments from students who now appear to be enrolled in courses at Milwaukee Area Technical College. These comments almost all start on a hopeful note with a sense of excitement for a better life. Many detail previously unachieved academic successes in these programs--high grade point averages, scholarship-winning essays--the type of accomplishment that shows they are college-caliber material. But then the reversal--a degree with no return, a dispute over further debts, no change in status--that leaves them arguably worse off and in debt. (The original comments have been temporarily taken down from Regulations.gov with a request to remove personally identifiable information, so I created a redacted version here.) 

A story from one woman who enrolled at Sanford Brown to become a probation officer encapsulates this emotional roller coaster:

I was so excited about going to Sanford Brown College. I was sold because I was told I could get small class sizes and get extra help if I needed and graduate faster because the courses were 5 weeks long and you went to school year round until you graduated. 

...

I went ahead and took the admissions test and paid $50.00 for it. I was told by the financial aid personnel that I could also write a 500 word paper on why higher education was important and win a $1,500 scholarship. I won the scholarship because of the paper I wrote. I was so excited and proud of myself. I was looking forward to the wonderful future my 3 kids and I were going to have. I was going to finish college and finally have a career which I loved which was helping people. I was assured by all the admissions people at Sanford Brown College that I had made the right choice to attend that college. They all were so friendly and seemed to want this as much as I did.

 

Signs some schools are taking steps to improve--is it enough?

Tuesday and Wednesday, the Senate HELP Committee convened to mark up Chairman Tom Harkin's (D-IA) bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. @NewAmericaEd's Anne Hyslop and Conor Williams live-Tweeted, and we've collected some of the main takeaways here, ICYMI.

Circle September 9 on your calendars. That's the date according to a Federal Register notice published yesterday that the Department of Education will bring together a committee to develop new regulations defining gainful employment. While it had been clear since a notice published in mid-May that the Department was going to be considering gainful employment in its next round of rulemaking, yesterday's announcement provides exact timing for negotiations, as well as the types of negotiators to be considered. 

With the first negotiating session still not for several months, it is going to be some time before the Department puts forth any public proposal, but with more than 900 public comments already submitted in response to initial thoughts on the regulatory agenda, there's already some clear indications of what we can expect to see from a policy standpoint. In a separate post I'll put up some of the more interesting comments received from students. (New America also submitted its own comments on the regulations, which can be found here.)

Arguments in favor--stronger, more comprehensive

By far the largest number of comments came similar short submissions calling for a stronger rule and protections for students and taxpayers (see here for an example). On the more substantive side, a few themes emerged:

The gainful employment rule should be stronger: Multiple comments cited the 2011 rule's "nine strikes and you're out" policy whereby a program had to fail each of three measures for three years straight as being overly generous. Several comments called for initiating penalties for programs that failed two out of the three measures. Others, such as those from The Institute for College Access and Success argued for a higher threshold on the repayment rate based upon prior studies of delinquency and default as well as how Congress set thresholds for cohort default rates. Not surprisingly, among the most thoughtful and creative comments were those from Robert Shireman, the former Department official who helped craft the initial set of regulation. Shireman's comments suggested a new structure that would draw distinctions between institutional and program eligibility depending on repayment rates, with debt to earnings tests used if repayment rates fell below a certain level.

Accountability in this space is about more than just gainful employment: Many comments touched on the idea that gainful employment is only one piece of an accountability framework that also includes cohort default rates and the 90/10 rule. Given that, many commenters stressed the need for the Department to address the use of deferments and forbearances by some institutions to keep their default rates low by limiting the number of students that could default during the measurement window. Similarly, commenters also stressed the need to consider tactics like delaying the disbursement of student aid funds so some dollars would not count as part of the 90/10 calculation for a given year.

Relief for borrowers at failing programs: The final gainful employment regulation never included any relief for borrowers that had debt from a program that eventually lost eligibility on the grounds that discharge requirements were statutory and could not be changed. This time, several comments, such as those from the National Consumer Law Center, stressed that borrowers in programs that lose eligibility should be given relief much the same way that those who attend institutions that shut down receive assistance.

Job placement matters: The comments also included several submissions from attorneys general from states such as Colorado, Illinois, and Kentucky. One issue these focused on is the importance of greater clarity in definitions of successful job placement. Inaccurate, misleading, and outright fraudulent have been an ongoing problem at some proprietary institutions for many years, but the lack of a clear definition can make enforcement of the issue more complicated (the Department's National Center for Education Statistics did hold a technical review panel on creating a definition a few years ago, but did not end up putting together a definition).

Arguments against--wait for reauthorization 

Not surprisingly, there was a pretty clear divide on whether the Department should approach the gainful employment rule again, and what to do so if it does. In general, proprietary colleges and their lobby groups argued that the Department should delay action on the grounds that Congress would be scheduled to reauthorize the Higher Education Act in short order (see page 2 of the comments from the industry's main lobby group, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities for a typical form of this argument). Since reauthorizations these days have a cicada-like periodicity  that's effectively calling for a delay of many years.

In a similar vein, several institutions also brought forward the idea that the gainful employment rule should be applied to all types of institutions, not just a subset of programs at public and private nonprofit institutions and essentially all programs at proprietary colleges. DeVry and LIM College had the clearest forms of this argument, while Strayer University took a slightly different approach, arguing why it resembles other institutions that are not subject to the gainful employment requirement and should thus be excluded. (Whether including more programs is legally allowable, a good policy idea, or just something that would be designed to get other sectors of higher education opposed is debatable.) 

By far the two most thoughtful and interesting comments from those opposed to gainful employment came from Strayer University and Champion College Services, which provides default management and would have provided gainful employment support if the rule were still in effect. Strayer's comments suggests relying on the cohort default rate to set thresholds and penalties, while Champion put forth an argument for creating a repayment rate that is based on the number of borrowers, not dollars, and define "repayment" as not being in default or more than 120 days delinquent. Other ideas more commonly raised included allowing institutions to limit the amount of debt a student can take on and risk-adjusting the measures based upon the characteristics of students enrolled. 

Not surprisingly then, we're already clearly headed for a pretty significant divide on the policy questions in gainful employment. In a subsequent post I'll pull out some of the more interesting submissions from former students and faculty at proprietary institutions. 

Last week was a big week for American education policy watchers—we received not one, not two, but three new ESEA reauthorization bills. We’ve already discussed Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) Strengthening America’s Schools Act (SASA), so it’s time to take a look at the Every Child Ready for College or Career Act, proposed by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN).* Like last time, we’ll be focusing on how the bill would affect English language learners (ELLs). (For a comprehensive view of the differences between the bills, check out this post from my colleague Anne Hyslop.)

Now that my colleagues Anne Hyslop and Clare McCann have dug into the changes that Senator Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) Strengthening America’s Schools Act (SASA) proposes for Title I and Title II (here and here), it’s my turn to take a look at the bill’s potential effects on English language learners (ELLs).

Tomorrow morning, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will markup the Strengthening America’s Schools Act, the latest ESEA reauthorization proposal from Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA). Ed Money Watch and Early Ed Watch have already recapped many of the changes proposed to accountability for schools and educators, as well as Title I and early learning programs. But we have yet to weigh in on the alternative proposal offered by the Committee’s Republican members, led by Ranking Member Lamar Alexander (R-TN).

Here are the three biggest differences between the two bills:

1. No love for Common Core. Alexander’s bill – the Every Child Ready for College or Career Act – includes detailed language to explicitly prohibit the U.S. Department of Education from exercising any direction, preference, or control over state’s academic content standards (like the Common Core State Standards) or achievement standards (i.e. cut scores that determine what it means to be college- and career-ready). This also has big implications for education data and reporting – more on that below.

Clearly concerned with federal overreach, this level of specificity around the Department’s role should appeal to critics of the common standards, claiming they are step one toward a “federal curriculum” or “national school board.” But Alexander is silent on a specific timeline or transition to college- and career-ready standards and tests – another increasingly divisive issue. Harkin’s bill would allow states a one-year “pause,” requiring implementation by the 2015-16 school year, even though both Common Core consortia say they will deliver their assessments on-time in 2014-15.

2. A mini-backpack for Title I funds. Another sharp contrast with the Harkin proposal: states could allocate Title I funds to districts based only on their number of eligible children – and federal funding could then follow the child to any public school in the district. Similar to a Romney campaign proposal (but on a smaller scale, without the option to use Title I funds to attend out-of-district public schools or private schools, or to pay for tutoring), it is unclear how many states would take advantage of this provision. How would it work in districts that lack other public school options – in particular, rural districts or districts where the overwhelming majority of schools are low-performing? Funding fights are always messy – how would school and district administrators respond to the change? The Alexander bill would also eliminate maintenance of effort requirements, meaning that states and districts would not be penalized for spending less on education from year to year, another potential sore spot for local school leaders.

3. States: choose your own accountability adventure. Unlike the Democrats’ bill, Every Child Ready for College or a Career would not require performance targets for schools. As Politics K-12 predicted, this was a major partisan sticking point between Harkin and Alexander. And transparency – rather than accountability – is the key policy lever in the Republican proposal. States can choose to differentiate between schools as they see fit.

Further, the Senate Republican proposal would prohibit the Department from specifying, defining, or prescribing any measure that states include in their accountability systems. Presumably, this means states could choose how they want to define everything from adequate student growth, to a cut score for college and career readiness, to how they define graduation rates. Would this undermine data comparability between states, including efforts to report a uniform graduation rate?

Alexander’s bill also doesn’t require states to identify any set percentage of Title I schools for improvement, leaving both identification and intervention entirely up to states (with the exception that students be allowed to transfer if their schools are identified). Given states’ history with setting rigorous goals and expectations for schools (as this new Education Sector report reminds us), Alexander’s bill would effectively set federal education policy back twenty years – to the 1994 Improving America’s Schools Act.

Finally, Alexander’s bill would not require states to develop teacher or principal evaluation systems, but they could use Title II funds for these purposes. And unlike Harkin’s proposal, states could partner with for-profits, as well as nonprofit organizations or higher education institutions, to implement their plans for preparing, training and improving the quality of teachers and school leaders. Because the bill also eliminates the “highly qualified teacher” provision, states would not have to report, whether teachers are distributed equitably between Title I and non-Title I schools – another blow for accountability and a big difference between the Alexander and Harkin proposals.

The bottom line? Alexander’s bill doesn’t actually require states to do anything. And that’s a problem. As Chad Aldeman also notes in his smart take on the Alexander bill, Every Child College or Career Ready relies on assurances from states that they will implement rigorous and high-quality standards, assessments, and accountability systems. As Aldeman writes: “There are no serious standards for these things and, even if there were, there would be no way to verify state assertions.” If a plan is a poor substitute for policy, then an assurance as policymaking is downright laughable.

To help keep both draft bills – along with No Child Left Behind and the Obama administration’s waiver policy – straight, download this side-by-side cheat sheet to use during the markup. You can click also click on the image below to enlarge it. And of course, the always-helpful Politics K12 team has another side-by-side comparison that features the House Republican plan. 

Follow along with us tomorrow, and stay tuned to Ed Money Watch for continuing coverage.

Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) introduced the Strengthening America’s Schools Act (SASA). We profiled its major changes here, and a few significant mentions for early childhood education here. Our sister blog, Ed Money Watch, wrote about the Title II teacher and principal provisions today (for more, click here). We’ve collected a few notes on the early education and early grade connections to the Title II reforms:

In many ways, the latest reauthorization effort from Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)–the Strengthening America’s Schools Act (SASA)–reads like an endorsement of the administration’s NCLB flexibility plan. States that have received NCLB waivers would be able to continue with those plans in most respects. What’s more, SASA builds on the waiver process, with states’ Title I plans replacing the Department of Education’s flexibility request. Title I plans (which describe each state’s standards, assessments, and systems of accountability and school improvement) would be subject to Department approval every four years.

But what about Title II? We know effective teachers and principals have a lifelong positive impact on students. And it’s no secret that human capital reforms – from teacher evaluations to preparation and tenure – are among the most contentious in education. How does Harkin’s bill navigate these issues?

Evaluations

Unlike the Senate’s 2011 reauthorization proposal, states and school districts would have to develop and implement a professional growth and improvement system by the 2015-16 school year to receive Title II funding – a big sticking point with Senate Republicans, like Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who have introduced a competing reauthorization plan. These systems must be developed in consultation with educators, provide meaningful feedback, include multiple performance categories, align with professional development, and provide for training of evaluators. Echoing the results of the MET study, teachers would be evaluated based on three components: student achievement and growth; classroom observations; and other measures, like student surveys. These guidelines are broad enough to apply to all teachers, including those in the early grades and untested subjects that lack test-based data on student achievement. Student Learning Objectives or other measures could be used so long as they are “evidence-based.” Principals would be evaluated based on their instructional leadership, as well as student achievement, growth, and academic outcomes, including students reaching English language proficiency.

Notably, SASA deviates from states’ waiver plans by not requiring evaluations to inform personnel decisions. To some, like Democrats for Education Reform, this means stripping all accountability from the new evaluation systems. To others, this is welcome relief given states’ simultaneous adoption of new assessments and implementation of evaluation systems based on them. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, practically praised the bill for requiring “a variety of measures to evaluate teachers, rather than making test scores the be-all and end-all.” Further, any state with a waiver-approved teacher evaluation plan would be allowed to continue with it. But even with these provisions in place, some state advocates, like the Council of Chief State School Officers’ Chris Minnich worry about the “prescriptive language” around teacher evaluations.

Despite the noise, this seems like a comfortable compromise between both extremes – states are not prohibited from using evaluations for personnel decisions, and some may continue to do so in their waivers. At the same time, states must develop evaluations and include student achievement and growth measures, resisting the urge to “pause” these reforms entirely as states adopt the Common Core. The bill also rightly emphasizes the improvement and professional growth components within evaluation systems over more punitive elements. No district or state will be able to improve the quality of its education workforce solely by hiring new teachers – they must also figure out how to improve the teachers they have.

Funding Formula and Equity

With a $2.5 billion appropriation in FY 2012, Title II’s formula grants to states represent the largest federal programs for PreK-12 teachers. These grants aim to increase the number of highly qualified teachers and school leaders, as well as improve their effectiveness. However, the Title II grant formula has been stuck in time for over a decade – an issue that arose during the 2011 Senate NCLB reauthorization markup. First, states receive allocations equal to their 2001 funding levels under an older, expired grant program. Then additional Title II dollars flow to states by the NCLB formula. Harkin’s bill would remove that “hold harmless” provision so that all of Title II’s formula funding would be allocated with the updated formula.

Unlike Title II funding under NCLB, states and districts in SASA must address inequality in the distribution of highly effective teachers and principals. Although there is little accountability to ensure states and districts follow through, this is a move in the right direction for educational equity, since states have little incentive to even report this information currently. SASA would require this information be made public to parents in an Equity Report Card. Districts can’t fix a “teacher effectiveness gap” without knowing how bad the problem is, and the new data could jumpstart these efforts.  

Class-Size Reduction vs. Professional Development

Under NCLB, districts can use their state funds for professional development, class-size reduction, and teacher quality activities, like retention and recruitment efforts, but the vast majority is spent on the first two activities. In 2011, districts surveyed by the Department reported using 42 percent of Title II grant funds for professional development and 38 percent on class-size reduction. SASA would make further changes, eliminating class-size reduction as an option in all but PreK-3^rd grade classrooms and requiring that at least 20 percent of funds go toward professional development in priority schools. This would be a big lift for some districts, but reflects overall trends in Title II spending away from class-size reduction, which accounted for 57 percent of spending in 2003.

Preparation and Training

SASA also includes a version of the GREAT Act, a bipartisan effort led by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO). States could reserve up to 1 percent of their Title II allocation to develop new teacher and principal preparation academies that would be authorized directly by the state – instead of by traditional accreditors. Modeled after programs like the Relay Graduate School of Education, these academies must have high admissions standards and a rigorous selection process and include a strong mentoring component and instruction linked to candidates’ experiences in schools. Prior to graduating from the academy, all candidates would have to demonstrate their ability to increase student achievement and growth. In exchange, these academies would not have to meet certain regulations for preparation programs, including faculty degrees and research output, the number of credits hours or undergraduate coursework required, physical infrastructure, and accreditation. While the academies could be authorized by a state education agency or nonprofit, academies that do not produce effective teachers and leaders could not be reauthorized.

In addition, SASA authorizes a new competitive grant aimed at recruiting and training effective principals to work in low-income schools, particularly priority and focus schools, middle schools that feed into high schools with low graduation rates, and high-poverty rural schools. Modeled on legislation from Senators Bennet and Al Franken (D-MN), districts, states, and/or nonprofits and institutions of higher education could apply, but would need to provide at least a 20 percent match. Unlike the GREAT Act, this proposal would operate more closely with traditional preparation programs. Funds would be used to recruit highly qualified and diverse school leaders, provide principals and aspiring principals training tailored to the skills they need to lead high-needs schools, develop a year-long residency program and provide ongoing coaching, and train principal mentors. Programs would be evaluated on whether participants are placed and remain as principals in high-needs schools and whether student outcomes improve in those schools.

Both are promising approaches to improving principal leadership and effectiveness – an area that has often been overshadowed by teacher quality. And while not explicitly included in the formula-funded academies, states would have to describe how they would coordinate Title II with early education to strengthen the knowledge and skills of educators working with children PreK-3^rd. Even better, states, districts, and other groups winning competitive grants must include training for elementary school principals on the benefits of high-quality early education and transitioning children from these settings to elementary schools – we’d like to see this expanded to in-service principal training as well. 

Similar to the principal quality proposal, another competitive grant program – Pathways to Teaching – would support recruitment, selection, preparation, placement, and retention of teachers in high-needs subjects at high-needs schools. Grantees must focus on classroom management, instructional planning, literacy and cognitive development, developing and using assessments, and a clinical experience at a high-needs school, with ongoing mentoring. Sound familiar? Both the Obama administration’s reauthorization blueprint and Harkin’s last reauthorization attempt included a similar provision. The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) would also receive permanent authorization in SASA and award grants to offer merit pay or bonuses for highly effective teachers in high-needs school and to improve teacher evaluations, compensation plans, and human capital systems.

While there is a lot to like in the new Title II plan, the prospects for SASA moving beyond a partisan Committee vote are slim. Stay tuned to both Ed Money Watch and Early Ed Watch for continuing coverage of both Senate proposals as we edge toward Tuesday’s markup.