Education Stakeholders Briefing on 2011 Budget


Uploaded by usedgov on 02.02.2010

Transcript:
Before we get started, welcome to those of you who are regulars, a lot of familiar faces
and some others here--apologies for not having enough chairs. For everyone here today, thanks
for cramming in and grabbing spots where you can. Of course, we're here to talk today about
[INDISTINCT] data systems in Missouri specifically for 11-year olds in reading about history.
I am very pleased by the turnout to talk about that. So thank you for your interest. Now,
we are, of course, here to talk about what's in this green book, the proposed 2011 budget.
And we know you have lots of questions so we'll leave plenty of time for that. The agenda
today will include comments by Secretary Duncan who will be joining us shortly, as well as
by Carmel Martin, our assistant secretary for Planning Evaluation and Policy Development.
We also have on hand now--thank you, Tom--our Director of Budget Services, Thomas Skelly
who has just come with--from the press con, I believe, with the Secretary and Carmel.
And then again, we'll have time for question and answer. We only have one microphone here
today for you. It's over here. So the people on this side have a real advantage. If you're--if
you have a question, you may want to plan to migrate over there at one point--at some
point. If you do come to the mic, please speak directly into it. We are recording and transcribing
today's forum and want to make sure we get everything down accurately. We're, of course,
very pleased with the investment that the president is proposing to make in education
in this budget to meet both his goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates
by 2020, and to secure our economic future. This is a heavy investment in college access,
adult education, K-12 reform in early learning. And to do it, we really are determined to
build bipartisan and grassroots support as well for reauthorizing the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act to promote a well-rounded education foster competition and give states
and districts as much flexibility as possible. Our role is always will be to provide that
common definition of success and not a prescription for it. So we're--I'm going to talk with you
today about how we propose and how the president proposes to go about this. See, we've now
got Carmel joining us, who's getting instruction on the fact that her remote for her PowerPoint
only goes forward and not back. So we are a forward-moving agency here, always looking
to the future. And do we have our special guest yet, or is he's making his way down?
He was right behind me.
He's right behind. All right. So I have prepped these folks for using microphones. I have
nothing more to say.
Can you make a few jokes?
I've already used one. I have very little in my pocket today. It's all very serious.
The color of the book is green.
Good joke.
It's always an exciting thing for us to see what it's going to look like, sort of the
color of money, I suppose this year. So add that to your collection. We've been talking
a lot as we've been doing other things around here about different shades of colors and
so we look forward to your best description of this particular green and you can email
that. I'm sure it's [INDISTINCT] comments. This is always a fun time when you're waiting
for the Secretary. Other things that we wanted to--why don’t we move into Carmel's presentation
and particularly [INDISTINCT] and look forward to hearing from friends who are watching late
at night. So why don’t we--we'll pause when Arne arrives but Carmel, you’ve got a clicker
so why don’t we get started.
Okay. Thanks Massie. Sorry everybody. I'm sorry we're running late and the Secretary
will--should be here shortly. And I think I'll try not to upstage him too much. My presentation
sort of focused more on the details and I think he'll lay out the vision for you in
terms of the President's budget being unveiled today. My clicker doesn’t even work.
Click again.
Oh, there we go. So, as you probably all know, since you have your green books and are dutifully
reading them, the President's budget includes a $49.7 billion for Non-Pell Discretionary
Funding for the Department of Education with a $1 billion reserve fund that would come
into play when the Congress passes a reauthorization of the Elementary And Secondary Education
Act for a new total a $50.7 billion which--without the reserve fund is a 7.5% increase; with
the reserve fund, it's closer to--it's almost 10. And with that, here's the star of the
show. Come on up Arne. I've really just got through your first bullet point, so.
That--that is fine.
Shall I start with…
Yes, sir, I just talk about the overall…
Right.
…increase, so literally, the first bullet point, here.
Hi. Good afternoon. Thanks everybody for coming. This is obviously an extraordinary and exciting
day. I'll just start from the start so we don’t get mixed up when you take over. This
morning, as all of you know, the President released his fiscal 2011 budget. This budget
includes a 7.5% increase in discretionary spending for our department. It's one of the
largest increases ever proposed. At a time when most government spending is being frozen,
the President is investing in education. He sees it as the key to our economic future.
And this budget is a clear reflection of his deep commitment to education. The president's
budget lays out a new vision for reforming our education system, improving schools and
increasing college access and college completion. He's investing heavily in education at every
level, from early education to K-12 reform to college access. It's a cradle to career
agenda; one that starts at birth and follows children every step of the way with the ultimate
goal of being the graduate from a two-year or four-year institution. The President understands
America's economic security depends on improving education. In 10 years, the jobs that employers
will be looking to fill will require a college degree or at least a professional certification.
We have to educate our way to a better economy. The budget also signals a bold new direction
for federal K-12 education policy with more competitive funding, more flexibility, and
an accountability system that we'll develop in partnership with Democrats and Republicans
in the months ahead. All told, the president's budget, as you see in the slide here, includes
$49.7 billion to the Department of Education's discretionary programs, an increase of $3.5
billion over the fiscal year of 2010. The proposed budget includes a $3 billion increase
for competitive programs in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act also known as
"No Child Left Behind." It also signals the President's commitment to redesign the accountability
system created by NCLB. So, it is focused in helping students graduate high school ready
for success in college and in the world of work. The President is committed to strengthening
the current accountability system and it will based on outcomes in closing the achievement
gaps. Today, in far too many states, standards are too low. And the existing law doesn’t
provide states with incentives to raise their standards. In fact, as so many of you know,
quite the opposite is true. NCLB also does little to reward progress. We want accountability
reforms that factor in student growth, progress in closing achievement gaps, proficiency towards
college and career ready standards, high school graduation, and college enrollment rates.
That’s a lot to track. We recognize that. But if we want to be smarter about the accountability,
more fair to students and teachers, and more effective in the classroom, we need to look
at all of these factors. We need to learn from them and we need to act on them. My staff
and I have traveled to all 50 states on a listening and learning tour over the last
year. And we heard so many complaints about the current system of accountability. Folks
said it narrowed the curriculum, caused schools to teach the tests, and it unfairly labeled
schools that were actually doing well, and that it was too prescriptive. So we heard
those complaints and now we're coming back with some ideas to address them. And we welcome
additional input, feedback and more ideas as reauthorization moves forward. We have
worked with congress to redesign the accountability system to reward growth and to give states
the flexibility and encouragement they need to adopt higher standards that truly prepares
students for success in college and in careers. Under the proposed budget, after ESEA is reauthorized,
the President will send congress a budget amendment for an additional $1 billion to
provide incentives for successful schools. It will also provide additional money for
assessments and for after-school programs. The President is trying to advance reform
elsewhere in the budget by including $1.35 billion to continue "Raise To The Top," $500
million for the i3 the Investment Innovation Fund, more money for school turnarounds, charters,
school safety, and programs around teacher and principal preparation. One area where
I think we're dramatically under invested is around leadership, around principals. We're
basically proposing a five-fold increase there. We think that’s a game changer, we think
there are no good schools without good principals and willing to do lots of work there. The
proposed budget also reflects the President's broader commitment to efficiency, cutting
red tape and holding ourselves accountable for results. This budget consolidates 38 education
programs into six funding streams and eliminates six others that duplicate other programs or
don’t have a national impact. By doing that, we can save a $123 million. We will save another
$217 million by eliminating all earmarks. One of our goals with reauthorization is to
give local educators flexibility to do what's best for children. We don’t have all the
answers here in Washington. The best ideas, the best innovation will always come at the
local level, from great teachers, great principals, great school districts, great states, not
from here in Washington. As they often say, our role is to provide a common definition
of success, not a prescription for success. We will advance that goal when we reauthorized
the ESEA. We'll be creating a limited federal role in education. We'll focus on raising
standards for all students, rewarding success in schools, supporting and rewarding effective
teachers and leaders, turning around low performing schools and helping schools develop a well-rounded
education. In fact, we have boosted funding by nearly $200 million for subjects like History,
the Languages and the Arts because we understand that children need so much more by just Reading
and Math to be successful and to stay engaged and excited about going to school everyday.
Now, let me take a moment and shift to higher education. The budget includes a grand total
of a $173 billion in loans, grants, tax credits and work study programs to help students go
to college. That’s enough to help three out of five college students in America. It
incorporates everything in a Higher Ed Bill to end student lending subsidies to banks
and shift billions in savings into higher education and into early childhood. That proposal
passed the House and awaits Senate approval. Under the proposal, maximum Pell grants will
rise by $160 to $5,710 and automatically rise by rate of inflation plus 1% annually over
the next decade. The Bill also has $10.6 billion to improve and modernize community colleges
and $3.6 billion to raise college completion rates. Lastly, the group provides $9.3 billion
for competitive grants to states over the next 10 years to improve early learning programs.
As you know, the president set a goal that America will once again lead the world in
college completion. To reach our goal by the end of the decade, we need to improve the
quality of education at every level from birth through the end of college. This budget puts
us on a path towards success and meeting that goal. It also includes much more such as an
additional $250 million for special education, more money for English language learner programs,
more money for HBC youth, and other colleges that serve minority students, with more money
for school safety and for school health. There's also $210 million for the Promise Neighborhoods
Program which is a competitive grant program whose goal is to build upon the success of
the Harlem Children's Zone. The program combined social services with school improvements in
order to transform whole neighborhoods. We expect to fund up to ten pilot projects with
money from the fiscal 2010 budget. These additional resources will help those pilot programs get
their start and others to plan their own Promise Neighborhoods. Lastly, there's more money
for expanding educational options in charter schools and comprehensive systems of public
school choice. Let me just close by saying that the need for reform is absolutely urgent.
Today, more than 25% of our nation's high school students fail to graduate. About 60
percent of incoming college students need remedial education. Many drop out, either
because they cannot keep up or they simply can't afford to stay in. Millions of jobs
in our country go unfilled each year due to a lack of trained workers. And American students
are falling behind other countries in critical areas like engineering and science. NCLB did
a great job of exposing achievement gaps and demanding accountability, but it has many
other shortcomings and we need to fix it so that we can go on with the important work
of teaching and learning. The President knows we have to educate our way to a better economy
and he has called on all stakeholders from students, to parents, to elected officials,
to educators to take greater responsibility for education and join together in this effort.
We are working with both sides of the isle to develop a bipartisan proposal because education
affects everyone. Everybody wants reform and everyone wants to work together. It doesn’t
mean there won't be some disagreements from time to time, but we all share the same common
values. So we are really hopeful that reauthorization will happen and we'll all move forward with
an aggressive education agenda--an aggressive reformed agenda in the months and years ahead.
Thank you so much. It's your turn.
Thank you. Thank you, Arne. So I won't spend a lot of time with the presentation. I'm just
going to go through a few highlights that emphasized some of the things the Secretary
mentioned and then turn it--open it up for questions. You have--most of the information
I'm going to share, you have in the books in front of you. So as Secretary mentioned
the total increase would be up you $50.7 billion just to flag some of the things that he mentioned
and some additional points about early learning, the budget supports 9.3 billion over 10 years
for the early--the President's early learning challenge fund. It also contains continued
support for IDA pre-school grants and IDA grants for infants and families. We will also
continue to look for ways to prioritize early childhood education in our other grant programs
as we have done with respective Promise Neighborhoods, Race to the Top and i3, and also I just wanted
to flag that our investments will complement increases for the childcare development block
grant, child care tax credit and head start in the 8HS budget that is being released today
as well. In terms of elementary and secondary education priorities, there's $3 billion increase
for ESEA programs with the plan to seek up to an additional $1 billion upon reauthorization.
Some of our priorities for the reauthorization mentioned by the Secretary that I'll just
cover briefly again are additional funding for school turn around. We are proposing $900
million for the school--the currently labeled school improvement fund and we also--in our
funding that is contingent on reauthorization, we'll propose additional funding for rewarding
high poverty schools that have made extraordinary progress. There's additional funding for innovation
as the President announced last week. We are asking Congress for $ 1.35 billion to continue
a "Race to the Top" investment and have asked for authority to also run a district level
competition. We've--the budget asked for $500 million to continue the i3 program that is
designed to identify, validate and replicate successful interventions. A hundred--$150
million of that funding would be devoted to stem initiatives, and all of that funding
would be looking to prioritize strategies that focus on education technology. We are
also proposing, in innovation space, additional funding for charter and other innovative autonomous
school models and additional funding for public school choice. Now, their major area focus
is excellent instructional teams, which the--as the Secretary mentioned, a big focus on teachers
and leaders. We have a net increase of $350 million for our teacher and leader strategies,
including new investments in programs that help to recruit and prepare leaders, particularly
leaders who can go on to operate in school turnaround programs. And additional funding
to promote the development of teacher evaluation systems that more effectively evaluate teacher
quality and reward teachers who have been successful, identify them as effective teachers.
They can service instructional leaders in their schools. Another area of focus is supporting
student success. So we have a total of $1.88 billion for programs that are about providing
additional supports, non-academic supports to help children succeed, including a continuation
of the 21st century learning program, but also a new successful, safe and healthy student
initiative and additional fund and the $200 million increase for a Promise Neighborhoods
initiative. As the Secretary mentioned, we're also providing resources to ensure that students
have access to well-rounded education. So we are consolidating existing fragmented investments
in different content areas. We will have a dedicated funding stream for comprehensive
literacy initiatives, dedicated funding stream, $300 million for stem initiatives, and then
a--over $200 million investment in programs that are designed to ensure that other--core
academic subjects are integrated into the education of students. So in promoting the
idea of interdisciplinary teaching, in the areas of arts, history, civics, financial
literacy and then last but perhaps most importantly, continuing to focus on ensuring that students
are college and career ready. We're maintaining investments in the Title I program, focus
on disadvantage students with increases for the rewards program that I mentioned but also
significant increases for school turnaround funding. We also have maintained investments
for particular groups of students that you see in current law including migrant students,
homeless students, English learners with a large increase for English learners, as the
Secretary mentioned. But very purposely did not include these programs in our consolidation
efforts and our--maintaining those programs as formula-driven programs. We do shift the
balance between formula and competitive programs under the 2010 budget; $20.8 billion are for
elementary and secondary education funding with formula-driven with 4.2 invested in competitive
funding streams. Under this budget, the total will be 20.3 for formula-driven programs and
7.8 in competitive funding streams.
Whoops, I think we've lost that slide since I was told I can't go backwards. Oh, there
we go. So here are the programs that I mentioned earlier which we are not consolidating and
we are not shifting to competitive but we would like to work with Congress to ensure
that these programs are more focused on outcomes for the students they're designed to help.
So we will be looking to work with Congress on that but not looking to shift on to competitive
funding streams. We do have an increase in existing competitive funding for the English
learner program which is designed to help ensure that we can tackle improving teacher
quality for English learners and invest in research around the best strategies for improving
English learner's success. And then as the Secretary mentioned, the budget contemplates
historic increases in student aide including an increase in the Pell Grant, as the Secretary
mentioned, ensuring stability in the student loan programs as well as the administration's
budget across the board ask for--to make the tax benefit--the college tax benefit permanent.
We are also proposing in the budget to improve upon the existing income-based repayment program
so that no student has to pay more than 10% of their discretionary income and student
loan payments. Students who enter into public service jobs would have their balances forgiven
after 10 years and under the President's budget, other folks would have their balance forgiven
after 20 years. So this is just recapping. I think most of these numbers the Secretary
mentioned that our request would make available $156 billion in new grants loan and work study
assistance providing 3 out of 5 students with aid. Our available aid would increase by 60%
compared to 2008 before the President took office. Nearly 15 million students would receive
aid under the President's proposals, would help graduates manage debt through an improved
income-based repayment program and increase the Pell Grant maximum for 2011 to $5,710
and that would grow over the 10-year window to $6,900. The budget also supports the $2.5
billion over 10 years for HPC use, HISs and other minority serving institutions in the
legislation pending in congress as well as a 5% increase in discretionary funding for
these institutions. The budget supports the $10.6 billion over 10 years investment in
the American Graduation Initiative which is focused on improving community colleges including
infrastructure investments in community colleges as well as an online education initiative
and $3.5 billion over five years for the college access in completion fund which is designed
to ensure--to complement the existing Trio and Gear up programs and to ensure that students
not only get to college but actually complete college. So with that, I will turn it--open
it up for questions.
Why did you bring the lecture down this low so I should feel as tall as Arne? So there
is a microphone right over here. And so if you have a question, head that way. Folks
on this side, it's a longer trip for you but head over there if you like. And let's do
focus on questions and stay away from advocacy for particular things this afternoon. And
why don't we start with Mary.
Hi, Mary Kusler with the American Association of School Administrators. This is going to
can seem completely off for me, but I actually have a clarifying question. The education,
the E2T2 program, the State Education Technology grant is described in the back as being consolidated
into the Effective Teaching and Learning for a well-rounded education but it's not listed
in that section as one of the consolidated program. So, if you try to do an apples-to-apples
comparison, it actually looks like it’s an elimination of the program and an elimination
of $100 million towards Education Technology. I know there's talk about infusing it into
every section, but if we're comparing apples to apples, I guess I'm trying to figure out
how that is considered a consolidated program and not an eliminated program.
So we consider a consolidated program because we are looking to support the activities currently
funded under the current Education Technology Program through – it's a little bit more
complicated than some of the other consolidated programs because we're looking to do it in
multiple fronts. It's something we want to be infusing into our funding streams wherever
possible. So, it would be something that we would look at in context – in the context
of the money for the teaching and learning of a well-rounded education. So, ensuring
that as that funding is being competed out, that there is attention and focus given to
strategies that use Educational Technology to deliver content. We're also looking at
it in the context of the reauthorization of the Title I program to ensure that, at the
state level, there's capacity for identifying innovative uses of educational technology
to improve instruction for disadvantaged students. It would be a big focus of the I3 funding,
and there be more – will be focused on what are the most innovative tools available to
improve outcomes for students. So, it's infused through multiple programs as opposed to just
moving into one new funding stream.
So, it is – I guess because I'm trying to reconcile the program consolidation and eliminates
the [INDISTINCT] list with the way you've handled the other programs and just…
So this one is less clean.
…this one is not an oversight…
No, no.
…that it was not was listed under the well-rounded education.
It's in a longer description of the Well-Rounded Education Program, we'll see…
But in terms of the breakdown of the programs that were streamlined into that larger funding
level, it is not listed even though in the back it said it should.
So I guess what I'm saying is that it's more complicated that some of the other consolidations
because it's being infused into multiple funding streams as opposed to just one.
[INDISTINCT] with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Question about
the Excellent Instructional Teams proposed consolidation, there are a number of consolidations
programs that are mostly consolidated there. Namely, the improving [INDISTINCT] and of
course the school leadership program and, of course, this is a really important focused
school leadership. This could be a really nice robust increase. But I'm concerned that
I didn't see a word that I was hoping to see and that's "dedicated." See, the problem is
you're probably aware, that with school leadership and federal funding is that only about federal
– only about 4% of federal funds have been used for school leadership because it's always
been allowable of use, except of course with school leadership program which is a little
different. But – so, is this – with this consolidation, is there going to be a language
that specifically dedicates funding for school leaders?
Yes, $170 million.
Hundred and seventy million dollars dedicated funding stream for school leaders.
Yes, to prepare – to recruit and prepare effective leaders with the focus on preparing
leaders to be turnaround, to be leaders in turnaround schools, were also in our proposal
related to the new formula funding stream for effective teachers and leaders, asking
for grant recipients to show in a very concrete way that they are focused on leadership as
well as – well, teacher leaders, as well as administrative leaders.
Okay, so is that – does that fall under one of this specific three kind of breakdowns?
Is that under the…
All three of our funding streams that are dedicated to teachers and leaders have a focus
on both teachers and leaders. But under the teacher and leader pathway initiative, what
is where the $ 170 million that we dedicated to the leaders.
Okay, and this there – so is there a dedicating funding stream under any of the other programs?
Or the other, you know, kind of consolidations like for instance, the innovation fund, or
the state grants like the teacher and leader state grants?
So for both the state grants and the innovation fund, it's not a segmented portion of the
funding. But we are going to ask recipients of these funding streams to demonstrate that
they're tackling, improving their capacity around effective leaders.
Okay, good.
Joel.
Hi. Joel Packer with the Committee for Education Funding, and also of the Raben Group. On Page
33 of the book, you list specific funding request for programs if your – if ESEA is
not reauthorized. I just want to get you to explain that a little bit more, like how official
are these numbers on Page 33?
So, it is our hope that the reauthorization will move forward and we'll be able to allocate
the funding as the budget proposes. But that list is under the current program structure
where some of – what are some of our priorities would be.
Okay. And then just sort of a related question. It’s my understanding that Title – the
administration is not proposing at this point or through the budget formula changes in Title
I.
Not at this point.
Okay. And last quick question. In – on Page 5, when you're talking about programs that
are essentially under SAFRA, it mentioned $ 1.2 billion over 3 years for graduation
promise grants for high schools, which I don't think it’s actually in the house, SAFRA's
administration is essentially proposing that be in the final version.
I think that's under consideration in the Senate bill.
Right, right. But that's, I'm saying, that's something you're…
We're supporting.
…supporting, and there's nothing in this budget that are related to school renovation
or modernization.
No.
Okay.
Speakers, please speak as directly as you can into the mic. Thanks.
I'll do that. Myrna Mandlawitz, Usual Suspects, okay. I'm here today, MRM Associates, lots
of different groups. I'll take this thing off, let's do it this way. Carmel, you had
mentioned, and you were talking about the ESEA priorities and the FY '11 request. One
of the new listed was Excellent Instructional Teams, and then you talked about supporting
school success. I mean I would throw in their effective teachers on the definition. And
then I look through here and I see programs like the school counseling program that are
being consolidated which are one of the few dedicated funding streams for support personnel
and specialized instructional support personnel, specifically school social workers, school
counselors, and school psychologists. And I think we very much believed that those people
are critical part of this instructional – Excellent Instructional Teams, and also should
be included as part of the definition of effective teachers since they can’t be effective without
all the support personnel around them. So I wish you could comment on how we're going
to deal with ensuring that school districts have the appropriate staff and that these
programs aren't in dedicated funding streams.
So the, the funding in the Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grant Program could be used
on other school staff beyond teachers and leaders. We asked Scott in the existing Teacher
Incentive Fund program. We ask Congress this year to modify the language so that performance-based
compensation could be given to all staff in the school and not just the teachers or the
leaders in the school. Congress agreed to do that, and our proposals moving forward
would continue that. We also would see the new successful, safe, and healthy student
program as an opportunity for states and districts and non-profit organizations to apply for
funding to implement innovative programs around things like cap school counseling, and providing
other supports, non-academic supports to students as well, but it is something that funding
in the teacher and leader funding streams, the instructional team funding would also
be able to support professional development and other programs to improve non-teachers.
Just one fast follow-up. On those consolidated programs, would we assume that the programs
that are subsumed under there that their current – those current programs will be allowable
uses, or how will that be done?
That might not be the case in every instance, but in many instances that is the case.
Thank you.
Jane.
Jane West with the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. A sort of
follow-up to Myrna's question, the Teacher Quality Partnership grants under the Higher
Education Act, you've move – or you've taken that money and consolidated into this new
funding stream. $150 million has just been led out and competed grants. As you know,
this is a new program, partnerships between K-12 districts and Higher Ed. What would happen?
Those are five-year grants. What would happen to those grants? My second question is are
you also moving the accountability provisions for Title II of the Higher Education Act into
this new fund so that all prepares would have the same accountability requirements.
So the exist – the current program funds, if grants have been awarded, we would provide
for continuation grants within this new funding stream, new, larger funding stream. The new
funding stream for specifically for teacher recruitment and preparation is $235 million
which is more than double the current funding stream under the Teacher Quality Partnership
Program. And yes, we are looking in the new program to ensure that there is a system of
accountability for teacher preparation programs, both traditional programs and alternative
certification programs.
That would be the same for all of them?
Yes.
Thank you.
Hi, good afternoon. Cindy Littlefield, Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. First
of all, I just want to thank the administration for our increase on Pell grants. My mother
taught me to be thankful whenever we get some presents, and so I'm thanking you for an increase
on Pell grants. I would just like a general explanation of why the $34.878 billion for
Pell grants for – propose for FY '11 is now in the mandatory side of the budget. If
you could just explain to us…
Sure
…the rational behind that.
Sure. So, as you know, Cindy, Pell grants operate a lot more similarly to Social Security
and Medicare than it operates like Title I. Funding on the discretionary side, the basic
theory is we will allow – allocate a certain amount of money, and when that money is gone,
that's all there is to spend for that purpose for that year. But as you know under the Pell
grant program, every eligible student is entitled to the amount of money that they are eligible
for. So by having it on the discretionary side, we have this continuous cycle where
we shift back between shortfalls – lately, shortfalls more often than surpluses. So,
it's the President and the Secretary senses that the most responsible way to budget for
that program is to move it to the mandatory side.
Would this be done through SAFRA Legislation, you know, attached possibly to the Senate?
So at this point, we're putting it forth as a proposal. It'll obviously be up to Congressional
Leadership to decide whether to do it and how to do it, but we'll work with them. And
what's most important to us is that we get the maximum amount of funding into the hands
of students. So we'll work closely with them on any moving piece of legislation.
But an important part here, if I could ask the final question, would be taking care of
the shortfall on the mandatory side of the budget. That seems to be a general principle
of the administration going forward. Is that correct?
Yes, that is our proposal, and you know, we will work with Congress to ensure that we
do take care of the shortfall.
All right, thank you very much.
Good afternoon. Joan Wodiska with the National Governors Association. First, we'd like to--the
governors would continue to thank you for the funds that states receive in the state--fiscal
state stabilization fund. That has been incredibly helpful to stave off cuts to education, and
states are certainly facing probably the worse fiscal year ahead. In terms of assessment,
that's a question to--today two parts. The first, in terms of the funds that have been
reserved from Race to the Top for common assessments, as you know a number of states have already
signed consortia to develop assessments. Is the department's vision to fund a single consortia
of states to develop common assessment or to support multiple consortia of states to
develop common assessments? And the second part, on page 20, you talk about migrating
assessments to career and college ready standards and new assessments. Could you describe a
little bit more the vision of the department as it relates to the $450 million?
So, the details of the application and the grant program under the Race to the Top assessment
initiative are still being determined. Our lead on the Race to the Top Program, Joan
Weiss, is working on that. As you know, she's been gathering input from experts across the
country around that. So, I can tell you that those are the types of things that we're still
working on. We are very encouraged by the work led by your organization, the National
Governors Association and CCSSO around a set of common standards and would like to ensure
that as we move forward with those standards, that there are high quality assessments aligned
to the new college and career ready standards. We do not intend to mandate a set of national
standards, but we want to look for ways to continue to provide incentives and support
to the state driven-process around raising standards so they're matched a College-and-Readiness
Standard.
Pat Smith from SQ; and we'd like to ask about income-based repayment that, if I understand
the numbers in here, that for existing loans, it's costing about 1.7 billion and--but in
the future, I'm not sure what it would be starting in the--with the--President's budget
year. And I assume that the reason that it costs at all is because of in-school inter-subsidy
for subsidized loans in the first few years, and if that's not the case, I'd be interested
in knowing that, too.
The total cost is about $8 billion over ten years, and there're always costs if you have
loans that are defaulted or other things going on. In-school inter-subsidies is a cost, but
the loans would--some of them would be canceled before we got back all the interest that would
normally be paid us. So that's a cost.
So it's a mixture of those things?
Right.
That a first statement? Thank you.
Hi, my name is Yael Saflukin (ph) with the National Council of La Raza. I have a question
about the English learner education program which is currently under Title III. I understand
that it sounds like the majority of the funding will still continue to be formula funding.
But do you have an idea about what the proportion would be? Or what competitive grants would
be in terms of the actual numbers versus formula?
So, I can tell you that the $50 million dollar increase that's in our budget we're proposing
be dedicated to the national activities competitive funding.
I see. Thank you.
Hi, Kim Hymes with the Council for Exceptional Children. I had just a quick question about
the Javits on gifted and talented education program which has been one of the consolidated
programs. As Jane mentioned earlier, kind of similar to her situation, the Javits competition
was just opened up last year and grants has just been awarded, either three or three year
grants which are in their first year of completion and only have one year of funding attached
to them. Can you just explain what will happen if this budget were to go through for year
two of the existing grants?
There's funding that would cover the continuation grants.
Great.
Thank you again for that briefing today. Jonathan Moody of the American Legislative Exchange
Council and Association of State Legislators. In following up to the question from the SGA,
what would you say are maybe the top two takeaways for state legislators working on education
reform this year from the changes in this budget and especially in regards to increasing
in school choice and other programs?
So, I would say that the takeaways are, you know, a clear indication that education is
a priority for the President and for the administration, and to focus on rewarding success, and a focus--looking
for ways to provide additional flexibility at the state and local level with respect
to how funds are used. We think that under the current fragmented program structure,
folks at the state and local level have dozens of programs that they have to keep track of,
make sure they're in compliance with. We have to be very focused on whether state local
and actors are in compliance with federal requirements under each of the programs. So
we think by streamlining, setting forth the new framework that focuses on key areas where
the Federal government can have the greatest leverage, that we will become less compliance
driven and more supportive of success and innovation, and hopefully, help folks at the
state and local level to also be more focused on success and innovation as opposed to program
compliance.
Thank you.
Jeff Simering with the Great City Schools. The funding and the budget proposal is good,
if not commendable; a little concerned, obviously, about the flat funding for Title I for FY
'11, at least, the Title I regular program. We see our schools hitting the funding cliff
for ARRA, contemporaneous with when the program year kicked in for FY '11. And I think there
is a certain concern about holding back a billion dollars until we get a political consensus
on ESEA. I don’t see any proposal anywhere around that holds back the increases in child
nutrition funding, although the child nutrition funding reauthorization is certainly delayed.
I don’t see any proposal to hold back the Medicare and Medicaid funding increases for
either services or administration waiting for health reform legislation to go through.
I guess I'm wondering why the justification for flat funding the regular Title I one schools
in the budget until we get a political consensus on ESEA.
So, obviously, the budget does contain a--I would argue it's very substantial increase
in funding for elementary and secondary education regardless of what happens with reauthorization.
The President and the Secretary felt that additional funding would be--could be very
effectively used once a reauthorization is complete, but we, obviously, are supporting
significant increase in the meantime. We--and as you know, provided $10 billion in funding
through the Recovery Act for Title I to deal with the state budget cuts. As you know, there's
legislation moving through Congress right now that's tackling the jobs issue and we'll
be working closely with them to do our best to support creation of jobs, prevention of
unemployment, and to help stabilize state budgets.
Yeah, I think that, you know, the state stabilization fund for education that's currently pending,
it would be great but that doesn't entirely replace the education stabilization fund which
was substantially more than that. And certainly it doesn't replace $10 billion in Title I
which I don’t think we expected to be replaced. But when you hit that funding clip, the fact
that, you know, that contemporaneously you would hit a flat funding or freeze for Title
I, I think it's just a continuing concern here.
Thanks, Jeff. We got about five minutes left here in time, folks.
Don Knezek with the International Society for Technology and Education. And I'd like
to explore a little bit in terms of the strategies that you expect to use in order to move programs
that you are funding since the enhancing education for your technology is not being funded. I'd
like to hear the strategies that you might have to move Title I, the teacher quality
programs that we revamped the programs for teacher quality and leader quality. We've
seen decades of funding for those yet we've seen little movement into the digital age
for those programs. So what are some strategies? What's the commitment of the administration
to be sure that we don’t put on hold yet another generation of students' futures?
So, we'd like to work with Congress in the reauthorization of the elementary, secondary
educational programs to ensure that there is a focus on building capacity both at the
state in the district level in terms of the use of technology, also ensure that students
are gaining the technology literacy skills. They need to be successful in the 21st century.
We'll be looking to fund innovation in this area in a very big way through the I3 program.
We're also working closely with the NSF who have similar funding streams to ensure that
we're maximizing the Federal investments in learning as much as we can from that. So,
it really is something that we're looking to make a very concrete part of multiple funding
streams. And we'd like to work with you as we, you know, develop these proposals and
get more specific, and you get your input on how we can improve upon this.
We'd love to work with you as well as I just know that change is difficult and sometimes
it takes pretty explicit expectations.
Um-hmm.
So, I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thanks. Narric, you may have the last question.
Thank you. Narric Rome, Americans for the Arts. In the complete education consolidation
section, do you anticipate providing further detail on the breakdown on the consolidated
programs to understand the expected grant support in each of those programs/
So, what we'd like to do is fund the best proposals. So if they're – if the intention
is not to break it down into individual programs again, that would just be reversing what we've
tried to accomplish as which is to have a larger funding stream available for people
with innovative ideas on how to promote arts education, history education, civics education,
financial literacy, environmental literacy, with the real focus on interdisciplinary teaching
so that we can, you know, help schools and districts figure out how to effectively teach
news arts to improve the teaching of other subjects.
Thanks. Cole, do wants to say anything about the provisions we've got in there for, you
know, in our competitions, I3 and others, for rural and other districts to give some
assurance to folks there?
Well, I will say that the Secretary and the President are committed to ensuring that the
move to competitive funding stream does not result in bias towards particular districts
or communities because of their geographic location. So, we are looking for ways to
– as we put forth this new competitive funding stream to ensure that rural districts and
other small districts have a chance to compete under equal footing. Some ways that we've
been talking about it terms of doing that would be to provide competitive priorities
to small districts. Another possibility would be to run separate competitions based on districts
size. So, those are things that we haven't fully flushed the details out on but that
we're committed to working with folks to make sure we get it right.
Thank you. Anything else to add, Tom?
All of the material is on the web at ed.com
All right. OK. All right, thank you all for starting your week with us and we will talk
to you guys soon.