Congress

Higher Ed Roundup: Week of November 17 - November 21

Ed Policy — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:00:00 -0500

Bush Administration Announces More Relief for FFEL Lenders

Opposition to Private Student Loan Bailout Mounts

Department of Ed Data Project Sparks Controversy

High Costs Keep Thousands of Qualified Students Out of College, Survey Finds

Bush Administration Announces More Relief for FFEL Lenders

Using authority granted by Congress to the Department of Education last May, the Bush administration announced Thursday another avenue of financial support to lenders in the Federal Family Loan (FFEL) Program who are struggling to meet their commitments for the current academic year. Under the new program, lenders will be able to sell up to $500 million a week of loan debt issued in the 2007-08 academic year directly to the government. The government will pay lenders 97 percent of the original value of the loan. The new loan purchase program will run until February 28, 2009, serving as a temporary bridge until the Department's other recently announced plan to provide liquidity conduits to FFEL loans issued between October 1, 2003 and July 1, 2009 goes into effect.

Opposition to Private Student Loan Bailout Mounts

Groups representing students, consumers, and some colleges this week urged U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to reconsider plans to bailout private student loan providers. In a letter to Paulson, these groups wrote that it would be counterproductive for the government to ensure that lenders and colleges can continue to load students up with high-cost private student loan debt. "A bailout for the providers of usurious private student loans will not solve the college affordability crisis caused by the failing economy, and would actually be detrimental to many students and consumers," the groups wrote. The letter, which was spearheaded by the Project on Student Debt, was intended to rebut an earlier letter sent by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators that encouraged the Treasury Secretary to use a portion of the $700 billion bailout package to provide liquidity to companies that make private student loans. [Disclosure: Higher Ed Watch is supported in part by Institute for College Access and Success, the sponsor of the Project on Student Debt, with funds provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts.]

Department of Ed Data Project Sparks Controversy

The nation's leading higher education associations are up in arms about a proposal by the U.S. Department of Education's Inspector General (IG) to create a massive federal database that would include personally identifiable information of individuals who have applied for grants, loans, or contracts from the agency. The IG says the plan would simply consolidate information the Department already collects in nine different databases in order to better detect fraud and abuse in the agency's programs. The college groups, however, objected to "the scale and the scope of data collection proposed," and said the IG is seeking waivers to the federal privacy act that would allow it to unilaterally share information contained in the database with third parties. While applauding the IG's efforts to crack down on fraud and abuse, the associations said Congress never intended "to allow the creation of a Big Brother-like surveillance system by any IG, or to permit any IG to set itself up as a data mart of information on U.S. citizens."

High Costs Keep Thousands of Qualified Students Out of College, Survey Finds

Thousands of students who are qualified for college do not pursue a higher education because they do not believe they can afford it, are unaware of financial-aid opportunities, and fail to take steps necessary to apply for college, according to a new report by the Institute of Higher Education Policy and the Education Resources Institute (TERI). The report is based on a survey of 1,800 college-qualified students -- 1,000 of which did not go to college -- and 600 high school guidance counselors. The researchers found that students who chose not to enroll were more likely to come from low-income families, be of minority background, and have parents with lower educational attainment. Of the college-qualified students surveyed, 80 percent said the availability or lack of grants of scholarships played a key role in their decision of whether or not to enroll. Meanwhile, 63 percent said the price of college was an "extremely" or "very" important consideration in their decision-making process. The report's authors recommend that the federal government and states invest in programs that make early financial aid commitments to high school students who meet "certain standards of college readiness."

HEALTH POLITICS: The Hill is Alive with the Sound of Health Reform

Elizabeth Carpenter — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:11:00 -0500

Julie Andrews may have made "The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Music," famous, but it looks like our nation may be singing another song before too long because another hill—Capitol Hill—is alive with the sound of health reform.

Yesterday, in the midst of Senator Ted Kennedy's return to the Senate and bipartisan talks about a legislative strategy to fix our health care system, Senator Max Baucus and his colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee gathered to explore the economic aspects of our health care crisis.

The overwhelming message coming from the Committee was clear: fixing our health care crisis is an economic issue.

Finance Committee Chair, Senator Baucus, invoked LBJ's "walk and chew gum at the same time" phrase, and said:

We are clearly facing a significant recession. That economic challenge commands a significant investment of government resources. Some say that we will have to choose between fixing the economy and enacting comprehensive health reform. I reject that false choice. I say, we can and should do both. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Not only can we, but we have to.

Going on to quote New America's Cost of Doing Nothing report, Baucus said,

A recently-released report from the New America Foundation states it well. It says: ‘We must reform our struggling health system not in spite of our economic crisis, but rather because of the impact health care has on the American economy. The economic and social impact of inaction is high and it will only rise over time.

Republican Ranking Member, Senator Chuck Grassley, followed up on Senator Baucus' remarks:

We must acknowledge the problem that spiraling increases in health care spending create for our economy...Rising health care costs affect jobs when employers struggle to cope with the cost of providing health coverage to workers and those costs affect our competitiveness internationally.

SEIU President and witness, Andy Stern, went on to link our health care crisis to the recent meltdown of our financial markets:

When it comes to the health care crisis, we have to take a lesson from the economic crisis: the longer we wait, and the less we do, the worse it gets.

Health reform cynics beware—with the growing momentum for action in the air, fixing our health care system may soon become one of Congress' "favorite things."

COST: The Price is Right for Health Reform

Paul Testa — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:11:00 -0500

When you're home sick with a non-fatal strain of the hantavirus, there's nothing quite as comforting as watching a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the Economic Outlook and Options for Stimulus. It's sort of the wonk equivalent of the Price is Right, except that instead of trying to win a new car or spin a giant wheel, Senators are trying to save the auto industry and stop the whole economy from spinning....

The two-hour hearing on Wednesday included lively debate on the need for, and nature of, a second stimulus package. While much of the discussion focused on macroeconomic issues (targeted vs. broad, temporary vs permanent, short term stimulus vs. long term etc.) here are a few quick health policy highlights:

More than 1.2 million jobs have been lost in the past year, hitting virtually every sector of the economy. One of the few industries to see gains in employment? Health Care.
There seemed to be a consensus among that increasing direct aide to the states—such as by increasing FMAP rates—was one of the best ways to provide immediate bang for the stimulus buck as states are already struggling to maintain current programs like SCHIP and Medicaid.
Spending on infrastructure and technology is a favorite of stimulus junkies looking to generate real assets and returns on investments. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) suggested that the Committee might look at Health IT and health care in general.

More broadly speaking, the tenor of the discussion had similarities to current debate around health care. Action is needed not in spite of financial woes but precisely because of our current economic state. The cost of doing nothing is far greater than the price of reform.

Congress and the PART

Heather Rieman — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:00:00 -0500

While PART ratings have a limited affect on the President's budget request, it appears they have almost no affect on the actual funding levels Congress appropriates. Programs rated "ineffective" largely continue to receive funding, while programs rated "effective" do not necessarily get increases in funding.

Why ?

Many people in Congress are unaware of the PART or have limited information about it. We called several congressional staff and asked whether they thought the PART ratings were useful and whether they were actually used to make decisions about funding levels. The majority of staffers told us that they either didn't know what the PART was or had only limited information about it. Committee staffers were more aware of the PART, but did not always have a clear sense of what it actually was or feel that it was particularly useful. If Congress doesn't have a good understanding (or in some cases even know) of PART, it is difficult for them to factor it into its funding decisions.

PART results come from the executive branch and in Congresses eyes are often considered to be subjective. The PART is run by the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the Executive branch under the control of the President. While PART results are reported to Congress, Congress does not play a role in implementing the ratings. Additionally, as we've mentioned in the past, PART is not an entirely objective process and may be vulnerable to ideological influence. One staff person we spoke to called the PART a "political ploy" used to justify programs the Administration supports. Because Congress is removed from the PART process and may not trust its results, they are less likely to use it.

Influenced by their constituencies, their beliefs and their politics, Members of Congress will often support particular programs whether or not they are found to be effective. Many members of Congress have specific programs or policies that they champion as a result of their constituencies, their politics, or their beliefs. Even if Congress was fully aware of the PART and trusted its results, it is unlikely that members would abandon their favorite programs based on a bad PART review. Because many programs have strong constituencies of beneficiaries and service providers, it is difficult for Members to cut funding without political repercussions.

Some members of Congress have spoken about and do use PART results on occasion - when it serves their purposes. Primarily, Members use PART to provide evidence for increasing funding for programs they support, and cutting funding for programs they don't. A report from the Journal of Public Budgeting and Finance examined the congressional record to see how often Congress actually used the PART. In the 109^th Congress, members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Senate Education Labor and Pension Committee discussed PART results in only 2 percent of hearing reports.

A number of bills supporting or refuting the PART have been introduced in Congress. In 2005, Representative Todd Platts (R-PA) introduced the Program Assessment and Results Act (PARA). The bill would have required OMB to review programs every five years in a format based on the PART.

In 2006, a 2007 appropriations bill from the House Appropriations Committee on Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services included language that prohibited the use of funds to conduct PART reviews on programs administered by those agencies unless Congress specifically approved a study. Ultimately Congress rolled this appropriations bill into an Omnibus Appropriations Bill without the added language/condition.

While Congress hasn't used PART much in the appropriations process, PART reviews are sometimes considered during the reauthorization process. After undergoing a PART review, each program is given an improvement plan with recommendations on how to strengthen management and performance. These recommendations sometimes include working with Congress to strengthen the statute or change the program design.

During the recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, for example, information from the PART reviews of TRIO and the Federal Family Education Loan program were considered during debates surrounding the legislation.

The upcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act provides a good opportunity to use information from PART to strengthen programs and improve accountability. Similarly, Congress may want to consider building some of their own accountability measures into the new legislation. That way Congress can ensure that evidence exists to inform PART reviews and help direct how programs are assessed by PART and other evaluations. Ultimately, Congress may be more likely to pay attention to PART results if they play a role in developing the assessment framework.

Up next in the Ed Money Watch PART Series: An in-depth look at an individual program's PART assessment

COST: Why We Must Reform Our Nation's Health Care System

Health Policy — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:24:00 -0500

The following piece was originally posted on The Hill's Congress Blog.

We Must Reform Our Nation’s Healthcare System Because Of The Costs It Has On The U.S. Economy

On one hand you have Senator Ted Kennedy’s return to the Senate and Senator Max Baucus’ bold call to action on health care reform. On the other you have an economy in turmoil and worries about our nation’s fiscal future. In the middle is a question that comes as no surprise: can we really afford health reform? At the New America Foundation we respond with a different question: can we afford to wait any longer?

As our recent data analysis shows, failing to fix our broken health system is greater than the cost of investing in reform. Consider that the U.S. economy lost as much as $207 billion in 2007 because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. This is over $4,500 per uninsured resident – more than the cost of providing that person with quality health coverage.

Furthermore, health care costs will continue to grow faster than wages if we do not act. This will make health care increasingly unaffordable for more and more American families every day. In fact, we project that in 2016 half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to secure health insurance for themselves and their families.

Meanwhile, the employer health care burden is undermining the ability of U.S. firms to compete and leading more and more American jobs overseas. Rising health care costs represent the single largest threat to the financial stability of federal, state, and local governments. As CBO Director Peter Orszag echoed in a recent post on his blog, we cannot secure our nation’s long-term fiscal future without fixing our health care system.

Our nation will recover from its current economic situation. But when it does the U.S. will still be faced with a crumbling health system. In the meantime, the cost of inaction is high. It will only rise over time. We must reform our nation’s health care system not in spite of our current economic crisis, but rather precisely because of the impact health care costs have on the American economy.

HEALTH POLITICS: Kennedy Returns to the Senate

Paul Testa — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:16:00 -0500

For the first time since July, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) has returned to the Capitol. And part of the first order of business for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is bipartisan meetings with other movers and shakers on health reform.

CongressDaily (subscription) reports that Kennedy's plans include meeting Senate Finance chairman, Max Baucus (D-MT) , HELP's top Republican Michael Enzi of Wyoming, and Finance ranking member Charles Grassley of Iowa. The four will discuss legislative strategy for moving health reform forward and the roles of their respective committees.

In a statement released by his office, Kennedy said:

It's good to be back in the Senate. I am particularly looking forward to seeing my staff and my colleagues and to working in the current brief session on a realistic new stimulus package to help our fellow Americans who are suffering in this economic crisis.

I will also continue to lay the ground work for early action by Congress on health reform when President Obama takes office in January. We've been making real progress in our discussions about a consensus approach, and I'm optimistic we'll succeed.

I am grateful for the prayers and good wishes I've received over the past several months. They have certainly lifted my spirits, as has the election of Barack Obama as our 44th President.

If you want to go to the videotape, the Politico has it.

IN THE NEWS: Bloggers on Baucus

Paul Testa — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:35:00 -0500

There's nothing bloggers love more than a white paper. Like a new season of Top Chef, the release of Senator Max Baucus's blueprint for health reform on Wednesday has set the blogosphere a flutter.

Earlier today, Len Nichols, the director of the health policy program at New America Foundation, offered his insights own our blog here. Len focuses on how original elements in the Baucus plan, combined with some of the basic reform building blocks that are widely appreciated, could advance the goal of achieving bipartisan support for comprehensive reform. The piece is cross posted on the National Journal's Health Care Experts blog, which features posts from some major players in health care including the AMA and AHA, all of which are fairly complimentary of the plan and optimistic about health reforms place on the agenda going forward.

Here's a round-up of some of the other first-takes and reactions to the Baucus plan:

The Politico's Ben Smith's picks up the response from President-elect Barack Obama's camp: "President-elect Obama applauds Chairman Baucus's work to draw attention to the challenges of the health system and looks forward to working closely with the Chairman and other Congressional leaders, as well as the American public, to make quality, affordable health care a reality for all Americans."
In a press release Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) says: "Senator Baucus's white paper is a major contribution to the debate on health reform. It provides an important analysis of the urgent need for significant improvements in our health care system, and thoughtful recommendations for reform. I look forward to working with Senator Baucus, our colleagues in Congress on both sides of the aisle, and the Obama Administration to see that we at last achieve the goal of quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Senator Baucus's white paper brings us closer to that goal."
The SEIU, Health Care For America Now, and Families USA also offer praise.
The New York Times' Paul Krugman is excited by the plan and says "There's now a reasonable chance that universal health care will be enacted next year!"
The Wall Street Journal's Health Blog calls the plan: "another sign that the economic crisis may not delay the Democrats' push for ambitious health reform."
With eight posts on the Baucus plan, we haven't seen The American Prospect's Ezra Klein this excited since he found a good recipe for huevos rancheros. Ezra attended the press conference, and reacts first to the plan's policies and then, its politics.
The Health Care Blog's Sarah Arnquist writes on the inclusion of an individual mandate in the plan and notes "opponents realized that if they wanted community rating and guaranteed issue the mandate was necessary."
In a two part post (one, two), HealthBeat's Maggie Maher praises Baucus for his candor in laying out the issues in a comprehensive manner and notes, "The individual mandate is necessary because Baucus is barring insurers from charging higher premiums or denying coverage outright to people with pre-existing conditions."
Kevin MD writes on the plan's focus primary care and concludes, "If this plan is the foundation for future legislation, it is reassuring to know that primary care will be the centerpiece of reform."
Writing on Baucus decisions to put the employer tax exclusion for health care on the table, the Wonk Room's Igor Volsky notes: "Baucus pairs employee-tax tweaks with market reforms that would increase access to group coverage.
Also writing on the tax exclusion, Howard Gleckman at Tax Vox says that "done right, scaling back the exclusion can greatly enhance our current system of insurance."

As always, we'll keep you updated and check back next Wednesday for a summary of the Senate Finance hearing, "Health Care Reform: An Economic Perspective".

HEALTH: Baucus Plan Highlights Importance Bipartisanship and Cost of Inaction

Len Nichols — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:37:00 -0500

This post also appears on the National Journal's Health Care Experts Blog. where you can also see what other health policy analysts have to say.

On Wednesday, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) made clear that reforming our health care system is an economic imperative and that comprehensive health care reform should be a priority for Congress. I applaud his leadership, vision, and willingness to work with colleagues, stakeholders and the public to "get it done" in this Congress. He has laid down a key cornerstone in our pathway to a high quality health care system that works well for all Americans.

Senator Baucus emphasized two important messages on Wednesday: 1) The cost of "inaction is much more expensive" than reform, 2) We should approach health reform with a bipartisan attitude and endeavor to persuade "80 Senators" to support the final legislation. I believe the health care reform conversation would be well-served to continue to remember and echo these two points.

As for policy, the Baucus policy plan is extensive, so today I will simply highlight what I view as the most original contributions.

Counter-cyclical FMAP formula. As the economy weakens and people lose jobs and income, more Americans will become eligible for Medicaid or some kind of safety net insurance. This occurs just as states are compelled to reduce spending to match their recession-induced drop in revenues. (The vast majority of states have balanced budget requirements). Scholarship suggests that a 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate leads to roughly 1 million more Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees. Senator Baucus' proposal to make the federal share of (FMAP) responsive to fluctuations in the economy is a great way to strengthen state and personal finances and access to care when they are in most peril. Our current economic situation is an appropriate time to implement this improved policy stance.

Immediate access to care for the uninsured. I was intrigued by Senator Baucus' thoughts on providing the chronically ill uninsured with immediate access to care. As we think about how comprehensive reform may be sequenced or phased-in, this may be one way we could provide instant relief to the uninsured with the greatest health needs while we work to establish the infrastructure and rules of the new marketplace and other key delivery system reforms.

Focus on payment reform. While Senator Baucus' decision to place an emphasis on payment reform is not surprising given the Finance Committee's expertise and jurisdiction, nonetheless the comprehensiveness of his vision is impressive. We will not control health care costs until we fundamentally restructure the incentives—for both patients and providers—in our health system. Senator Baucus offers several valuable policy solutions that would help achieve this goal.

In addition to these new ideas, Senator Baucus gently emphasizes three policy concepts which I have long believed will be necessary to achieve bipartisan support for comprehensive health reform.

New marketplace. Senator Baucus recognizes the weaknesses of the current individual and small group markets and proposes a new market or "exchange" where individuals and small businesses can purchase coverage regardless of their health history or where they live. There is much to debate about how best to structure this new marketplace, but it is encouraging that Senator Baucus-along with President-elect Obama and a growing number of members of Congress- has identified this policy choice as a key pillar of reform.

Individual requirement to purchase coverage. Senator Baucus prioritizes individual responsibility and makes clear that requiring individuals to purchase coverage (once coverage is accessible and affordable) will make health insurance markets work far more efficiently and fairly. His framing of this issue re-creates space for a dialogue about how best to introduce a requirement to purchase coverage into the American health care system. This is an important and necessary conversation that will likely engender much debate, since some liberals and some conservatives alike have opposed purchase mandates for very different reasons. Chairman Baucus should be applauded for his leadership in re-igniting this essential policy conversation.

Reforming the tax treatment of health insurance. Perhaps Senator Baucus' greatest single policy contribution in his "call to action" is the decision to highlight the need to consider changing the current tax preference for employer premium contributions. He did not advocate or demand it. Yet, he did state simply and boldly that changing the tax code for health insurance may be necessary to improve incentives and provide a source of funding for coverage expansion and delivery system improvements. After a tough political campaign in which this issue and many surrounding it became confused in campaign tit for tat, Senator Baucus should be commended for his leadership on this issue.

Real health reform will never be easy. Opponents will always work tirelessly and concoct new arguments daily. Still, proponents of comprehensive health reform have had a good couple of weeks. First, Senator Barack Obama's election shows that a majority of voters want and expect comprehensive health reform to be an important part of our nation's agenda in the next few years. The incoming administration also views health reform as a priority and a key component of a broader strategic vision to stabilize the financial future of the American middle class. In addition, Congressional leadership is apparent unlike 1992. First, Finance Chairman Baucus has boldly stepped up to declare health reform an economic imperative, whereas former Chairman Moynihan was cool if not downright hostile to health reform as a key agenda item in 1993-4. This "call to action," combined with Senator Kennedy's prodigious and ongoing work and the bipartisan bicameral cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act have all created far better pre-conditions for a national conversation than we had in 1992. Visionary business, labor, health stakeholder, and advocacy groups have also helped jump-start our essential health reform conversation. Senator Baucus has staked out a catalytic leadership role for himself at just the right time for our nation to act: now.

Higher Ed Roundup: Week of November 10 - November 14

Ed Policy — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:28:00 -0500

Paulson Says Student Loans to Benefit from Bailout

New York Governor Announces Spending Cuts for Higher Ed

Bush Administration Unveils Blueprint for Revised Financial Aid System

Transfer Students are Disengaged, Survey Finds

Paulson Says Student Loans to Benefit from Bailout

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced this week that he is expanding the administration's $700 billion bailout plan to aid consumer lenders, including student loan providers. "The illiquidity in this sector is raising the cost and reducing the availability of car loans, student loans and credit cards," Paulson said in a statement on Wednesday. "This is creating a heavy burden on the American people and reducing the number of jobs in our economy." While Treasury has thus far declined to give details about the proposal, industry observers expect that it will be focused on expanding the availability of high-cost private student loans. The bailout package that Congress approved in October gave the Treasury Secretary the authority to purchase "troubled assets," including private loans. At Higher Ed Watch, we are extremely wary of the government extending help to private student loan providers, many of whom engaged in predatory practices by pushing high-cost private loans on high-risk borrowers. We'll keep you updated when we learn more about the plan.

New York Governor Announces Spending Cuts for Higher Ed

Public colleges and universities in New York are the latest to be told to brace for midyear reductions in state funding. Gov. David Paterson's deficit reduction proposal, which he unveiled on Wednesday, calls for reducing state appropriations for the State University of New York (SUNY) and the City University of New York (CUNY) by $115 million this year and $238-million next year. If enacted, the plan would require tuition hikes for students from both systems, of $300 this spring and an additional $600 next fall. With the announcement, New York joins a growing list of states that have moved to cut funding for higher education to cope with growing revenue shortfalls and a sagging economy, including states that have already endured budget cuts earlier this year. Last week, for example, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed an across-the-board cut of 10 percent for the state's public colleges and universities, after asking California State University to give back $31.3 million earlier this year. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell has asked the state's public colleges to give up 4.25 percent of their current year appropriations as part of a broader effort to prevent a budget shortfall.

Bush Administration Unveils Blueprint for Revised Financial Aid System

As promised earlier this year, the Bush administration has unveiled a sweeping plan to overhaul the federal financial aid programs. The proposal, which Undersecretary of Education Sara Martinez Tucker submitted to Congress this week and shared with Inside Higher Ed, calls for:

Replacing the current Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) with a shorter, two-page form requiring easily obtainable information, mostly from IRS tax returns.
Consolidating programs, including eliminating the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program and Perkin's Loans.
Decoupling aid awards from the cost of attendance at an individual school - making it easier for the Department to send aid reports to students before they apply to college, and targeting federal aid to the students who need it the most.
Calculating aid awards based on the relationship between the average cost of attendance (tuition, room and board, and fees) at a public two-year college and the student's Adjusted Gross Income.

Tucker said that her plan provided "a rational approach to federal student aid" that would benefit students and taxpayers alike. The plan, which is expected to be met with stiff opposition from lobbyists for higher-priced colleges, will probably have a short shelf life, as the incoming administration is likely to have different priorities.

Transfer Students are Disengaged, Survey Finds

While many popular college rankings compare schools with each other, this year's National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE or "Nessie), a survey of quality of the student learning experience, finds significant variation among student groups within individual schools. For example, aggregate results of the survey, which was conducted at 722 four-year colleges nationwide, finds that transfer students lagged "native" students on most indicators of student engagement, including interaction with faculty outside of class, class preparation, and participation in extracurricular activities. Higher education experts say the finding is particularly significant, as increasing numbers of students are starting out at community colleges and then transferring to four-year institutions to reduce their costs. "Institutions of all types need to consider early and ongoing programs to engage their transfer students," the report states.

New Faces to Watch in the Congressional Freshman Class

Christina Satkowski — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:06:00 -0500

The 2008 election was a big debut for early education at the national level - not just in the presidential race, but in several congressional races as well. While a handful of races are headed for recount or runoff, we already we know of eight new senators and almost fifty new members of the House who are preparing for their first moves into offices on Capitol Hill.

If early education's starring role in the Obama platform is any indication, the coming months may see some important federal legislation to reform Head Start and boost funding for pre-kindergarten and child development programs. President-elect Obama has proposed a $10 billion "zero to five" plan to boost early care and learning programs. And the House Education and Workforce Committee has already passed legislation that would advance federal support for state pre-k programs.

The incoming 111^th Congress is "bluer" than the one it succeeds, which may signal a more favorable legislative environment for early education. But we know that any effective movement at the federal level will require a strong bi-partisan coalition of support. Early Ed Watch wants to know, who among this "freshman class" is poised to join the growing coalition of early education leaders in Congress?

We already know the names and faces of the current early education advocates in Congress, including Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), Rep. Mazie Hirono (D- Hawai'i), and Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.). Here are some other faces to watch out for:

First, to the Senate, which will soon welcome three former governors with strong records on early education:

Mark Warner (D-Va.): As governor of Virginia from 2002-06, Warner oversaw the first big expansion of the state's Preschool Initiative. In 2005, he established the Virginia Early Childhood Foundation, a public-private partnership that reached its goal of bringing preschool services to 100 percent of at-risk four-year olds not served by Head Start. The governor also worked to strengthen childcare regulations and professional development for early education instructors. This leadership to put school readiness front and center on the agenda paved the way for his lieutenant and successor, Gov.Tim Kaine, to champion expansion to a universal program.

Mike Johanns (R-Neb.): We aren't sure why he didn't highlight it in his Senate campaign, but this former governor and Secretary of Agriculture is one of the few incoming Republican congressmen with a record on early education. Early in his term as governor (1999-2005), Johanns succeeded in expanding funding for early childhood development programs in the state, and fiercely defended these funds in the face of a budget shortfall. He also pushed for full-day kindergarten and professional development grants to help childcare workers earn degrees in childhood development.

Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.): While governor of New Hampshire (1997-2003), Shaheen was chairwoman of the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and oversaw the ECS's two-year Early Learning Initiative, which sought to support states' efforts to improve early childhood programs and boost private sector support for early education. Back at home, Shaheen's efforts to improve early education, by convening early learning councils made up of public actors and local businesses, met with little success, however. New Hampshire is still one of only 12 states that has no publicly funded pre-k program, and is just about the only state in the country that doesn't even offer kindergarten to all its 5-year-olds. As a candidate for the Senate, Shaheen expressed support for federal incentive funding to help state boost their early childhood programs.

Other promising new faces in the Senate include two former state legislators: Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) says he will expand Head Start and early education funding, like he did as speaker of the House in Oregon. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) supports increased federal funding for Head Start and pre-kindergarten, expanded resources for teacher development, and promises to introduce legislation to create a federal grant program to support state pre-k programs. We are still waiting to hear senator-elect Jim Risch's (R-Idaho) position on early education, because he hasn't said much on education (and he hails from another of those 12 states with no pre-k program).

On the other side of the Capitol, we count 35 incoming Representatives to the House who made little or no mention of the importance early education (or education at all!) in their campaigns. There is however, a modest cadre of those who advocated early education in their public or private careers: Jared Polis (D-Colo. 2), an entrepreneur and former state board of education member who runs a foundation that promotes investments in early childhood programs; Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz. 1), who worked to establish full-day kindergarten while a state legislator in Arizona; Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla. 24), a state legislator who called attention to poor quality that was undermining Florida's Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten program; Walt Minnick (D-Idaho 1), who is part of a business coalition that pushes for voluntary pre-k in Idaho, which currently has no pre-k program; Mark Schauer (D-Mich. 7) who helped administer Head Start programs in Michigan; and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore. 5) who helped steer more money to early childhood programs as a state senator.

Of course, future actions will speak louder than words, and it is clear that education may have to fight for attention even in this new Congress. What do you think of your representatives' records on early ed? We want to hear from you.