Ed Money Watch

At Ed Money Watch, we discuss and analyze major issues affecting education funding. In our Friday News Roundup, we try to highlight interesting stories that might otherwise get overlooked. These stories emphasize how federal and state policy changes can affect local schools and districts.

Indiana College Leaders Urge Lawmakers Not to Cut Higher Ed Budget

Louisiana Lawmakers Approve Spending Plan, End Session

Federal Stimulus Money Will Stave Off Cuts from Classrooms in Delaware

Last week Education Secretary Duncan announced that $350 million of the $4.35 billion in Race to the Top funds for states will be dedicated to competitive grants to help states improve assessments of student achievement. This announcement was well timed with a forum held by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO) to introduce their Common Core State Standards Initiative. Combined, these two efforts could mean a significant change in both the expectations students are held to and the way in which their performance is measured.

The NGA/CCSSO Common Core State Standards Initiative represents a major step towards national standards for college readiness and student achievement in math and English-Language Arts. By signing on to the initiative, states are agreeing to participate in the creation of internationally benchmarked standards that they can then choose to adopt within three years. These standards aim to be clearer and more concise than existing state standards and should guarantee that students across the country are learning the same thing and are held to similar standards.

Every year the federal government provides billions of dollars worth of grants, loans, and other forms of assistance through mandatory funding to students pursuing a postsecondary education. Yet, according to the president's 2010 budget request, total mandatory funding (funding not provided through the appropriations process) for education programs in 2009 is negative $20.3 billion. Although a negative funding level is counterintuitive, it can be explained by the budgeting methods required for federal student loan programs.

The way the federal government reports the costs of new student loans makes up part of the negative 2009 funding figure. Most spending in the federal budget is accounted for on a cash basis -- that is, money appears in the budget as it is made available and spent. Loan program costs, however, are presented as the subsidy conferred by the federal government to borrowers and private lenders administering the loans. Even though the federal subsidy will be conferred to borrowers and lenders over the life of the loan, its total value shows up in the budget all at once, in the year the loan is made.

At Ed Money Watch, we discuss and analyze major issues affecting education funding. In our Friday News Roundup, we try to highlight interesting stories that might otherwise get overlooked. These stories emphasize how federal and state policy changes can affect local schools and districts.

Connecticut Student Loan Foundation Cannot Make New Loans

North Carolina Governor Proposes $1.5 Billion Tax Hike

In Hawaii, Governor Proposes Cuts to Education, Suggests Volunteerism

Oregon Governor Threatens to Veto Measure to Guarantee Reserve Money to Schools

The Department of Education recently approved the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) applications of five more states - Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Ohio - the District of Columbia. These states join the 26 states/territories that have already begun to receive funds. As of June 12th, nearly $3.9 billion in SFSF monies have been disbursed to states. (Previous posts analyzing the applications of the first 26 states/territories can be found here, here, here, and here.)

Two weeks ago, our sister blog Higher Ed Watch published a post uncovering the truth behind Kentucky's terminated teacher loan forgiveness program, "Best in Class." Although the Kentucky Higher Education Student Loan Corporation (KHESLC), the state's nonprofit student loan agency that administered the program, blamed federal subsidy cuts for the program's demise, Higher Ed Watch showed that the agency had engaged in questionable practices to collect these subsidies. Now, many Kentucky teachers enrolled in the program are in a financial bind and many stated their outrage in comments on the blog. One commenter suggested Kentucky use it's State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) under the 2009 economic stimulus law to fund the program. Unfortunately, the structure of the SFSF makes this very unlikely.

The following op-ed originally appeared in U.S. News & World Report on Friday, June 12^th and can be accessed here. The full report, Equitable Resources in Low Income Schools: Teacher Equity and the Federal Title I Comparability Requirement, can be read here.

Imagine for a moment that you are driving your child to the hospital. She has a high fever and is suffering from severe abdominal pain. It's unclear what's wrong but she is in definite need of medical attention.

Now imagine that the only doctor on call is a recently graduated medical student. It's her first day on the job and there is no experienced physician or surgeon available for consultation. Are you satisfied with this level of care for your child? I wouldn't be. I'd want to benefit from the knowledge of a more experienced physician. Wouldn't you?

Unfortunately, a similar scenario is playing out in America's urban classrooms with shocking regularity. Teachers with the least experience are educating the most disadvantaged students in the highest poverty, most challenging schools. Low-income kids are being "triaged" not by experienced teachers, but by those with fewer than three years of teaching to go on.

At Ed Money Watch, we discuss and analyze major issues affecting education funding. In our Friday News Roundup, we try to highlight interesting stories that might otherwise get overlooked. These stories emphasize how federal and state policy changes can affect local schools and districts.

Arizona Schools Receive Federal Stimulus Funds

Pennsylvania Education Secretary, Local Officials Push for Proper Use of Stimulus Funds

Teachers in Arizona Recalled After April Layoffs

California Legislative Committee Rejects Cal Grant Cuts

Data-Driven Schools See Improvements

The U.S. House of Representatives has taken another step in the annual process to determine fiscal year 2010 funding levels for most federal education programs. Fiscal year 2010 begins this October 1^st. This week, the House Appropriations Committee released the 302(b) suballocations to each of its subcommittees so that they may begin drafting fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills. While this development means little for federal education programs, it is the second step in a long process of narrowing funding decisions down to specific education programs.

Back in April, Congress adopted a budget resolution that set total fiscal year 2010 appropriations funding across all federal programs at $1.082 trillion, up $70 billion from the current fiscal year. The limit is called a 302(a) allocation after the relevant section of federal budget law. But this spending limit does not include any spending limits or recommendations for individual agencies or programs. It is only an aggregate limit on all federal discretionary spending. Individual funding levels for specific programs, including education programs, are determined by the 12 subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees in draft legislation that is voted on in the House and Senate.

It is no secret that California is in a heap of budget trouble for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, let alone the years after that. Thus far, California has taken its fiscal woes seriously with respect to federal education funding. It submitted and won approval for its State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) application in the very first round to ensure a quick flow of federal economic stimulus dollars. But a $2.0 billion dollar accounting mistake has led the state to submit a revision to its application that could enable Governor Schwarzenegger to cut education funding further.

Essentially, the California Department of Finance claims that it overestimated the state's maintenance of effort (MOE) baseline funding (based on the state's fiscal year 2006 spending levels) by $2.0 billion due to complications with "settle up" funds owed to school districts. The MOE determines the minimum amount of funding a state must provide to both K-12 and higher education in 2009 and 2010, enabling states to use SFSF dollars to fill in resulting budget gaps. This oversight allows the state significant flexibility in its state contributions for education funding in 2009 and 2010.