Spellings, Secretary of Education under President George W. Bush, came under fire during her tenure at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for calling No Child Left Behind nearly perfect.  Still, Spellings was quoted as saying, “we’ve learned a lot in the last 10 years, and we ought to act on what we’ve learned.”

The full statement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is available here.

Resources:
Alyson Klein, “U.S. Chamber of Commerce Puts its Stamp on ESEA Renewal,” Education Week: Politics K-12, May 5, 2011
Author: JCM

States like Kentucky, Florida, Iowa, and Illinois have begun their own internal investigations, and despite acknowledging being part of the coalition, each will continue to pursue their individual efforts.  Under the multistate arrangement, attorneys general from those States and others will share what they find and perhaps work jointly on investigations against companies with operations in several jurisdictions and on joint lawsuits against them.  The group might also develop a code of conduct for the proprietary colleges to follow, or possibly require the institutions to pay into a fund that would be used to reimburse students who were victims of false promises about colleges’ job-placement records or misinformation about the accreditation status of college programs.

The attorneys general are well positioned to pursue such efforts, Mr. Conway noted, because they’re chief enforcers of States’ consumer-protection laws. Under those and other statutes, he said, “you can get to some hefty penalties.”  Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Iowa’s Attorney General, Tom Miller, said the arrangement will “facilitate the sharing of information” among the attorneys general.  Along with the attorneys general of Kentucky, Florida, Illinois, and Iowa, the “working group” on for-profit colleges also includes Oregon’s John Kroger, a spokesman there confirmed Wednesday. A spokesman for New Mexico’s Attorney General, Gary K. King, said he had not decided whether to join but was “definitely interested” in the investigation.  Although the identities of all participants have not been confirmed, Mr. Conway, a Democrat, said the group includes Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. Conway said the working group is not coordinating its efforts with any federal law-enforcement agencies and is separate from the regulatory and enforcement efforts of the U.S. Department of Education (ED).  Members of the group have, however, made connections with the investigative staffs of two key Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Tom Harkin and Richard Durbin (D-IL).  During the annual meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General, held in Washington in March, members of the group and Senate staffers discussed “ways we could work together in the future,” Mr. Conway said. Senators Harkin and Durbin have each held a series of hearings focused on potential abuses of student-aid funds by for-profit colleges.

Although this new group is acting independently, continued contact with key players in Washington is expected to continue.  Senator Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has made it his personal responsibility to find a legislative solution to a growing pot of “bad actors” in the for-profit sector.  The alleged impropriety on the part of for-profit recruiters, according to Harkin, is costing taxpayers millions in federal student aid that is going to private companies who continually fail to provide the higher education services for which they are responsible.  While this new investigation may have its own results in mind, it is sure that any information gathered will be key in Harkin’s regulatory plans moving forward.

Resources:
Goldie Blumenstyk, “Attorneys General in 10 States Mount Joint Investigation Into For-Profit Colleges,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 4, 2011.
Author: SAS

The challenges faced by rural schools and small school districts have been a subject of much discussion surrounding programs like Race to the Top, School Improvement Grants, and other educational programs.  These schools and districts often have fewer resources, grant writers, and trained program personnel than their urban or more affluent counterparts, and find it difficult to generate successful grant applications.

Resources:
Michele McNeil, “Duncan: Rural America Must Create College-Going Culture,” Education Week: Politics K-12, May 4, 2011.
Author: JCM

ED will invite a number of participants, including students, families, teachers, teacher educators, college access professionals, and others, but is also inviting members of the public to register.  Those who would like to register should email HigherEducationRoundtable.2011@ed.gov and list the name of the participant, his or her affiliation, which of the three policy discussions he or she would like to participate in, and whether he or she would like to attend the roundtable in Nashville, TN, Tacoma, WA, Chicago, IL, or Charleston, SC.

The schedule for the roundtables is available on ED’s website here.

Resources:
Stephen Sawchuk, “Education Department to seek feedback on Teacher Ed. Accountability,” Education Week: Teacher Beat, May 4, 2011.
Author: JCM

The White House issued a statement of administration policy May 2 promising to “strongly oppose legislation that attempts to erode the important provisions of the Affordable Care Act.”  Republican proponents of the bill seized on the fact that the Obama Administration did not specifically threaten to veto the legislation, calling it proof that the measure might gain traction in the Senate.  Supporting the Administration’s opposition, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, has said that H.R. 1214 and other GOP efforts aimed at blocking funding for the law are “dead on arrival.”

The health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) provided $50 million annually for fiscal 2010 through 2013 for grants to states for construction or renovations of school-based clinics or equipment upgrades or purchases for the clinics. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would reduce spending by $100 million over 10 years.

Resources:
Frances Symes, “House Backs Repeal of Funding for School-Based Health Centers,” CQ Today, May 4, 2011.
Author: SAS

This bill, numbered S. 827, has been introduced in previous Congresses but has failed to gain sufficient support to be passed into law.  It was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Also aiming to modify the school accountability system, Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) announced plans this week while visiting a North Carolina high school to introduce legislation aimed at turning around each State’s lowest-performing schools.  The legislation, the School Turnaround and Rewards (STAR) Act, would target the bottom 5% of schools in each State for intervention, requiring each to implement a model – nearly identical to those used by the School Improvement Grant program – to change the way they operate.  Successful schools would be eligible for rewards under the legislation.  Hagan hopes to integrate this system in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).  Secretary Arne Duncan commented on Hagan’s proposal, praising the rewards given to high-performing schools.  “With No Child Left Behind,” he said, “the only reward for excellence was you weren’t labeled a failure.  To me, that is so demotivating.”

Resources:
Alyson Klein, “Lawmakers Reintroduce Bill Allowing States to Opt Out of NCLB,” Politics K-12, April 28, 2011.
Reiley Wooten, “Sen. Kay Hagan announces plans to turn around schools,” The Herald-Sun, May 3, 2011.
Author: JCM

According to court papers, when the student involved in the suit was in 10th grade, her teachers became concerned that her work was “gibberish and incomprehensible” and that she had failed every class. The school district referred the girl to a mental health counselor, who recommended that the student be evaluated for learning disabilities. Ignoring the recommendation, the school promoted the girl to the 11th grade, despite her poor performance.  The student’s mother later made a request for an individualized education program (IEP) for her daughter, and the school district determined that the girl was eligible for special education services for a learning disability.

Following the district’s determination, the mother brought an administrative claim under the IDEA, arguing that the school district failed under the law’s requirement to identify the girl’s disabilities sooner. This “child find” requirement obliges States to ensure that all children with disabilities who are in need of special education services are identified, located, and evaluated.  An administrative law judge largely sided with the family, ordering as much as 150 hours of compensatory tutoring for the girl’s lost educational opportunities. However, the judge refused the family’s request for a private school placement at public expense.

The school district appealed that ruling in federal district court, arguing among other things that if the family prevailed, students with disabilities would be able to bring “educational malpractice” claims against districts.  This argument was rejected both by the district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.  In a 2-1 decision in March 2010, the 9th Circuit panel rejected the school district’s assertion that IDEA does not authorize claims where there was no affirmative refusal to act on the part of district officials.  The court held that there was a broad jurisdictional mandate under the federal special education law, and that in this case there was “willful inaction” on the district’s part in the face of numerous “red flags” about the student’s disabilities.  The case, Compton Unified School District v. Addison (Case No. 10-886), will now wait as the Solicitor General’s office crafts a response.

Resources:
Mark Walsh, “Justices Seek U.S. Views on Special Education Case,” Education Week: School Law Blog, April 18, 2011.
Author: SAS

Acknowledging the likelihood of additional cuts to the Pell program, the group’s suggestions comprise the changes it believes would allow Pell to best serve students in the long term.  These changes include:

• Increasing the number of credit hours needed to qualify for full-time status under Pell from 12 per semester to 15.  The group expects this change to save money and encourage students to graduate on time;
• Limiting the number of years of eligibility from nine to six or eight to ensure timely graduation but still allow students time for remedial coursework;
• Changing the automatic zero provision which eliminates the expected family contribution (EFC) for families with incomes under $30,000 per year.  These families would still automatically qualify, but would have a minimal EFC of $500 or $1,000; and
• Changing the Pell eligibility formula, but rely on information already collected rather than requiring students to submit new information.

The group has also suggested an “ability to benefit” test or another method to restrict the grants to students and colleges committed to academic success.

The full letter is available here.

Resources:
Becky Supiano, “Student-Aid Experts Suggest Trims for Pell Grant Program,” Chronicle of Higher Education, April 18, 2011.
Author: JCM

James Kvaal, Deputy Under Secretary of Education said this should give breathing room to institutions and States to work together to come into compliance with the new regulations.  Kvaal told reporters he hoped that this would satisfy the objections of college leaders, though he doesn’t necessarily expect it will appease everyone.  One group that is likely to remain unsatisfied is the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, which sued ED in January to stop enforcement of the rule on State authorization and two other regulations issued in October.  Meanwhile, senior leaders at two other college associations, which had asked ED to withdraw the rule on state approval, and pleaded with Congress to delay its implementation, offered mixed assessments of the concession.

“Our first goal was to have the effective date [of the regulation] deferred,” said Dr. M. Peter McPherson, President of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, which had lobbied hard over the last 10 days for a delay. “But ‘good faith’ should be of some real assistance, and I am confident that many of our institutions will find this helpful.”  Terry W. Hartle, Senior Vice President for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, called ED’s plan for “softer” enforcement of the new rule a “step in the right direction,” but said that the delay would do nothing to alter the government’s decision to apply the existing “antiquated” system of State regulation to the new and complex world of distance education rather than helping colleges and state leaders create a new one.  He compared ED’s announcement to “putting a new coat of paint on a broken-down car — it looks better but it won’t necessarily run better.”

In making this announcement, ED officials were trying to find ways to address the various concerns of the higher education community, although officials concluded that they could not delay or significantly change the regulation itself without undermining the federal government’s position against legal challenges such as that from the private-sector colleges.  In a letter to colleges, ED insisted that the State authorization rule merely “reinforces current requirements that distance education programs be authorized by a State,” and that the regulation does not increase the requirements on States.  Acknowledging “complaints from some institutions, or their representatives, that they are encountering challenges in seeking and obtaining State authorization for distance education programs,” the guidance says ED will develop a “comprehensive directory” of State requirements to make it easier for colleges to apply for approval.  ED will also encourage efforts by States to coordinate their rules, perhaps through networks calling for reciprocity between the different State’s approval requirements.

Most significantly, however, ED said it “will not initiate any action to establish repayment liabilities or limit student eligibility for distance education activities undertaken before July 1, 2014, so long as the institution is making good faith efforts to identify and obtain necessary State authorizations before that date.” The letter seeks to define “good faith” efforts, saying they could include such things as “developing a distance education management process for tracking students’ place of residence when engaged in distance education,” contacting a State directly to discuss its programs, or applying to a State for authorization.  Whether or not this extension will actually protect institutions over the next three years will depend on how ED chooses to enforce this “good faith” requirement.

You can view ED’s letter here.

Resources:
Doug Lederman, “Breathing Room on State Authorization,” Inside Higher Ed, April 21, 2011.
Author: SAS

According to the final audit report, the four LEAs reviewed by OIG generally used ARRA funds in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance.  However, OIG did identify instances of noncompliance with applicable federal requirements resulting in more than $179,757 in unsupported payroll expenses paid with ARRA Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (Title I); Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B (IDEA); and State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) funds.  In addition, at the Recovery School District (RSD), OIG identified more than $29,000 in unallowable expenses paid with ARRA IDEA funds.

The report asserts that LDE and the selected LEAs did not ensure that data reported were accurate, reliable, and complete.  The LEAs, as well as LDE, all had data quality errors in the expenditure information that was reported by LDE to FederalReporting.gov for the first four ARRA reporting periods.  The LEAs understated expenses totaling more than $2.8 million for the first four reporting quarters.  In addition, all four LEAs visited incorrectly reported jobs saved or created to LDE.  OIG found that LDE did not have internal controls to ensure that policies or procedures were followed to verify and report required ARRA data elements to include expenditures, jobs created/retained, and to report errors identified after submission of reports.

One item likely to raise a number of eyebrows was in the first finding listed in the report, which said, “specifically, the LEAs did not have time and effort documentation, the applicable semi-annual certifications, personnel activity reports, or attendance documentation for the employees paid with ARRA IDEA, Title I, and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF).”  This would seem to imply a requirement for keeping time and effort documentation for SFSF, which is contrary to what many school administrators and education experts believed.  However, when discussing the specific finding as it relates to SFSF, it appears the auditors only questioned “additional payment” of employees with SFSF funds, as opposed to unsupported payments.  Although this did not lead to any request for recovery of funds, it is an issue that school administrators should keep an eye for it future OIG audits.

OIG recommends that the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and the Director of the Implementation and Support Unit (ISU) require LDE to:

• Provide documentation to adequately support $179,757 in ARRA Title I, IDEA, and SFSF payroll expenditures or return the funds to the Department;
• Return $29,301 of unallowable ARRA IDEA payroll expenditures to ED;
• Ensure that all LEAs provide training to appropriate staff regarding Federal payroll requirements;
• Establish and implement controls to ensure policies and procedures are followed to verify and report required ARRA data elements to include expenditures and jobs created/retained information; and
• Work with LEAs to establish a consistent cut-off date for reporting data and to utilize the continuous corrections period to update information when necessary.

You can view the full report here.

Author: SAS