The House and Senate were both out of town this week. They left Washington for their home districts and states to celebrate the 4th of July, but not before a flurry of activity that had education advocates busy. The Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee (LHHS), the House Appropriations Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee all debated and approved spending for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. While the proceedings were all polite and collegial, it’s clear that Democrats and Republicans have strong—and very different—opinions about how those agencies should be funded in FY 2016.

The Senate LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee spent less than 30 minutes debating their spending bill. Under the plan, the Department of Education (ED) would receive $65.5 billion—a $1.7 billion cut compared to current levels. The proposal was less draconian than the plan approved via a partisan vote by the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday; that proposal slashes ED’s budget by $2.8 billion and eliminates 20 programs. The Senate proposes eliminating 10 programs, like the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, Preschool Development grants, and—much to the dismay of Subcommittee Ranking Member Murray, the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program. Senate Subcommittee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-MO) noted that the panel’s paltry allocation required cuts throughout the bill and a certain focus on “core programs.”

Education advocates note that School Improvement Grants would be cut by $56 million in the Senate plan, Promise Neighborhoods would be cut by $20 million and 21st Century Community Learning Centers would be reduced by $117 million. Among other proposed cuts: Teacher Quality State Grants would be cut by $103 million; $10 million would be taken from Safe and Drug-Free schools; English Language Acquisition would be cut by $25.3 million; and Advanced Placement spending would fall by $5.6 million. The Mathematics and Science partnerships program would see $141.3 million under the Senate bill—a cut of $11.4 million, but a proposal better than the House’s plan of no funding for ED’s only STEM-focused K-12 education program. Like the House plan, there were some increases proposed, including for Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and charter schools. Head Start would also get $8.7 billion—or a $100 million increase over current FY 2015 spending levels. 
 
The Senate’s full Appropriations Committee met to consider the LHHS package. Similar to the Subcommittee proceeding, Members were polite and complimentary, even though their disagreements were strong. When describing the bill to his colleagues, Senator Blunt noted the challenge of developing this bill, which spends money on issues that range from biomedical research to job training to elementary education, saying, “What this bill does is set priorities within the allocation our Committee was given.” He noted that the “tight allocation” required a close examination of programs and associated taxpayer dollars. He touted the proposed $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health—the largest in a decade—as a particularly bright spot of the measure. He also cited proposed increases for IDEA, charters schools and Pell Grants as laudable elements. 
 
Senator Murray responded to the Subcommittee Chairman’s remarks by thanking him for his hard work, but said that the bill must have bipartisan support to get a Presidential signature. She said the plan “doubles down” on detrimental, automatic spending cuts and includes “poison pill” policy riders. She said this spending bill should be central to the federal government’s efforts to grow the middle class and the current plan “moves us in the wrong direction.” If the country wants to invest in students, protect workers, care for families and take care of the most vulnerable, “we need to do better than this bill,” she said. Ultimately, the bill was reported out on a 16-14 partisan vote. Republican leadership remains committed to passing all 12 of the annual appropriations bills before the August recess. That will be a challenge. 
 
There was much activity on the appropriations front, but there was also news from Senate leadership regarding the consideration of the Every Child Achieves Act (S 1177). While advocates had been in some sticky negotiations for the last few weeks over the bill’s accountability and assessment details, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that the bill will be on the floor as soon as the Senate is back from next week’s recess. That means that at 2:30 p.m. on July 7th, a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will be on the floor of the Senate for the first time in 14 years. Fingers crossed!

State Accountability in ESEA
Representative Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) vigorously advocated for state mandated subgroup accountability in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Rep. Scott, the ranking member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, delivered remarks at the Capitol Building during an event hosted by the National Urban League (NUL). Scott began by citing that the original spirit of ESEA, first signed into law in 1965, was in line with other civil rights laws of that era, and that the intent was to address “the special needs of concentrations of low-income students and the impact they have on local education agencies.” The reason for the original ESEA was to equalize a system where schools were funded solely by property taxes, by making sure that students in low-income areas would have equal access to high quality education. However, he noted that the achievement gap, and the less-often discussed discipline gap, has resulted in under-educated and over-disciplined poor students which is responsible for failing schools and the school-to-prison pipeline. He went onto say that the current proposal to reauthorize the law in the House, the Student Success Act (H.R. 5) falls woefully short in addressing the needs of low-income, minority, and marginalized students and in many ways takes resources away from the schools that need it most. He argued that the Senate bill, the Every Child Achieves Act (S.1177) is better aligned with the intent of ESEA, but is still flawed on the issue of state accountability. Rep. Scott said that the use of data that was mandated in No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has been instrumental in helping states see that there is an achievement gap among different demographics, but that unless that disaggregated data is turned into actionable interventions, the data does very little. He colloquially joked, “You don’t fatten a pig by weighing the pig.” He advocated that states be obligated to act when they see an achievement gap or inequities in access to educational resources, access to college-preparatory classes, or a disproportionate use of discipline for minority students and students of color. Rep. Scott expounded on this idea further on Wednesday during a teleconference event hosted by the Alliance for Excellent Education (AEE) and moderated by AEE President and former West Virginia Governor Bob Wise. Rep. Scott discussed how accountability in this iteration of ESEA will be different than NCLB in that there will be an erosion of the federal role in determining what triggers an intervention and what intervention to take. Instead, he advocated that states should use data to determine when students are falling behind and then devise locally-tailored interventions, so long as they are “credible,” to address the gaps they are seeing. In a sense, this would correct the one-size-fits-all and inflexible corrective measures that were previously applied by the federal government, and instead empower states to act when they see achievement gaps. Rep. Scott further asserted that there is no one indicator that should trigger a state response – arguing that defined metrics such as the White House focus on the bottom 5% of schools or the “drop-out factories” where high schools are graduating 67% or less of their students are both part and parcel of the greater role states should take in determining which groups of students they are failing and then creating credible plans to address these failures. He ended both sessions by calling on local constituents to call their Congressional representative to let them know that accountability must be included in any ESEA reauthorization. For more information about the NUL event, go here.

House LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee Hosts First Markup in Years
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies (LHHS) marked up its FY 2016 spending bill. This is the first time in three years that the Subcommittee held an official hearing to mark up the annual appropriations bill. Even full Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) declared, “This is a rare day that we have this bill to be considered," and while Democrats and Republicans did not agree on the overall spending outlined in the bill, the relaxed banter back and forth among the Subcommittee’s leadership was markedly different than the tone of Subcommittee deliberations in the past several Congresses. Chairman Tom Cole’s (R-OK) opening remarks highlighted the increases in the LHHS bill which, according to him, focus on “advancing biomedical research, protect public health and ensur[ing] quality education services for those most in need across our country.” The bill that was voted out of Subcommittee on a straight party-line vote and includes $153 billion in discretionary funding, which is a reduction of $3.7 billion below the FY 2015 enacted level and $14.6 billion below the President’s FY 2016 budget request. According to the Majority’s press release, “Funding within the bill is targeted to proven programs with the most national benefit…while the bill reduces funding in lower-priority areas, and cuts ineffective or wasteful programs and agencies.” For the Department of Education this means a drastic $2.8 billion cut in its programs and the proposed elimination of more than 25 programs, but also some proposed increases in targeted areas, such as special education state grants, Head Start and programs that help first generation students prepare for college. Programs that were zeroed out included many high-profile Obama administration priorities, such as School Improvement State Grants, Investing in Innovation (i3) and Preschool Development Grants. Ranking Member DeLauro referred to the LHHS bill as the “People’s Bill”, noting that the bill “is about providing the people we represent the opportunity they need to get ahead in life. The programs that we fund level the playing field for low-income children looking to learn. ... Yet the majority has chosen this bill to bear the brunt of the cuts." DeLauro also emphasized her concern about the number of policy riders attached to the bill and concluded by lamenting the “woefully” underfunded allocation for the entire bill. To view an archived webcast of the mark up, click here. To view the draft bill, click here.

HEA Hearing on Accreditation
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) held a hearing on “Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act (HEA): Evaluating Accreditation’s Role in Ensuring Quality.” Witnesses and Senators agreed the current accreditation model is broken and in need of reform. In his opening statement, Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) stated his two main concerns about accreditation: “Is it ensuring quality? And is federal micro-management getting in the way?” Alexander suggested that neither Congress nor the Department of Education could better oversee institutional quality, but during his concluding remarks expressed interest in exploring a pilot program where the Department accredits and awards aid to colleges. The panelists discussed several reforms to HEA surrounding accreditation, including revising the regional accreditation model, reducing the regulatory role of accreditors, better incorporating students within the accreditation process, greater transparency, and a risk-based accreditation system. Dr. Peter Ewell, Vice President of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems and Anne Neal, President of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, urged Congress to move away from the one-size fits all approach and argued for greater transparency. Ewell and Dr. George Pruitt, President of Thomas Edison State College, spoke highly of a risk-based accreditation system where oversight could focus on high-risk institutions. Pruitt said that federal regulations and compliance get in the way of accrediting agencies performing their original purpose of assessing the quality of institutions. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Al Franken (D-MN), and Chris Murphy (D-CT), criticized panelist Albert Gray, President and CEO of Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), the accrediting agency responsible for accrediting Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Warren noted that ACICS continued to accredit Corinthian campuses despite concerns and countless investigations by federal agencies and state attorneys general. Gray said that some Corinthian campuses were worse than others, but that the bad actors were monitored by ACICS and passed all accreditation standards. He, along with Neal, argued that Corinthian failed because of financial troubles, not a failure of the accrediting agency. Neal stressed that accreditors are not only failing to do a proper job of ensuring educational quality, but instead are making quality worse and driving up costs. In his concluding remarks, Chairman Alexander said, “We’d better find a way to make accreditation work better. There’s really not another way to do this—to monitor quality.” He said the next hearing on HEA reauthorization would take place after the July 4 recess and would likely focus on innovation.

Education Week Hosts Webinar on the Opt-Out Movement
Education Week held a webinar, “Inside the Opt-Out Movement.” The webinar did not debate the merits of testing, but focused on what is driving the opt-out movement, what kinds of demographics are participating in the movement, and the effect it is having on teachers and schools, with research from both Ohio and Pennsylvania. Michael P. Evans, associate professor of Family, School, and Community Connections at Miami University of Ohio, kicked off the webinar and shared his research about how the opt-out movement has gained traction in Ohio and which groups are involved. He noted that the media narrative of the opt-out movement often focuses on “soccer moms” and affluent parents acting out against the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); however, his research debunked that notion by showing that many of the “pockets of dissent” (districts where 5% or more of students had opted out) in Ohio tended to be evenly distributed among all socioeconomic and racial groups. Furthermore, in suburban districts with low levels of poverty, the number of parents deciding to opt-out from testing was very low and none of those districts approached the level seen in the “pockets of dissent.” In addition to being diverse demographically, many of the groups leading the Ohio opt-out movement are diverse in their philosophy, with certain groups deciding to opt-out due to the stressful and often debilitating nature of testing while other groups saw testing and CCSS in particular as an overreach of federal influence and were dedicated to abolishing it. Jessica K. Beaver, research associate at Research for Action, talked more about how the opt-out movement (specifically in Pennsylvania) is affecting school performance profiles (SPPs). Her research found that even if 10-20% of high-performing or low-performing students opt-out of testing, it can vastly affect a school’s performance score as well as a teacher’s effectiveness score. At the moment, this may not have an immediate effect on schools and teachers, but there have been several efforts from lawmakers to attach sanctions or incentives to schools for their performance, at the state level as well as the federal level. The federal implications of the opt-out movement center on the fact that school districts must meet the 95% threshold of students taking annual tests under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) or they must meet a set of annual measureable objectives (AMOs) for their high-needs schools to receive an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver. Thus, the opt-out movement has raised critical questions about whether sanctions will be levied against states that don't meet the 95% threshold and whether the Department of Education will approve NCLB or ESEA waivers in states where opt-out levels are high and are growing. There is also no current requirement for state education agencies to release data surrounding which students are opting-out of taking assessments, making it more unclear and uncertain how states or federal enforcement agencies may respond. Adding to that uncertainty is that fact ESEA reauthorization will also have a potential impact on the federal role in state accountability, thus the future of the opt-out movement and its effect on school performance remains unknown.

Lawmakers and Stakeholders Discuss Pay for Success
America Forward held a briefing, “Pay for Success: Federal Policy Opportunities to Advance Outcomes-Based Practice.” The briefing began with remarks from Representatives Todd Young (R-IN) and John Delaney (D-MD), cosponsors of the bipartisan, bicameral Social Impact Partnership Act, which is sponsored in the Senate by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Michael Bennet (D-CO). Young remarked, “Pay for success means many things to me- it means performance contracting and it means offering prizes for solving thorny problems.” Delaney spoke about the increasing divide between rich and poor and remarked that there are a host of wealthy Americans who are eager to “invest their treasures in some of the great problems in society.” Of the pay for success model, he said, “Any path we can create to spread philanthropic wealth…strikes me as good public policy.” The briefing continued with three panelists who described the social impact bond model, a model in which investors provide up-front funding to non-profit organizations to create evidence-based social programs. Through rigorous ongoing evaluation, the efficacy of those programs is determined. The government reimburses investors if a program is determined to be working. Jeff Shumway, vice president of advisory services for Social Finance US said the beneficiaries of the pay for success model include underserved populations, social services organizations, governments, tax payers and, if the model is successful, funders and investors. Jeremy Keele, executive director of the Policy Innovation Lab at the University of Utah described a pay for success project in Salt Lake City, UT, which invested in pre-K for three and four year olds who were performing well below their peer group. He remarked that in addition to benefits for the individuals, their families and communities, that program also contributed to short- and long-term savings on special education services, juvenile justice programs and other societal and tax-payer costs that accrue when individuals fall behind.

Role of Diversity in Student Achievement
The American Institutes for Research (AIR) partnered with the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) to host a presentation and panel discussion on how diverse student body composition affects achievement. The event began with a presentation by Sami Kitmitto, principal researcher at AIR, who asserted that many schools are still divide along racial and ethnic lines—some at the highest levels since desegregation. He also noted tha diversity is a broad and relative term, but that data show a consistent pattern of lower achievement, lower expectations and an uneven allocation of supports when schools populations are divided among racial and ethnic lines. Kitmitto asserted that often schools look diverse o paper, but racial and ethnic segregation exists within schools based on the demographics of college preparatory classes versus other courses. Leticia Smith-Evans, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, suggested that one should not assume diversity is embraced at schools solely based on “the numbers”, as there are still schools within schools, and often thes groups are highly racialized. Kimberly Charis, director of school climate, discipline and equity a NASBE, echoed Smith-Evans’ remarks, noting that African-American students are three times more likely to receive some form of school discipline than their Caucasian counterparts, and thi often results in suspension—or further lack of instruction—leading to lower achievement. Additionally, Charris noted that qualitative data about school climate around feelings of community, trust and mutual respect are vital to any discussion about school diversity and school achievement. Chris Braunlich, President of the Virginia Board of Education, was on hand to discuss the role that state boards can play in addressing diversity concerns and eliminatin barriers to access for quality resources such as Advanced Placement courses. He advocated that state boards should help illuminate pathways for schools to follow and discussed the importance of preserving and celebrating extra-curricular activities that bring students of all background together and help teach them soft skills such as teamwork, leadership and mentoring. All of the panelists agreed that teachers also have a role to play in embracing and celebrating diversit within their schools and among their students, and that time should be devoted to professional development to help create curricula designed to foster a more tight-knit school community.

Higher Education Act
The National Journal, with support from the Lumina Foundation as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, brought a panel of experts together to discuss the 50 year history of the Higher Education Act (HEA) and the reforms that should be considered as the reauthorization of HEA approaches. Ron Brownstein, editorial director of the National Journal, moderated the first portion of the event which featured a question and answer session with Te Mitchell, Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, and Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee Mitchell began the discussion by noting a few milestones—including a record high high school graduation rate and the overall educational accomplishments of students of color, low-incom learners and students with disabilities—however, he balanced his statement by saying “We’ve made progress, but the task has never been more urgent, and our work is far from complete.” When pressed on issues he felt would be relevant during HEA reauthorization, h spoke to the need to simplify loan programs and access to federal student aid; protecting the Pell Grant Program and its purchasing power; and further exploring something similar to President Obama’s Free Community College program, possibly at the state and local level. Echoing some of Mitchell’s points, Senator Alexander expressed a need to remove the “jungle of red tape,” and make the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) less daunting, toutin his bipartisan Financial Aid Simplification and Transparency (FAST) Act, released in January, which proposed a highly simplified application in which the required data (identifyin information, family size, and income) could fit on a postcard. After Mitchell and Alexander spoke, the event held a response panel to discuss issues related to student loan financing and th role that institutions of higher education should play in helping address the massive debt that students incur. Andrew Kelly, director of the Center for Higher Education Reform at America Enterprise Institute (AEI), said, “Colleges should be put on the hook financially for some amount of the risk of default,” and suggested giving colleges the authority to devise a plan of executio however they see fit, as long as they accomplish what they are being held accountable for. Aaron Smith, senior strategic advisor and Co-Founder of Young Invincibles, agreed that risk-sharing is an important component of reforming higher education because it means schools have some “skin in the game.” The forum of key stakeholders agreed that in order to keep America in th global lead for postsecondary degrees, competition and innovation need to be improved domestically.

Getting Education Bills to the Finish Line
The Brookings Institution’s Brown Center on Education Policy held a panel with four education policy experts and former hill staffers to discuss “getting education bills to the
finish line.” The experts examined the current efforts to reauthorize the Elementary andSecondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Higher Education Act (HEA), and spoke about the
successes and failures of the past and what would be necessary for these bills to pass in the 114th Congress. The participants all agreed that the current bipartisan effort is key in moving the
education bills ahead this time. Sarah Flanagan, vice president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, said the genuine trust between Senators Patty Murray (DWA)
and Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has led to recent success in the Senate. However, the panelists also noted that there is an increasing amount of partisanship on education issues.
Flanagan asserted that education has become a political issue and not just a policy issue. The roles of the legislative and executive branches were also discussed by panelists, in which both
branches have shifted with the politicizing of education. Jason Delisle, director of the federal education budget project at the New America Foundation, said, “The Obama Administration has
taken some of the wind out of the sails in HEA reauthorization through policy proposals and executive actions of their own.” He predicted that for the first time ever, higher education will
be a major presidential issue for the 2016 campaign. Delisle anticipates 2016 politics to likely interfere with HEA reauthorization. Overall the panelists believe that HEA reauthorization is not
likely to be completed in the 114th Congress. However, they gave ESEA a 50-75 percent chance of passing.

Tech in the Classroom
The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), the Smarter Schools Project, and other partners, hosted an event, “Technology in the Classroom.” Greg
Toppo, national K-12 education writer for USA Today, opened the panel discussion by redirecting the rhetoric of the question “can we use technology in the classroom to transform
education” to saying “how can we use technology in the classroom to transform education,” and argued that a technology device is not the answer to improving education but how a person
learns to use the devices they are given to their advantage is what truly matters. The panel consisted of two principals and two teachers that all worked at high poverty schools and were
able to implement one-to-one device and bring your own device (BYOD) initiatives into their schools. Daisy Dyer Duer, a principal in Saint Paul, AR, and Kerry Gallagher, a teacher in
Reading, MA, both spoke about their work in leveraging their professional learning network (PLN) and grant writing to receive additional funding and resources at their schools so their
students have similar education opportunities as students at more affluent schools. James Richardson, a principal in Adelphi, MD, and Mickey Bryant, a teacher in Washington, DC,
emphasized their work in engaging students in the classroom and teaching students to take an active role in their own learning. The panelists emphasized a few key points during the question
and answer portion of the panel, which included: effective leadership defines the pedagogy at schools; a school should survey their students and families to see what the true barriers to
learning are; and that using technology in schools helps students in their everyday life and should not be seen as only preparing them for their adult life.