In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined a series of policy proposals on college affordability.  These proposals would: (1) re-focus campus-based aid (SEOG, Work-Study, and Perkins Loans) resources on institutions that contain net tuition, provide good quality and value, and serve the greatest number of low-income students; (2) create a $1 billion competitive program modeled on K-12’s Race to the Top fund that would provide resources to states that maintain funding for public higher education and make reforms in the areas of affordability and improving outcomes; (3) create a $55 million competitive grant program for institutions to test strategies to improve attainment and student outcomes; and (4) create a national “Scorecard” whereby all degree-granting institutions would provide data on costs, graduation rates and potential earnings. At this point the proposals are only described in broad, general language, and they will be difficult to advance in the current legislative environment. Nonetheless, they are indicative of themes that will recur from now through the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, scheduled for 2014. On a related front, the president also proposed making permanent the American Opportunity Tax Credit, doubling the size of the Work-Study program, and delaying a scheduled increase in subsidized Stafford student loan interest rates.

On January 6, House Republicans, in what was widely viewed as a “go it alone” approach, unveiled draft legislation outlining their ideas for reauthorizing key portions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). The two bills released by Minnesota Republican John Kline, Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, deal with the most controversial parts of the ESEA: (1) accountability and (2) teacher preparation. The House Committee has already approved three bills dealing with other aspects of the ESEA, including: HR 1891, repealing a number of unfunded or “duplicative” ESEA programs (see Federal Relations Update, March 26, 2011); HR 2445, regarding state and local flexibility; and HR 2218, dealing with charter schools. HR 2218 is the only measure to pass on the House floor, with bi-partisan support.

Of particular interest to the CSU, Kline’s “Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act” bears some similarities to the approach taken in the Obama Administration’s ESEA blueprint, as well as the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) committee’s reauthorization bill. All three would consolidate several teacher preparation programs into a new “Teacher and School Leader Flexible Grant” program, with funds going mostly to states or Local Education Agencies (LEAs). Like the Administration plan, but unlike the Senate proposal, the House bill would eliminate key parts of Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA), including the Teacher Quality Partnerships (TQP) grant program. The House bill, meanwhile, would scrap the existing federal requirement that teachers meet a national “highly qualified” standard, and would mandate teacher evaluations, at least partially based on student achievement, at either the state or LEA level.

It remains unclear when or if the latest House bills will move forward. In his press release introducing the new bills, Chairman Kline was clear that they were merely working drafts and Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), the committee’s Ranking Democratic Member, strongly denounced the partisan approach to reauthorization, calling it “the end to NCLB reform in this Congress.” Meanwhile, Senate reauthorization attempts also appear mired in partisan deadlock, despite the HELP committee’s marking up of legislation in a relatively collegial manner in October (see Federal Relations Update, October 27, 2011). With a Congressional overhaul long overdue and nettlesome deadlines looming, the Administration has begun to issue waivers to states regarding compliance with the current NCLB Act in exchange for education reforms it has prioritized.

On a related front, the Department of Education next week will hold the first of three rounds of negotiations to revise regulations on Teacher Preparation and TEACH Grant programs. The negotiations will focus primarily on regulations governing the assessment of teacher preparation programs and the service and repayment obligations for participants in the TEACH Grant program. However, it appears that the Department may use the sessions to try revamp the TEACH Grant program to more closely mirror the Administration’s proposed Presidential Teaching Fellows program. Negotiators include the CSU’s Beverly Young, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Teacher Education and Public School Programs, who will be a primary negotiator representing Hispanic-Serving Institutions. A roadmap for the Department’s priorities in negotiated rulemaking can be found in the Obama Administration’s Plan for Teacher Education Reform and Improvement.

On December 17, the Congress finally completed work on the federal budget for fiscal year that began on October 1 by passing HR 2055, a $915 billion spending package covering nine of twelve annual appropriations measures. A previous $128 billion package, HR 2112, finalized in November, addressed the other three. Of particular significance to the CSU is HR 2055’s handling of the Pell Grant program. The maximum grant was maintained at $5,550, an important victory for students with significant financial need.  However, as part of an effort to reduce the program’s overall cost, the legislation imposed new limits on students’ eligibility for the program (e.g., cutting the maximum number of full-time semesters from 18 to 12), and also eliminated (temporarily) the six month post-degree completion grace period during which the government subsidizes interest payments on federal student loans. While these changes will have an adverse impact on some students, they are far more modest than cuts proposed by House leaders earlier this year. 

The spending bills generally provided flat funding (with a small across-the-board “haircut”) for many CSU priority programs housed in the Education Department, including aid programs like SEOG and work-study, and the Teacher Quality Partnership program. Among pipeline programs, GEAR UP was level-funded, while TRIO programs actually saw a $15 million increase. Aid for institutional development programs geared toward minority serving institutions, such as those for Hispanic-serving institutions, were subjected to small cuts. 

The final measures included provisions for a number of CSU programmatic priorities outside of the Education Department as well. For example, HR 2112 provides $4.5 million in first-time funding for competitive capacity building grants for non land-grant colleges of agriculture. In addition, the CSU lobbied successfully to maintain prior-year funding levels for USDA’s Hispanic-Serving Institutions Education Grants Program, which has benefited many CSU students over the years. In the National Science Foundation (NSF) section of the bill, the CSU successfully sought report language instructing the agency that its proposed funding reduction for the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program, which helps train STEM teachers for underserved communities, was not warranted. The CSU also helped draft report language asking NSF to provide resources in support of professional science masters (PSM) degree programs.

On October 20, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) okayed a bill to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on a vote of 15 – 7. Three Republicans, including the panel’s ranking member, Mike Enzi (R-WY), joined with united committee Democrats to advance the measure. Long overdue for reauthorization, and under pressure from an administration preparing to issues waivers of the existing law, the Committee’s action represents an attempt by Chair Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Enzi to jump-start the bipartisan spirit evident at the beginning of the reauthorization process, and enact a follow-on to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) by the end of the year.

Of particular interest to the CSU, teacher preparation provisions (ESEA Title II) contained in the committee bill largely mirror those found in the Obama administration’s blueprint for reauthorization, although the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) grant program under the Higher Education Act would remain untouched. An amendment to strengthen the definition of “highly qualified teacher” offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and supported by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) was defeated, while an amendment by Sen. Michael Bennett (D-CO) to expand alternative teacher and principal certification routes, which has been largely opposed by the education community, was adopted on a voice vote.

Enactment of major revisions to the ESEA by the end of the year remains a long shot. While Sen. Harkin hopes to have a bill on the Senate floor on November 8, a majority of HELP committee Republicans see the current version as too prescriptive on states and localities, and even a supporter of moving the bill forward, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), has indicated he will oppose it on the floor without substantial changes. In the House, where ESEA reauthorization legislation has been broken into smaller pieces for consideration, final action appears even less certain. To date, the House has only considered three of five planned bills on ESEA, and only one of those – related to charter schools – has had bipartisan support. House Republicans have yet to unveil the two most contentious pieces of their reauthorization proposal (those pertaining to teacher preparation and accountability).

Federal fiscal year 2012 (FY11) began on October 1. None of the twelve annual appropriations measures that fund federal programs have been completed, as the nation’s charged political climate, economic woes, and budget deficit have hampered progress. Recently, the Congress finalized a continuing resolution (CR) to keep federal programs running temporarily at roughly last year’s levels. The CR, HR 2608, runs through November 18. This will give the Congress time to work on legislation to last through the remainder of the fiscal year. Despite the sense that Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle appear loathe to shut down the government, and despite the fact that the debt-ceiling compromise, the Budget Control Act, passed in August, included a bi-partisan deal on overall spending levels for FY 12, final resolution may not be an easy task. House Republicans and Senate Democrats are far apart on proposed funding for many individual programs. For example, while Senate Democrats have proposed relatively stable funding for Education Department programs aiding minority-serving institutions, House Republicans have proffered significant cuts. Other key differences: offsets to pay for Pell grants (House Republicans would reduce Pell eligibility, while Senate Democrats would reduce loan subsidies for undergraduate students); and the AmeriCorps programs, which would be eliminated under the House proposal and maintained under the Senate bill.