2012 NATIONAL ELECTION OUTCOMES &EDUCATION POLICY PROSPECTS

Alternative Accountability ForumSchool for Integrated Academics and Technologies

November 15 – 17, 2012

Rick ClarkNational Policy and Program Liaison

School for Integrated Academics and Technologies

6012 Telegraph RoadAlexandria, VA 22310

RWCclark@aol.com 703-960-8689

NATIONAL ELECTION OUTCOMES &

EDUCATION POLICY PROSPECTS

NOTE: Focus of remarks on dropout recovery – substantial application to at-risk youth in general

ELECTION OUT COME ASSESSMENT - 5 MILE VIEW

General outlook: On paper its status quo

oLittle to no change in outlook for the House and Senate

oMore polarized than last Congress

oFunction of unprecedented gerrymandering

oEducation among reputed best prospects for cooperation

o- Mythological opinion, base on imperial evidence

Reps - 234, Dems - 195, 23 member majority differential

Not significant gain by Dems, nor loss by Republicans for shift in House alignment

Conservative, “Blue Dog” Dems a dying, if not extinct breed

House of Representatives Elect

Dems 55, Reps. 45 – not filibuster proof

Despite Democratic majority, bi-partisanship required

Conservative, “Blue Dog” Dems also a dying, if not extinct breed

o Need five (or more) Republicans to break filibuster

Senate - Elect

Election virtually maintained existing alignment of House and Senate Committees

House: Education and the Workforce Committee

- 23 Reps to 17 Dems in 112th - maintenance

- Anticipate minimum of 7 new members

- Won’t slow down Committee since mostly Dems

- No change anticipated in House Committee leadership

- Key players : Chairman John Kline (MN), Subcommittee Chair, Duncan Hunter (CA), Virginia Foxx (NC), Rep. McKeon (CA)

- Extremely partisan leadership in 112th – unprecedented

- Mark-ups on education and workforce bills were triple P – painful, partisan, polarized

HOUSE AND SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE[S] STATUS

Senate: Health, Education, Pensions, and Labor Committee

- Minimum of 1 or 2 new members

- 12 Dems to 10 Reps in 112th

- Senate leadership and membership expected to undergo some change

- Key players in Senate: Senators Harkin, Enzi, Alexander, and Bingaman [only Bingaman will be gone – retired]

- New Committee dynamics: Sen Alexander ascending to ranking minority

- did not support bi-partisan Committee bill in 112th

- More respectful, more bi-partisan leadership in the Senate [vs. House]

HOUSE AND SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE[S] STATUS

(Expected to )

o Support and incentivize implementation of common core standards

o Continue implementation and oversight of the waivers already granted to 35 states (including DC)

- as funding tightens, waivers will be a primary way of leveraging reform

- Republicans in House Ed Committee challenged waiver authority

- usurpation of power, circumvention of Congress

- Secretary Duncan on of fairly solid legal grounds

- Senate acquiescence : no moves by Democratic leadership to coalesce with House in taking back authority [price too high]

o Waivers problematic with challenges of monitoring and enforcing implementation

- 2 year renewal review

US Department of Education

General Republican goals/strategies (observations):

o To minimize federal role in education

o Return control over education to the states

o Block or undermine administration initiatives, e.g., Race to the Top, Innovation grants, by defunding or minimizing funding

o Limit politically sacred formula programs to most needy schools/students

PARTY LINE POLICY PERSPECTIVES

o Thwart Republican goals and strategies to neutralize federal mandates with exceptions

o Respond to the pressures for NCLB reform by Democratic party constituents

e.g., over dependence on testing, unrealistic proficiency goals, and onerous sanctions

o Keep critical control over education, especially in areas like civil rights, special education, education of the poor /Title 1

o Maintain funding for Administration initiatives

o Acquiescence in Administration’s current reforms/strategies involving:

- data driven decision making, improved teacher evaluations, removal of impediments to charter school development, etc.

o What we don’t know is what dynamics of the process will be

DEMOCRAT PARTY GOALS

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT (NCLB) STATUS

ESEA Reauthorization pending since 2007

Senate and House reported bills in 112th Congress

Neither achieved floor action

Despite inaction:- Strong signal of the major metamorphosis, if

not end of the No Child Left Behind Era

new name for ESEA [ESEA] new priorities for education reform advanced in House and Senate Committee bills

waiver process flexibility

OTHER EDUCATION RELATED POLICY ISSUES FOR LAME DUCK SESSION AND 113th CONGRESS

Sequestration – threat of 8.2 percent cut to federal ed programs (DOE)

- Formula program grants to the states [key part of state ed funding]- Title 1 cuts at 1.3 billion (of 15.7 plus bill)- Spec Ed cuts at 1 billion (of 12.6 plus bill)

FY 2012 Appropriations – Continuing Resolution thru March

Pell Grant Funding - $7 billion short-fall

Student loan interest rate increase –– One year extension at 3.4 %, to double in August to 6.8 %

Other education related reauthorization issues facing past/near future expiration dates

Higher education

Special education - IDEA

Career and technical education

Child care

Work Force Investment Act

Special attention

WIA programs like Job Corps and YouthBuild have academic components including high school diploma credentialing

Could be a vehicle for model legislation on alternative accountability

- consistent with Administration call for interagency cooperation, and program transparency where multiple agencies involved - reforms would be limited to WIA programs, but could be vehicle for important precedents

Administration Perspective on ESEA

Unclear what, if any priority Administration will give to ESEA reauthorization – politically, not rhetorically

Don’t know where incentive for priority action lies if can achieve goals through waivers, and existing programs

New, and extension of existing initiatives tough sledding due to role Republicans would need to play in funding them

No money anyway

IMPLICATIONS FOR DROPOUT RECOVERY and ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR RECOVERY SCHOOLS

112th Congress – provided lay of the land

ESEA Bills reported by both House and Senate Committees

Numerous education issues raised by members of both Committees

Not a single focused hearing on recovery: subject rarely mentioned, except rhetorically

Won’t be a focus again unless WE (collectively), make it a focus

TRADITIONAL POLITICAL HURDLES TO RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY

(Fiscal) Unattractiveness of tens of thousands of youth back on education rolls

Lack of policy maker distinction between prevention and recovery

Premium placed on high stakes testing over other ways of measuring progress

One size fits all policy mentality, e.g., 90 percent graduation rate [without a distinction for recovery schools]

- Dropout schools have 100 percent concentration of failure of traditional schools

- Community college success of remedial students at community

0 Non recognition of differences in alternative schools- Dedicated recovery school serving out-of-school youth, not

same as alternative school for in-school youth

Preoccupation – understandably - with solving the in-school at risk student problem, i.e., prevention

o No excuse for uninformed or non attention to alternative accountability for reengaged youth serving schools [sympathetic advocacy groups as guilty as policy makers…some movement among stakeholder groups]

o Non organized status of dropout recovery stakeholders compared to other education stakeholder groups:

Special edEnglish language learnersTechnology in schools advocatesStem education advocatesSchool Funding advocates

o Mistaken assumption that reforms being put in place with respect to accountability, and dropout and graduation rates are pertinent to all schools serving at-risk students

WHAT POLICY MAKERS DON’T GET (OR IGNORE) : SHORT SIGHTED VISION

3.4 million dropouts, aged 16 -24; “Opportunity Youth” at 6.8 million

Can’t reach dropout crisis goals w/o focus on dropout prevention and recovery

Policy arena fraught with disincentives to recovery

Billions of dollars of lost revenue (and high social costs)

o documented in several reports from the Alliance for Excellent Education, (Commissioned report) White House Council on Community Solutions – See ADDENDUM

Ending seat time requirement – may be declining problem

o Open entry open exit hampered by traditional Carnegie unitso Modifications or waivers a priority condition

Mainstreaming of competency based instruction

Growth model considerations: individual student based, consider individual enrollment date [not just spring to spring]; also, length of stay

A graduation rate of 40 percent can represent success for open entry, open exit school

- National graduation rate for reengaged students averages half of the above figure (?) – 90 percent goal, even current 75 percent [fantasyland]

- Secretary Duncan makes no distinction in his 90 percent goal- work to be done on his blanket statements

OTHER POLICY ISSUES /CHALLENGES/CONSIDERATIONS IN MAKING A NUANCED CASE FOR RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY

Issues, Challenges, con’t

Dropouts are a special population

o Profile of dropout is very different from in-school youtho (Examples) Must work, have children, are self-sufficient, don’t live

at home, have limited hours to devote to schooling, don’t have broadband access where they reside

Dedicated dropout recovery schools [majority to 100 percent] are unique

- Unique among alternative schools - often lumped with alternative schools serving in-school youth

- Serve students already failed by traditional school - are 100 percent encumbered by reasons for traditional school

failure

O Differentiated, individualized learning essential – not one size fits all

O New graduation rate calculation [NGA, CCSSO] is either not relevant, or marginally relevant to certain recovery schools

O GED – don’t penalize recovery schools

ACTION OPTIONS: DROPOUT RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVE

ACCOUNTABILITY

Note: Most of the following suggestions for raising the profile of dropout recovery and alternative accountability are already in some greater or lesser degree of implementation. The objective is to sophisticate, expand, and intensify the continuation (and /or initiation) of advocacy activities.

Discussion ideas for raising profile of alternative accountability.

O Group Priorities: Follow up to this Policy Forum- Maintain communication lines among the willing through formal or informal coalition or working group participation- Prepare and Circulate Forum Report- Crystallize messaging - Develop plan of action including strategic goals, e.g., Congressional hearing on dropout recovery and/or alternative accountability, staff briefing, Congressional forum- Media plan development

ADDENDUMADVOCACY OPTIONS / OPPORTUNITIES:DROPOUT RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY

- Create personal game plan for continued involvement and contribution National Level Network Contacts, and Activities, and Messaging Targets

o [Highest priority] Identification of inside supporters in Congress, state houses, education agencies -- including staff

o Alliance formation and agenda setting with:- Policy groups in Congress, e.g. Progressive Caucus, Black and Hispanic Caucuses,

Friends of Job Corp

- Executive Branch groups: National Office of Rural Affairs, White House Council on Community Solutions

- Key, national advocacy groups: Alliance for Excellent Education, America’s Promise Alliance/Grad Nation, Opportunity Nation, National Youth Employment Coalition, Jobs for the Future, National Job Corps Association, YouthBuild, American Youth Policy Forum, Center for Law and Social Policy

- National associations of government officials and policymakers, e.g., National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of Chief State School Officers

o Media Representative outreach: Editorial writers, education writers

o Hearing promotion and participation

o * Identification and liaison with prospective insider advocates [highest priority]

State Level Network Contacts, Activities, and Messaging Targets

* State Education Agencies

* Legislative Education Committees

* Waiver Implementation process involvement

* Policymaker association networking: National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures

* State education advocacy groups and associations

* America’s Promise Alliance affiliates

DROPOUT PREVENTION AND RECOVERY DOCUMENTS

National Governors Association: “Graduation for All – A Governors Guide to Dropout Prevention and Recovery” (2009)

National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) : “ A Path to Graduation for Every Child: State Legislative Roles and Responsibilities” (2011)

NCSL: “Going to Scale: Working with State Legislators to Prevent and Reengage Dropouts” (2010)

America’s Promise Alliance: “Building a GRAD Nation – Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Dilemma – 2012 Update”

White House Council on Community Solutions (and Civic Enterprises): “The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth” (2012)

White House Council on Community Solutions: “Opportunity Road” (2012)

Alliance for Excellent Education: Education and the Economy: “Boosting State and National Economies by Improving High School Graduation Rates” (2011)

Alliance for Excellent Education: “Boosting the Metro Area Economies by Improving High School Graduation Rates – Metro Area Profiles” (2011)