HOUSE REJECTS INSUFFICIENT EDUCATION SPENDING BILL: Twenty-Two Republicans Join Democrats in Defeating Bill That Would Have Cut Education Spending by $59.1 Million

On November 17, after intense pressure from education, health care, and other advocates, the House of Representatives defeated, by a vote of 224 to 209, the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education spending bill that had emerged from the Senate-House conference process, with 22 Republicans joining all House Democrats in opposition. The bill would have provided $56.5 billion for the Department of Education-$169 million below the House-passed bill, $212 million below the Senate-passed bill, and $59.1 million below FY 2005 appropriations. The defeat marks the first time since 1995 that a conference report, a compromise version of the bills passed by the House and the Senate, was defeated in the House.

In speaking against the bill, Representative David Obey (D-WI) noted that the bill would have cut education funding for the first time in a decade. "Education programs under the No Child Left Behind rubric are cut by $784 million below last year," he said. "That is $13 billion below the authorization, and on a cumulative basis, it is some $40 billion short of what we promised we would have provided these past years since we passed No Child Left Behind."

In addition to a lack of funding for education, rural health care, and other priorities, the bill also did not contain money for earmarks included earlier by individual members. Often referred to as "pork projects," earmarks are very narrow in scope, often only benefiting a single congressional district. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education and one of the negotiators in the House-Senate conference, explained that removing the earmarks freed up money for other priorities:

The removal of the earmarks has focused the attention of the members of both bodies about the blatant inadequacy of the allocation for this subcommittee, which funds the major capital assets for our nation for health, education, and worker training. Had the $1 billion been spent on earmarks, we would have sustained intolerable cuts in programs such as [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program], community health centers, community services block grant, health professionals, including nursing and Head Start. With inflation considered, program cuts will occur in these and other programs such as NIH, Title I, and special education even without the earmarks.

After its defeat, the funding bill was sent back to House-Senate conference for further negotiation. On November 18, the Senate voted 66 to 28 to instruct its negotiators to designate the bill's $2.2 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) as "emergency spending," which would not count the money toward the bill's $142.5 billion spending cap. Specter also argued that such a designation would free the money to use for other programs.

As a result of failing to pass the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill, the House and Senate enacted a continuing resolution that would temporarily fund these programs until December 17, or until a spending bill can be enacted into law. However, the continuing resolution funds programs under the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill at the lowest of the FY 2005 level, the House-passed FY 2006 level, or the Senate-passed FY 2006 level. (A chart comparing the different funding levels for selected education programs is available at http://www.all4ed.org/files/Fiscal06ProgramChart.pdf.

If Congress is unable to come to agreement on an appropriations bill and chooses to extend the continuing resolution to fund these programs throughout FY 2006, rather than having it expire on December 17, existing education programs could be cut by as much as $1.4 billion. While some House Republicans are in favor of such an extension, the Senate is unlikely to agree. One option to a yearlong continuing resolution under discussion is to combine the bill with the FY 2006 Defense appropriations bill, all but guaranteeing its passage.

A final decision on the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill is not expected until the Senate returns from its Thanksgiving break on December 12. The House will return the week of December 5.

HISPANIC STUDENTS LEFT BEHIND: Hispanic Students Most Likely to Attend High-Poverty, High-Enrollment High Schools

Hispanic high school students are more likely than their white or African-American peers to attend high schools with the highest enrollments, the highest concentrations of poor students, and the highest student-teacher ratios, according to The High Schools Hispanics Attend: Size and Other Key Characteristics, a new report from the Pew Hispanic Center.

"The characteristics of high schools matter for student performance," said Richard Fry, senior research associate at the Pew Hispanic Center and author of the report. "Hispanic teens are more likely than any other racial or ethnic group to attend public high schools that have the dual characteristics of extreme size and poverty."

According to the report, the average American high school has about 750 students, but approximately 10 percent of high schools have enrollments of more than 1,838 students. More than half (56 percent) of all Latino high school students attend high-enrollment schools, while only 32 percent of African-American and 26 percent of white students attend them. "This is in spite of the fact that Hispanic and black public high school students are equally likely to attend schools located in central city areas," the report read.

Using information based on the numbers of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, the report concluded that Hispanic teens are also more likely to attend high-poverty high schools. Nationwide, it found that about one third of students at the average public high school are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. However, in 10 percent of high schools, more than two thirds of the student body qualifies. Nearly one in five Hispanic high school students (19 percent) attend these schools, compared to 15 percent of African-American and 2 percent of white students, as shown in the chart below (click on the chart for a larger image).

Source: The High Schools Hispanics Attend: Size and Other Key Characteristics

The report also found that Hispanics are 6 times more likely than African Americans to attend public high schools that are on the extreme ends of size (greater than 1,838 students) and poverty (more than 67 percent of the student body eligible for free or reduced-price lunches).

The imbalance of Hispanic students attending high-poverty, high-enrollment high schools is attributed to the fact that most of the Hispanic population nationwide is concentrated in seven states-California, Texas, Florida, New York, Arizona, Illinois, and New Jersey. It found that these states tend to have high schools that are larger, have greater concentrations of poverty, and have higher student-to-teacher ratios than high schools elsewhere. According to the report, public high schools in these seven states educate almost 80 percent of the nation's 2 million Hispanic public high school students, but less than one third of the nation's white and black teenagers.

Hispanic students are almost 3 times (37 percent) more likely than their African-American (14 percent) or white (13 percent) peers to attend high schools with a student-to-teacher ratio greater than 22 to 1, according to the report. The national average is 16 to 1. Sadly, research has shown that poor, urban, and minority children are more likely to be taught by less experienced, less qualified teachers who do not stay long enough to become the expert, high-quality teachers these students desperately need. The net effect is that Hispanic students are hit with a double whammy-they are taught in larger than average classes by teachers who lack the qualifications and experience of those in more affluent areas.

The report is based on the data collected on high schools in the U.S. Department of Education's Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey of its Common Core of Data survey system and is available at http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=54.

U.S. EDUCATION LEVELS EXPECTED TO DECLINE SHARPLY WHEN BABY BOOMERS RETIRE: Decrease in Education Attainment Would Have Profound Effects on U.S. and State Economies

Americans are generally aware that educational disparities exist between whites and other racial and ethnic populations, but they are largely unaware of the social and economic consequences that could result if current educational gaps are not addressed soon, according to a new policy alert from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. The report argues that the United States could lose billions of dollars in personal income as more well-educated Baby Boomers retire and are replaced by workers with less education.

"If the educational gaps remain as they are, then personal income per capita in the United States is projected to decline from $21,591 in 2000 to $21,196 in 2002-a drop of $395 or 2 percent," the brief reads. "In contrast, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, personal income per capita has grown 41 percent nationally during the two decades prior to 2000."

Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the white working-age population is expected to decline from 82 percent to 63 percent from 1980 to 2020. During the same time, the report found, the minority population of the workforce is expected to double (from 18 percent to 37 percent). In 2000, the percentage of working-age men and women with at least a bachelor's degree has grown for all racial and ethnic groups, but gaps between Asian Americans and whites versus other minorities have more than doubled.

In 1980, 36 percent of Asian Americans and 20 percent of whites held bachelor's degrees, compared to 9 percent of African Americans and 8 percent of Hispanics and Native Americans. In 2000, 46 percent of Asian Americans and 30 percent of whites held bachelor's degrees, compared with only 15 percent for African Americans, 11 percent for Hispanics, and 12 percent for Native Americans. The numbers at the high school level are no better, with 78 percent of whites graduating from high school compared to 56 percent for African Americans and 52 percent for Hispanics.

If the status quo persists, nearly all states are likely to see an increase in the percentage of their residents without a high school diploma. According to the report, states that are projected to have the highest growth in minority populations can expect to see even more residents without a high school diploma, which translates into fewer earnings for the individual worker, but also less tax revenue for the state. For example, the projected decline in personal income per capita from 2000 to 2020 is $662 in Colorado, $1,182 in New York, and $2,475 in California.

The educational decline of Americans is even more severe when one considers that the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century requires that most workers have at least some education after high school. Once a worldwide leader in the education of its citizens, the United States has seen itself drop in relation to its international peers. "As a result," the report reads, "the young population in the United States is not as well positioned as its counterparts in several other nations to compete for high-skilled jobs."

"Education is one of the most effective interventions for improving our social and economic future-for individuals, communities, states, and the country as a whole," the report reads. "Given the changing nature of the global marketplace, the high school diploma is no longer sufficient for individuals seeking good jobs, nor for communities building a vibrant economy. Addressing inequalities in higher education opportunity will require persistent and meaningful efforts by states in order to put in place the policies and resources to advance the education of all their residents."

The complete brief is available at http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_decline/index.shtml.

STANDARDS FOR MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL LITERACY COACHES: New Report Details "Must Have" Competencies

The literacy crisis among students in America's middle and high schools is well documented. Based on the most recent reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), more than one in four (29 percent) American eighth graders in public schools read "below basic," indicating that they have no literal understanding of what they read, and putting them at great risk of dropping out of high school. To combat the reading difficulties their students often face, many middle and high schools around the country have turned to literacy coaches for help. These coaches work with content area teachers to help them infuse literacy instruction into their teaching and help them recognize students with reading difficulties.

While examples of what good literacy coaches do exist in secondary schools around the country, coming up with a common definition of what qualities literacy coaches has been more difficult. In May 2004, representatives from five national organizations-the International Reading Association, the National Council of Teachers of English, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Science Teachers Association, and the National Council for the Social Studies-came together to fill that void. Earlier this month, they issued a report that details the "must have" competencies of good middle school and high school literacy coaches.

The report, Standards for Middle and High School Literacy Coaches, breaks down key elements of literacy coaching into two categories: leadership standards and content area standards. While leadership standards apply to literacy coaches regardless of the content area in which they are working, content area standards are more specific to the course being taught by the teacher the coach is assisting (such as, English/language arts, math, science, or social studies).

In its leadership standards, the report calls for individuals who are "skillful collaborators," "skillful job-embedded coaches," and "skillful evaluators of literacy needs," meaning that they can recognize literacy needs within various subject areas and interpret and use assessment data to inform instruction. In its content area standards, the report notes that literacy coaches need to be "accomplished middle and high school teachers who are skilled in developing and implementing instructional strategies to improve academic literacy in the specific content area."

The report cautions that while successful literacy coaches may have many of the skills and abilities presented in the report, few will meet all of the standards-at least initially. It calls for patience and notes that most expert teachers typically need 2 to 3 years to develop the full complement of coaching skills. Unlike literacy coaches in elementary schools, additional time may be needed as secondary coaches "assume the additional responsibility of working with colleagues across content areas." The report also calls for coaches to have access to rigorous professional development throughout their employment that will help them sharpen their skills. "In hiring," the report reads, "employers may not be able to find individuals who meet all the standards. In those cases, the goal should be for literacy coaches to meet these standards over a reasonable period of time."

In its conclusion, the report acknowledges that a great deal is known about the literacy needs of middle and high school students. However, it adds that "finding ways to put that knowledge immediately to work to improve the culture and conditions of secondary schools in the United States is an imperative. Equipping middle and high schools with trained literacy coaches is at least one line of attack to combat 'the quiet resignation that seems to pervade education circles ... that little if anything can be done.' "

The complete report is available at http://www.reading.org/downloads/resources/597coaching_standards.pdf.