Trump’s FY19 Education Budget Proposes an $8.1 Billion Cut

President Donald Trump giving the 2018 State of the Union Address.

President Donald Trump released his proposed FY19 budget this week and it proposes cutting $8.1 billion from the U.S. Department of Education’s discretionary spending compared to what the department received from the annualized FY18  continuing resolutions. $6.6 billion of those cuts come in the departments discretionary funding.

The budget proposes several program eliminations:

The second largest program to be eliminated is the 21st Century Community Learning Centers which accounts for just over $1.1 billion. They explain in President Trump’s FY19 major savings and reforms document:

The 21st CCLC program, authorized under the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, enables communities to establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities through before- and after-school programs, and summer school programs, aimed at improving student academic outcomes. While research has demonstrated positive findings on the impact of afterschool programs overall, the subset of afterschool programs funded by 21st CCLC are not, on the whole, helping students meet challenging State academic standards. For example, on average, from 2013 to 2015, less than 20 percent of program participants improved from not proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in reading and mathematics. Additionally, student improvement in academic grades was limited, with States reporting higher math and English grades for less than half of regular program participants. These recent results are consistent with findings of the last rigorous national evaluation of the program, conducted in 2005, which also found the program had limited academic impact. Additionally, nearly 60 percent of students attend 21st CCLC for fewer than 30 days a year, suggesting that the majority of families with participating students do not use the program for childcare.

These data strongly suggest that the 21st CCLC is not generating the benefits commensurate with an annual investment of more than $1 billion in limited Federal education funds. Moreover, the provision of before- and after-school academic enrichment opportunities may be better supported with other Federal, State, local, or private funds, including the $15 billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program.

The largest program to be eliminated is the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants which was funded at just over $2 billion dollars. They said:

The Budget proposes to eliminate the Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State Grants program. While the SEI State Grants program authorizes a wide range of activities, in school year 2015-2016, 52 percent of funds were used for PD and 25 percent were used for class-size reduction. A Local Educational Agency that identifies either activity as a key strategy for responding to a comprehensive needs assessment may use Title I, Part A funds for the same purpose. Title I funds also may be used to recruit and retain effective teachers. In addition, PD as currently provided, has shown limited impact on student achievement. For example, a recent evaluation of an intensive elementary school mathematics PD program found that while the PD improved teacher knowledge and led to improvements in teachers’ use and quality of explanation in the classroom, there was no difference in student achievement test scores on either the State assessment or on a study-administered math test. Additional Department of Education-funded studies of PD have found similar results. While class size reduction has been shown to increase student achievement, school districts used SEI State Grant funds to pay the salaries of an estimated 8,000 teachers in school year 2015-2016, out of a total nationwide teacher workforce of roughly three million teachers. These data suggest that eliminating the program would likely have minimal impact on class sizes or teacher staffing levels.

They also eliminated $32 million for statewide longitundinal database systems, but, unfortunately, the only reason that was done was because the work it funded had been completed.

The U.S. Department of Education highlighted their priorities in the FY19 budget:

• $1 billion increase for public and private school choice through the new Opportunity Grants program
• $200 million dedicated to STEM education
• More than $13 billion to maintain the Federal investment in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act State formula and discretionary grants
• $15.5 billion to maintain the Federal investment in Title I grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)
• $43 million for School Climate Transformation grants to help States and LEAs mitigate the impacts of the opioid epidemic on students and schools

“The president’s budget request expands education freedom for America’s families while protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students,” U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said. “The budget also reflects our commitment to spending taxpayer dollars wisely and efficiently by consolidating and eliminating duplicative and ineffective federal programs that are better handled at the state or local level. I look forward to working with Congress to pass a budget that puts students first and returns power in education to where it belongs: with states, districts and families.”

Senator Blunt, Federal Education Spending Erodes Local Control

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) (on left) speaks with former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez.

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos will have to defend her Department’s budget before a Senate appropriations subcommittee today. President Donald Trump cut 13 percent from the Department from its 2017 levels. U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) is the chairman of that committee, and he told Politico‘s Morning Education he’s concerned about the cuts.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who chairs the subcommittee, said he looks forward to discussing with DeVos ways to return education decisions to the local level but also signaled he’s going to take issue with her proposed budget cuts. “I have serious concerns about steep cuts that were included in the president’s FY 2018 budget proposal, and expect to hear more from Secretary DeVos about how the administration arrived at those decisions,” Blunt said in a statement to Morning Education.

Blunt wants (or so he says) to return education decisions to the local level, but he is “concerned” about cuts in federal spending. Does he not realize that federal education spending is at odds with local control? Likely not since he also supported the Every Student Succeeds Act.

You can’t have real local control in education without a severe reduction in the budget and size of the U.S. Department of Education. I consider the 13 percent reduction a start, but far more is needed, and we have a so-called Republican senator with concerns about the budget cuts chairing the subcommittee.

Beautiful.

20 PreK-12 Education Programs Trump’s Proposed Budget Eliminates

Education Secretary Betsy DeVoss and President Donald Trump at St. Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, FL

President Donald Trump released his full budget today, and it eliminates 20 programs within the U.S. Department of Education related to PreK-12 education. Below are the programs, the amount of money cut from the budget eliminating the program reflects, and the administration’s justification for eliminating the program.

21st Century Learning Centers (- $1,164,500,000)

The 21st CCLC program enables communities to establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities through before- and after-school programs, and summer school programs, aimed at improving student academic outcomes. While limited evaluation and survey data from certain States and individual centers highlights benefits from participation, such as improved behavior and classroom grades, overall program performance data show that the 21st CCLC is not achieving its goal of helping students, particularly those who attend low-performing schools, meet challenging State academic standards. For example, on average from 2013 to 2015, less than 20 percent of program participants improved from not proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in reading and mathematics. Additionally, student improvement in academic grades was limited, with States reporting higher math and English grades for less than half of regular program participants. Low attendance rates at the program’s centers likely are a key explanation for the program’s limited impact on academic outcomes. For example, States reported that fewer than half of all students served (752,000 out of 1.8 million) attended programs for 30 days or more during the 2014-2015 school year. These recent results are consistent with findings of the last rigorous national evaluation of the program, conducted in 2005, which also found the program had limited academic impact and low student attendance rates.

These data strongly suggest that the 21st CCLC is not generating the benefits commensurate with an annual investment of more than $1 billion in limited Federal education funds. Moreover, the provision of before- and after-school academic enrichment opportunities may be better supported with other Federal, State, local or private funds, including the $15 billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program.

Alaska Native Education (- $32,400,000)

This program makes formula grants to States, which award local subgrants to support before, after, and summer school programs that provide safe spaces and opportunities for academic enrichment for nearly 2 million students at roughly 11,500 centers.  This program lacks strong evidence of meeting its objectives, such as improving student achievement.

American History and Civics Academies (- $1,800,000)

This program supports efforts to improve the quality of American history and civics education through grants for intensive workshops for teachers and students and for evidence-based instructional methods and professional development programs.  The program has limited impact, with American History and Civics Academies grants reaching only a small number of teachers and students. (Each academy may serve no more than 300 teachers or students annually.)

Arts in Education (- $26,900,000)

This program supports arts education projects and programs for children and youth, with special emphasis on serving students from low-income families and students with disabilities.  Arts in Education has limited impact and funds activities that are more appropriately supported with other Federal, State, local, and private funds.

Child Care Access Means Parents in School (- $15,100,000)

The CCAMPIS program subsidizes campus-based child care services for low-income parents in postsecondary education programs.  While the CCAMPIS program provides an important service that benefits low-income student parents, subsidizing expenses associated with child care is not consist with the Department’s core mission.  The Administration maintains funding for existing child care programs within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants (- $189,600,000)

The Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants program makes competitive awards to States to improve literacy instruction from birth through grade 12. The program has limited impact and duplicates activities that may be supported by other sources of both Federal and non-Federal funds. For example, the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program provides over $15 billion to more than 14,000 school districts that may be used to support effective, evidence-based reading instruction. By comparison, the last cohort of Striving Readers grants served only six States and just a handful of districts in each State. Moreover, a 2015 study by the Institute of Education Sciences indicated that a majority (six out of ten) of the interventions implemented by the 2009 and 2006 grant cohorts had no discernible effects on reading achievement.  States or school districts that want to test or expand the use of evidence-based literacy instruction may seek funding under the Education Innovation and Research program, which provides grant awards for scaling up effective practices that are comparable in size to those available through the Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants program.

 

Full Service Community Schools (-$10,000,000)

This program supports projects that involve a school as the locus for the provision of comprehensive academic, social, and health services that respond to the needs of students, their families, and community members.  The program has limited impact and largely duplicates activities that are more appropriately supported through other Federal, State, local, and private funds.

Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property (- $66,700,000)

The primary purpose of the Impact Aid program is to help pay for the education of federally-connected children, and fund programs that serve federally-connected children. The Payments for Federal Property program compensates school districts for lost property tax revenue due to the presence of Federal lands without regard to whether those districts educate any federally-connected children as a result of the Federal presence. When this authority was established in 1950, its purpose was to provide assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) in cases where the Federal Government had imposed a substantial and continuing burden by acquiring a considerable portion of real property in the LEA. The law applied only to property acquired since 1938 because, in general, LEAs had been able to adjust to acquisitions that occurred before that time. The Administration believes that the majority of LEAs receiving assistance under this program have now had sufficient time to adjust to the removal of the property from their tax rolls.

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program (- $26,900,000)

This program makes competitive grants to improve literacy through support of school libraries, professional development for school librarians, and the provision of high-quality books to children and adolescents in low-income communities.  School districts and schools that choose to focus on libraries and the provision of free books as part of their early literacy strategies may use Title I funds for this purpose.

International Education and Foreign Language Studies Domestic and Overseas Programs (- $72,000,000)

While the Administration recognizes the critical need for our Nation to have a readily available pool of international, regional, and advanced language experts for economic, foreign affairs, and national security purposes, it is unclear that this goal is consistent with the Department of Education’s core mission. Other Federal agencies, whose primary mission is national security, implement similar programs and are better equipped to support this critical objective. Therefore, the Budget proposes to eliminate these duplicative programs. The authorization for these programs expired in 2014.

Javits Gifted and Talented Education (- $12,000,000)

This program supports research and other activities to build local capacity to identify gifted and talented students and meet their special educational needs.  Limited Federal education dollars should be focused on our most disadvantaged children, and programs for gifted and talented students can be supported with State, local, and private funds.

Native Hawaiian Education (- $33.300,000)

This program supports supplemental education services for a very high-need student population facing unique challenges in obtaining a high-quality education.  The program largely duplicates services that may be funded through the $127 million in other Federal elementary and secondary programs that support Hawaii as well as State, local, and private funds.

Preschool Development Grants (- $249,500,000)

The Preschool Development Grants competition supports State efforts to (1) build or enhance a preschool program infrastructure that would enable the delivery of high-quality preschool services to children, and (2) expand high-quality preschool programs in targeted communities that would serve as models for expanding preschool to all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families.  Note that this program was funded at the Department of Health and Human Services in FY 2017.

Ready to Learn Programming (- $25,700,000)

This program supports the development and dissemination of high-quality educational television programming.  The program is less relevant and necessary with the rise of the internet and the increasing number of private providers that create and disseminate programming, online games, and “apps” that are both educational and entertaining.

School Leader Recruitment and Support Program (- $16,300,000)

This program grants fund activities to improve the recruitment, preparation, placement, support, and retention of effective principals and other school leaders in high-need schools.  This small program has limited impact and effectiveness and duplicates other Federal funds that may be used to support local efforts to recruit, train, and retain effective school leaders.

Special Olympics Education Programs (-$10,100,000)

This program supports a directed grant award to a not-for-profit organization.  Funds are used to expand the Special Olympics and the design and implementation of Special Olympics education programs.  Such activities are better supported with other Federal, State, local, or private funds.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (- $277,000,000)

The Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants program, newly authorized under the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, consolidated four previously authorized programs: Mathematics and Science Partnerships, Advanced Placement, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, and Physical Education. The Program provides funding to school districts for activities that support well-rounded educational opportunities (e.g. arts, STEM), safe and healthy students, and the effective use of technology. Subgrants can be awarded by formula to all school districts that receive Title I, Part A funds, which at the current funding level of $400 million, would result in award amounts of less than $30,000 for the vast majority of school districts. The Administration does not believe limited Federal resources should be allocated to a program where many of its grants will likely be too small to have a meaningful impact. Furthermore, the school districts that do receive at least $30,000 must follow funding restrictions that prescribe a minimum amount that must be spent on the program’s different categories of activities, further diluting the program’s impact and removing discretion that is best left to local decision-makers. Also, the activities authorized under this program generally can be supported with funds from other Federal, State, local, and private sources, including similarly flexible funds provided under the $15 billion Title I Grants to LEAs program.

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (- $2,345,000,000)

The Budget proposes eliminating Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State Grants program. While the SEI State Grants program authorizes a wide range of activities, in school year 2015-2016, 52 percent of funds were used for professional development (PD) and 25 percent were used for class-size reduction. An LEA that identifies either activity as a key strategy for responding to a comprehensive needs assessment may use Title I, Part A funds for the same purpose. Title I funds also may be used to recruit and retain effective teachers. In addition, professional development, as currently provided, has shown limited impact on student achievement. For example, a recent evaluation of an intensive elementary school mathematics PD program found that while the PD improved teacher knowledge and led to improvements in teachers’ use and quality of explanation in the classroom, there was no difference in student achievement test scores on either the State assessment or on a study-administered math test. Additional Department of Education-funded studies of PD have found similar results. While class size reduction has been shown to increase student achievement, school districts used SEI State grant funds to pay the salaries of an estimated 8,000 teachers in school year 2015-2016, out of a total nationwide teacher workforce of roughly three million teachers. These data suggest that eliminating the program is likely to have minimal impact on class sizes or teacher staffing levels.

Teacher Quality Partnership (- $43,000,000)

The TQP program supports partnerships to create a variety of effective pathways into teaching and increase the number of teachers effective in improving student outcomes. The TQP authority is overly restrictive and does not provide States, school districts, and institutions of higher education sufficient flexibilities to meaningfully design systems of teacher preparation, recruitment, and induction that meet their staffing needs. In addition, funding to support partnerships that enhance professional development activities and training for current and prospective teachers and staff may be provided through Elementary and Secondary Education Act formula grant funds (e.g., Title I), as well as from competitive grant programs. There is also limited evidence that demonstrates this program is any more effective than other State- and locally-driven initiatives designed to train and retain highly effective teachers in critical shortage areas.

 

 

Feds Dangle Money at States for “Enhanced Assessments”

The U.S. Department of Education has launched yet another competitive grant program, actually it is a renewal of a grant program they have had in the past called “Enhanced Assessment Grants.” Applications just became available yesterday. The deadline for states to announce to the Department their intent to apply is August 29, and the deadline for applications is September 22.

Here is the description of the program:

The purpose of the Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grant program, also called the Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) program, is to enhance the quality of assessment instruments and assessment systems used by States for measuring the academic achievement of elementary and secondary school students.

NJ.com reports that it is to help decrease the amount of tests students take and improve the ones they do take.

New Jersey and other states will be eligible for $9 million in federal funding to study how to improve or reduce the number of standardized tests students take each year, White House officials announced Friday.

The “Enhanced Assessment Grants” competition is the second step in the Obama administration’s efforts to limit testing in public schools in response to parents and teachers who say standardized exams are taking up too much of the school year.

States will have until Sept. 22 to apply for money to help study how to improve, reduce or eliminate tests. The grants could be used to improve low-quality tests, upgrade scoring methods or eliminate redundant or unnecessary tests, federal officials said.

“We’re excited to see what states will create,” said U.S. Secretary of Education John B. King Jr.

Here are the “absolute” priorities that the Department has set to be met before states are eligible for funding. States have to meet at least one or more of these priorities:

Absolute Priority 1—Collaboration.

Collaborate with institutions of higher education, other research institutions, or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments beyond the requirements for these assessments described in section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB.

Absolute Priority 2—Use of Multiple Measures of Student Academic Achievement.

Measure student academic achievement using multiple measures of student academic achievement from multiple sources.

Absolute Priority 3—Charting Student Progress Over Time.

Chart student progress over time.

Absolute Priority 4—Comprehensive Academic Assessment Instruments.

Evaluate student academic achievement through the development of comprehensive academic assessment instruments, such as performance- and technology-based academic assessments.

It seems we’ve gone down this road before. The major difference here, however, is that it does not call for states to join a consortium (mission accomplished there – well for a time at least due to Race to the Top). Here is the thing states should be doing this anyway. They shouldn’t need to mosey up to the federal feeding trough to innovate, and in doing so adopt the Fed’s priorities.

Since the federal funding is limited it’s unlikely a state will be competitive if they do not adopt all of the federal priorities when they submit their applications.

 

Six States Receive Race to the Trough Early Learning Challenge Money

The Associated Press reports that six states: Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Vermont have won a combined $280 million in government grants in order to improve birth-to-five early learning programs.  These states must show “a willingness to carry out comprehensive improvements to programs focused on children from birth to age 5.”

Later today we’ll learn what each state promised to do in return for their slice of the federal grant.  Thirteen states were awarded this grant last year.

Two thoughts: 1. Making kindergarten more “rigorous” (stressful) due to the Common Core State Standards will be used as a push for eventually making pre-school compulsory.  I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that’s the road we’re headed down.  2.  It makes no sense for Governors, like Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, to distance themselves from the Common Core if they’re just going to getting into bed with the Feds for more money.

Governors that crow about a Federal encroachment into education should no longer apply for grants such as these that have strings attached.

Does More Money Mean Better Education?

Not according to this chart from the Cato Institute.  So why is this argument always made year after year when there is absolutely no data that demonstrates this?

Relatively Little Federal Funding Equals Lots of Federal Control

John Hill, a senior policy analyst at the Alabama Policy Institute, wrote an excellent op/ed for the Tuscaloosa (AL) News.  An excerpt:

The federal government stands to gain tremendous sway in Alabama’s education through the implementation of a common national education standard, and many Alabamians may be shocked to find out what a sweetheart deal Uncle Sam is getting for such power. Even though the federal government has authorized funding for key portions of local school district budgets since it passed the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965, the amount of money given to states is not as large as some believe. According to the State Department of Education, about one in every six dollars of the $7.3 billion spent on Alabama’s K-12 education in the 2010-2011 school year came from the federal government. Yet for this relatively small percentage of assistance, the federal government already has a heavy hand in the educational standards for Alabama’s children.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Obama's Education Power Grab

President Barack Obama had a lot to say in last night’s State of the Union address, I mean a lot… apparently this was the 10th longest in words and 9th longest in time.  It was broadcast from 8:00pm – 9:30pm (CST).  I frankly don’t have time to dissect everything that he said, but with his comments regarding education it is clear that he does not care about parental or state rights.  In a nutshell when he said last night he said, “that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”  It is clear, based on his speech, that he doesn’t think there’s much we can do better by ourselves.

On education he first referred to Race to the Trough:

For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every state in the country t0 raise their standards for teaching and learning — the first time that’s happened in a generation.

I know, that Mike Huckabee thought this was a brilliant idea, but bribing states with one-time money to adopt standards in way that undermines the democratic process, educational freedom, local control and parental authority was simply unconstitutional. Doing some simple fact checking demonstrates this wasn’t a good idea.  Like the idea that it raised the standards for teaching and learning is false.  He is right that this is the first time in our nations history that this has happened, and it was done in violation of the law.

So wonderful… he went on to demonstrate his lack of knowledge about how education is even run…

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers.

Who hires teachers and lays them off?  Not states, but school districts; of course in Iowa some do want to eventually make that a state function.

He then continued:

Teachers matter.  So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal.  Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones.  And in return, grant schools flexibility:  to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.  That’s a bargain worth making.

So here we see more meddling with education.  The “and in return”  now we get to No Child Left Behind waivers.  I’m not a fan of NCLB, but since Congress didn’t do what Obama wanted; they bypassed them.  Since President Obama is willing to do things “with or without this Congress” we shouldn’t be surprised.

Let me say something “radical” here (at least to the establishment and elites) there is no legitimate federal role in education – period.  There should be no bargaining with the states.  There should be no U.S. Department of Education stamp of approval on certain standards.  President Obama, unfortunately was not done, he presumptively spoke on behalf of parents and the states:

We also know that when students don’t walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma.  When students are not allowed to drop out, they do better.  So tonight, I am proposing that every state — every state — requires that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18.

Now how does he propose to do this?  Probably he’ll do anytime the Feds want to foist something on the states, but threatening to withhold funds.   Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association said, “There appears to be no limit to the president’s desire for power. Car companies, banks, doctors, and now schools and the family. He’s gone way too far this time.”

Yes he has.  HSLDA in a press release today reminded that this again is historically unprecendented:

State-mandated attendance has not been the historical norm. In 1642, the Massachusetts Bay Colony stipulated that parents provide religious instruction for their children. For the next 200 years, most education laws were minimal and focused on family-centered education, giving children the tools to read, write, and do arithmetic, helping them understand what it meant to be virtuous citizens, and allowing them to learn a trade.

This is ultimately up to parents, not the Federal government, to decide.  Again, it is unlikely that President Obama would get this through Congress so I’m sure he’d find a way to bypass them and bully the states like he plans to do with colleges and universities if they don’t cap their tuition at the level he’d like to see.

We see clearly Obama’s lust for power in his remarks on education.

Originally published at Caffeinated Thoughts.

Tom Pauken on the Decentralization of Discretionary Spending

Tom Pauken, author of Bringing America Home and chair of the Texas Workforce Commission, discussed the decentralization of discretionary spending during a speech at the Eastside Conservative Club in Altoona, IA.  He mainly discusses education spending.

Texans seem to understand the federalist position in regards to education intuitively.