AlePublicPolicyFY06Budget
From LiteracyTentWiki
From: dwyoho@earthlink.net
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] Ppresident's Budget
Date: February 7, 2005 2:42:36 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
This from another source:
President Bush's Budget Proposal for FY 06 cuts the funding level for adult education state grants from the current $569 million to $207 million, a reduction of almost 66%. A cut of this magnitude will destroy the adult education program delivery system in many states around the country. The funding for Even Start programs has been reduced to $0 in the Presidents budget.
Now we must move to restore that funding through our work with the US House and Senate. We will be sending you information within the next two days that will assist all of us in a nationwide campaign to restore funding for our students. As Mother Jones said "Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living"
Art Ellison, Co-Chair, Policy Committee, National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
For the Cause! Debbie
Deborah W. Yoho
Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv
Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council
Past President, SC Adult Literacy Educators
2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205
803-765-2555 Fax 803-799-8417 dwyoho@earthlink.net
From: tsticht@znet.com
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 7, 2005 2:48:11 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Aaace-NLA colleagues:
According to the U. S. Department of Education, the budget for the State Grants program that funds the Adult Education and Literacy System (AELS) for FY 2006 is $200million, a drop of some two-thirds from $570 in FY 2005. According to the message posted on the ED web site, this was done because the State Grants programs failed the PART analysis, which stands for Program Assessment Rating Tool. Following is a brief note about the PART analysis. More can be found online at http://www.transparentgovernment.org/tg/ (See left-hand side bar)
Tom Sticht
What is PART?
At the center of the Administration's approach to "performance budgeting" is the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The PART is a methodological, standardized and evidence-based evaluation - offering hard data on whether federal programs are doing what taxpayers are paying for them to do and assessing whether they are being managed properly.
It investigates the most important aspects of performance… from relevance to results. By focusing on these various characteristics, managers can paint an in-depth picture of just what exactly they are achieving, or if they are achieving anything at all! The results are presented by OMB as four different percentages (one for each section of the PART) and as a categorical assessment ("Effective," "Moderately Effective," "Adequate," "Ineffective" or "Results Not Demonstrated").
Each section of the PART is assigned a value at which it is weighted.
Purpose: 20 percent
Planning: 10 percent
Management: 20 percent
Results: 50 percent
By focusing on these various characteristics, managers can paint an in-depth picture of just what exactly they are achieving, or if they are achieving anything at all. Across the board, the PART asks the same 25 questions of each program. This standardization reduces the apples-to-oranges challenge of other evaluation systems and creates a wider source of management guidance for managers to take back and implement in their own programs. And the fact that PART is evidence-based - requiring proof of the results claimed by program officials - demonstrates to Congress the successes of the programs and justifies every penny of the budget allocation.
From: DJRosen@theworld.com
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 7, 2005 3:53:31 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Tom, and other colleagues,
It looks like the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) thinks Adult Education State Grants have a very strong purpose and design, but don't demonstrate good results.
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 2006 Budget
Department of Education Adult Education State Grants
| Section | Weight | Score |
| 1: Program Purpose and Design | 20% | 100% |
| 2: Planning | 10% | 29% |
| 3: Management | 20% | 67% |
| 4: Results | 50% | 0% |
| Total Score % | 36% | |
| Total Score: | 36 | |
| Eval: Results Not Demonstrated |
Source: http://www.transparentgovernment.org/tg/news/totalPART.htm
David J. Rosen
djrosen@theworld.com
From: bonniesophia@adelphia.net
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 7, 2005 4:34:57 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
I realize my information may be a bit out of date, but when I was an active
participant in a WIA grant administered through CT State DOE, we were being
told that there was a change of emphasis; that "success" would only be
counted as obtaining employment or entering higher education, and that
gains in test scores, even those meeting the state and our own grant
parameters, did NOT "count." So, in essence, an education grant wouldn't be
assessed on "educational" measures, however flawed, but by student
performance and/or behaviors over which one presumably would have very
little control.
Bonnie Odiorne, Ph.D.
English Language Institute, Writing Center
Post University
Waterbury, CT
From: AEllison@ed.state.nh.us
Subject: RE: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 7, 2005 4:31:54 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
To the list,
It is clear from the PART review that OMB never understood the Results portion of their work. All of conclusions in that section of their report rely on a staff person's judgment that "without established targets, it is impossible to assess progress".
There are two relevant points here: one, there are 16 established targets for every state, and two, each target is stated in a percentage rather than a total number of students who will reach that goal. It appears that OMB does not accept percentages as targets, only numbers.
There have been a great number of disagreements over the past few years between adult educators and OMB on this matter however, it is clear to me that the numbers, percentages are not the issue in this case.
We are dealing with an administration which is willing to sacrifice a high quality educational program for a political goal: maximizing available resources for the war and present/future tax cuts for the rich, while cutting domestic spending to meet the goals of those who think that the federal government should drastically reduce its commitment to programs that support the poor.
Art Ellison
From: RBickerton@doe.mass.edu
Subject: RE: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 7, 2005 5:00:42 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
David and Tom, et al,
We need to put the "PART" (program performance) numbers for adult education into context. They did NOT arrive at most of these ratings by evaluating the performance data submitted to the U.S. Department of Education by the state ABE programs. In several cases they simply gave the ABE program a zero rating on the criteria leading to the scores David lists below because the Department's strategic plan does not provide a specific numeric target. For example, they mention that state's report: of the students who had the goal of obtaining a high school diploma or its equivalent, that 1/3 did so. So, some might be tempted to ask, is this "good" or "bad" performance? The rating authority never dealt with this question, instead assigning a "0" because the strategic plan for adult education, also developed by the feds, does not have an "established target."
In other words, what some are billing as "data based evidence" of inadequate performance is nothing more than a bald attempt to stack the deck against many programs to justify budget cuts. To put it mildly, the claims are incredibly misleading -- they buried state performance under a thinly disguised "technicality" to force an alleged finding of inadequate performance.
We cannot and will not let this stand.
bob bickerton,
MA director of adult ed & NCSDAE chair
From: sondragay@verizon.net
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] President's Budget
Date: February 7, 2005 5:28:11 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
I just want to affirm Art Ellison’s analysis of the source of the problem:
“We are dealing with an administration which is willing to sacrifice a high quality educational program for a political goal: maximizing available resources for the war and present/future tax cuts for the rich, while cutting domestic spending to meet the goals of those who think that the federal government should drastically reduce its commitment to programs that support the poor. “ Art Ellison
I spent two years at NIFL dealing with PART and can assure you that the criteria in PART are not designed for educational programs. I am afraid this is another case of “evidence” or the “lack of evidence” in the service of ideology.
I think we are living through a time, like the 18th and early 19th centuries in England when there was a belief that you could make a clear distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor – and only widows and infants fit into the deserving category. Right now, the administration philosophy seems to be that if you need government services (education, health care, pension) it’s because you have failed (morally as well as materially) to provide for your self and family. Let’s hope that our Senators and Congress people remember that the purpose of government is to serve all the people.
Sondra Stein
From: atrawick@charter.net
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 7, 2005 5:33:12 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
At http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/summary/edlite-section2c.html, there is a statement that reads: "A PART analysis of the program carried out as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget process produced a Results Not Demonstrated rating. The program was found to have a modest impact on adult literacy, skill attainment and job placement, but data quality problems and the lack of a national evaluation made it difficult to assess the program's effectiveness."
The analysis itself is reported on a worksheet found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pma/adulteducation.xls.
Question: It seems to me that the analysis for Adult Education was carried out several years ago--reported in Feb. 2003, using what seems to be 2001 data. The worksheet indicates that that the problem was that there were no numerical targets, so although numbers were available regarding gains, employment, etc., there were no targets to compare them to determine whether these were "good" numbers or "bad" numbers. But since it has been several years since the report first came out, surely targets have been developed at OVAE, and a new analysis would improve the PART scores. Is there a later PART analysis that I'm not seeing?
Amy
From: DJRosen@theworld.com
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 7, 2005 5:33:09 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
Thanks Bob and Art,
So the OMB analysis is a red herring* . As we -- adult learners and practitioners together -- build an avalanche of responses it will be helpful to have some talking points like this which help us to explain what has actually happened.
David J. Rosen djrosen@theworld.com
* From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
red herring
1 : a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2 [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse
hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue
From: runspotrun99@yahoo.com
Subject: [AAACE-NLA] PART, and the real reasons adult ed is singled out
Date: February 7, 2005 8:55:55 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
The PART analyis of adult education was conducted in
2001. It's worth asking why it has not been updated
since then, particularly when it is being used to
justify draconian cuts. But it really is a red
herring. The PART findings are used to justify
decisions after they have been made, not to inform
them.
Consider this:
GEAR-UP, a comprehensive academic counseling and financial assistance program that is designed to encourage low-income kids to set their sights on college, was rated as "adequate" by the PART. The budget zeroes out the program.
These are some of the Department of Education programs, like adult education, that also have "results not demonstrated" ratings, but are level-funded in the President's budget:
-Impact Aid ($1 billion) - Improving Teacher Quality State Grants ($2.9 billion) - High School Equivalency Program (HEP) - for migrants ($19 million) - Independent Living - for adults with disabilities ($131 million) - Child Care Means Parents in School - grants for child care at colleges and universities ($16 million).
I'm sure that you can find dozens of programs across the government with the same rating that are not gutted in the budget.
So why is adult ed being singled out?
There are probably a lot of reasons, including a new Secretary who may have different priorities, but it all boils down to politics, I think. Some decision-makers in the administration have decided that there will not be any political consequences/fall-out from attacking adult education. I imagine that some people might say, "don't worry - Congress would never agree to anything like this," and maybe that's true, but one of the reasons why is that a number of members of Congress believe that there will be political consequences for slashing adult ed (and others understand the inequity and injustice of it all). I hope the community does not disappoint them. It is important that we speak up loudly, angrily, and persistently against this nonsense. I'm frightened about what will happen if we don't.
From: KSmith1@aol.com
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 7, 2005 9:06:08 PM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
David,
I strongly suggest a multi-faceted offensive.
1. A grass roots communications campaign with our elected officials is prerequisite. Do not limit this campaign to your federal elected officials. Make the case to your state and local elected officials, those you are more likely to have a personal or program connection with, that this federal cut will put much greater pressure on the state, county and local budgets. Ask them to communicate with the federal representatives in your district, state and their party. Ask them to tell Washington how important adult education is to the community back home.
2. Refute the PART findings by offering alternative ones. We have some smart folks in this business who know a bit more about the efficacy of our work than seems evident in the PART analysis. Don't attack PART. Offer other, better evidence that PART is not correct.
3. An editorial blitz nationwide. Everybody write to their local newspaper with a positive, upbeat piece on the success of your adult education program and the tremendous return on the minimal investment. Focus on how far you make that little bit of federal money go. Get on TV and radio to let the community know that the administration is proposing these cuts and how it will impact people. Elected officials have very good system's for tracking these issues in their communities. They are likely to negotiate some of the reductions the administration has recommended in the budget. We have to make this issue one they won't trade in.
4. Hire a professional advocacy firm to help us do battle in the trenches in DC. Between the National Coalition, Literacy USA, ProLiteracy, the Lennox's advocacy group, ALA, etc we can muster some resource to get some help. Find a firm with the 'right' connections. This is not the time to pick a fight with the undefeated bully. This is the time to find someone with the connections to help us get adult education restored. If need be, ask for donations. A short term, effective lobby should not be too costly to consider.
There are many groups in the same or a worse budget boat than adult education is in. It will be difficult to be heard through all the noise this budget will create. That is 'part' of the strategy.
Kevin Smith
Literacy New York
From: hbeder@rci.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 8, 2005 9:12:14 AM EST
To: aaace-nla@lists.literacytent.org
The government [Congress] mandated accountability in the WIA legislation. Then the government [OVAE] designed and required implementation of an accountability system [NRS]. Now the government [the administration] is proposing Draconian cuts in adult literacy because its own accountability system was deficient in providing the information it says was necessary. What kind of logic is that?
From: RBickerton@doe.mass.edu
Subject: RE: [AAACE-NLA] President's FY06 budget for AELS
Date: February 8, 2005 9:55:03 AM EST
To: National Literacy Advocacy List sponsored by AAACE
Hal, et al,
You raise an issue and a question that will emerge as key to our prevailing in the coming debate on the President's proposals. As adult literacy/ABE/ESOL stakeholders and partners make the case for increasing, rather than decreasing this funding, many will respond with questions and/or concerns about "performance." As we've learned from other policy debates over the past few years, it's not always the facts that ultimately result in an outcome, it's often a well crafted and repeatedly delivered message that wins the day REGARDLESS of its factual basis. [NOTE: In Massachusetts, we are comfortable with using "ABE" for all these services which coexist quite well under our "big tent" so please don't read anything exclusive into the acronym when I use it in my postings.]
If we do our job well, we can win the high ground on both counts -- the facts AND the message. The state directors of adult ed will be working very closely with the National Coalition for Literacy to make the case, craft common messages, and make sure that everyone who needs to will hear the message clearly and repeatedly -- until we have prevailed.
Members of this list can help. We need a graceful, simple/brief/short, clear and powerful way to communicate the point that Hal, Art, and I have raised about how some in the administration "cooked the books" with regard to ABE performance -- now there's a phrase we might want to "market" aggressively!
The outline of the message might be something like:
- ABE programs devote substantial time and resources to documenting
performance.
- The administration ignored this data.
- Instead, the administration official in charge of evaluating ABE
performance accuses the administration official in charge of the strategic plan with leaving out some numbers, so ABE gets a completely underserved "0" rating on many criteria.
- In other words, this allegedly data driven assessment was cynically
manipulated to "cook the books" in favor of the administration's desired outcome -- a rationale for cutting and/or eliminating this and other programs.
Now, this is TOO abstract, TOO long, and TOO complicated -- it will make many potential allies tune out before the message is over. SO, my hope is that some of the better (and briefer) word smiths on the list will help us to distill a very short/quick and pithy way to get this across to those we need to win over to our righteous cause.
take care, bob bickerton, MA director of adult ed & NCSDAE chair
ps: some may recall another of my recent postings in which I shared a quote from a letter written by Charles Lamb: "He uses statistics like a drunken man uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination."
DJRosen@theworld.com
February 15, 2005 5:20:26 PM EST
AAACE-NLA Colleagues,
I understand that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce plans to mark up its WIA Reauthorization bill, H.R. 27, The Job Training Improvement Act of 2005, tomorrow, February 16th. I understand that the most recent version of the legislation offered by Rep. McKeon at the Subcommittee mark-up last week can be found at:
http://edworkforce.house.gov/markups/109th/21st/hr27/29main.htm
David J. Rosen
Adult Literacy Advocate
djrosen@comcast.net
From: Dmartin336@aol.com mailto:Dmartin336@aol.com
Subject: Committee is scheduled to mark up H.R. 27,
February 15, 2005 6:42:30 PM EST
MAJOR EVENTS AHEAD
· The House Education and Workforce Committee is scheduled to mark up H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005, on Wednesday, February 16th. We expect an amendment will be offered during the mark up to give states the authority to implement the President’s proposal for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Plus Consolidated Grant Program. The WIA Plus program would give states the flexibility to consolidate 9 employment related federal programs, including the vocational rehabilitation program. The proposal requires the consolidation of 4 Department of Labor programs and gives states the option of consolidating the Veterans Employment, Trade Adjustment Assistance, Vocational Rehabilitation, Adult Education and Food Stamps Employment and Training. VR, which was funded at $2.6 billion in 2005, is by far the largest of the programs slated for possible consolidation. While the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005 may offer some positive changes to the WIA and VR programs, particularly in the area of transition services, this threat to VR outweighs any positive gains.
Donna Martinez
