Yesterday’s CEF update. Sorry to be late forwarding this along. Some good stuff in this one, including a Pell Grant primer (Part II), which CEF Deputy Director Sarah Aberthathy put together. The Pew Survey noted in Section III is actually something I brought to last week’s CEF meeting here in DC. Highly recommend you take a look. While not specifically addressing adult education, the survey provides evidence of the growing awareness of the need for training/lifelong learning among those currently in the workforce. Jeff > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Sheryl Cohen <cohen@cef.org> > Subject: CEF Update 10.13.16 > Date: October 13, 2016 at 1:22:21 PM EDT > To: CEFMembersList <CEFMembersList@cef.org> > > > > Thursday, October 13, 2016 > > > Dear CEF Members: > > I. Education > > · Outlook for education in the lame duck session > Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS-Education Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) has stated his support for increasing the budget for the National Institutes for Health (NIH) even more than the $1.25 billion he included in his committee bill this summer. The corresponding Senate bill increases NIH funding by $2 billion over the 2016 level. Calling NIH “a good investment for the American people,” Cole said he wants to move closer to the Senate level in a full-year funding bill. Unless the final bill has a larger allocation, any additional increase for NIH jeopardizes education funding as all increases must be offset by cuts elsewhere in the bill. During the congressional recess CEF will be working with officers and Hill Team leaders to meet with leadership and appropriations staff to continue conveying our message of increasing the federal education investment. > > · New Title V II regulations released > The Department of Education released highly anticipated teacher prep regulations on Wednesday, October 12th. The Department received more than 5,000 comments on the rules, which were proposed in 2014. Read the Department’s press release here <http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department-releases-final-teacher-preparation-regulations>, and the final regulations can be found here <http://www2.ed.gov/documents/teaching/teacher-prep-final-regs.pdf>. > > · Senator Murray on restoring Pell eligibility > Last week, Senator Murray sent a letter to the Department of Education urging that Pell Grant eligibility be restored for students who used Pell Grants while attending for-profit schools that have been closed down. Because Pell Grant recipients have limits on the total number of semesters they can receive support, some students who attended recently closed ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges may have exhausted their eligibility without having the opportunity to finish a degree. Read the letter here <http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/10%205%2016%20-%20Murray%20Closed%20School%20Discharge.pdf>. > > II. Pell grants – unique budgeting process and possible funding changes for 2017 (charts attached) > > · The Pell grant program is the only program in the federal budget that spends out like a mandatory program – everyone entitled to a grant who applies gets one, regardless of the appropriations provided – but is funded with a hybrid of discretionary appropriations, mandatory outlays, and previously designated savings from cuts to other mandatory programs that support the discretionary grant. This mixture of funding streams creates complex budget book keeping. > > · Maximum grant: The Labor-HHS-ED appropriations bill sets the maximum discretionary award, and provides the amount that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will be required to support that award for the coming year. That discretionary maximum has been set at $4,860 since 2009 (some years, the discretionary funding includes a surplus carried over from past years and mandatory budget authority from savings in other laws). However, the maximum award has grown because since 2008, it also includes an add-on supported by mandatory spending. > > · Pell scoring rule: In 2006, the program had accumulated a $4.3 billion shortfall between what Congress had appropriated and what had been spent over previous years. The budget resolution that year wiped the slate clean, but created the “Pell grant scoring rule” that requires CBO to score the bill with the amount needed to support the designated maximum award plus sufficient funding to eliminate any shortfall (if there is one) from previous years. Congress has always provided enough funding to do so since if they didn’t, the score would exceed the bill’s 302(b) allocation and be subject to a point of order. > > · Pell surplus: Congress has maintained level funding for the discretionary grant recently even as a surplus has accrued that now totals $7.8 billion. That surplus is not a slush fund; it is money appropriated for Pell grants that wasn’t needed at the time, in part because the 2009 Recovery Act and several other laws provided mandatory support for the discretionary grant. Most of that support is from savings made to student loan programs. There are no more extra infusions on the books, so as Pell grant costs slowly rise the surplus will dwindle even if Congress keeps funding level. If Congress expands the program – for example, to include year-round grants as the Senate Appropriations Committee bill does for next year – the surplus will be used up faster. > > · FY17 appropriations bills: The House and Senate Appropriations Committees have reported Labor-HHS-ED bills that take different approaches to funding Pell grants, but both cut available funding by more than $1 billion while they increase spending for the National Institutes of Health by similar amounts. The House Committee bill cuts 2017 funding for Pell grants by $1.3 billion, thus using $1.3 billion of the accumulated surplus for 2017. If funding is frozen at the previous year’s level, each subsequent bill will have to cut another $1.3 billion from the surplus, further diminishing it. The Senate bill rescinds $1.2 billion of the surplus but keeps 2017 funding at the 2016 level, which has a better prognosis for the future if funding is frozen at the 2017 level. Either way, less money is being made available for Pell grants for 2017. > > · Charts and numbers: For those interested in the nitty gritty of the numbers, or who prefer a graphic representation of costs and funding, three charts and one table are attached. The table shows the discretionary costs and funding for each of the last ten years, and the resulting surpluses and shortfalls. The charts show discretionary Pell grant costs versus the annual shortfalls and surpluses; the number of Pell grant recipients that reflect changing economic conditions; and the divergence of the maximum Pell grant and the average costs of tuition, fees, room and board at 4-year public colleges. > > III. Survey on the need for more training and education > > · A Pew Research Center survey mentioned at Friday’s CEF meeting has interesting findings about the need for life-long learning and the role of colleges. Employment in fields that require more education, training, and experience is increasing at twice the pace of employment in jobs requiring below-average preparation. About 30% of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree say they need more education and training to get ahead. Only 16 percent of adults think a four-year degree prepares students very well for a well-paying job. The survey results, released on October 6, are online here <http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/10/06/the-state-of-american-jobs/>. > > IV. Upcoming CEF items > > · Website: We are beginning the process of renovating CEF’s website and updating the logo. If you have comments and thoughts on the website or logo, please fill out the survey at this link <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Y6B7KMK>. > > · Reminder: Committee budget proposals are due October 15th! > > · Nominations: If you are interested, nominations for next year’s board are due by November 28 to CEF, emailed to Alex Hoffberg at Hoffberg@cef.org <mailto:Hoffberg@cef.org>. > > > My best, > > Sheryl > > > Sheryl V. Cohen, Executive Director > > 1800 M Street, NW > Suite 500 South > Washington, DC 20036 > T: 202-327-8125 > cohen@cef.org <mailto:cohen@cef.org> > www.cef.org <http://www.cef.org/> Jeff Carter — jcarter@literacypolicy.org or jeffcrtr@gmail.org Personal Twitter: @jeffcrtr | literacypolicy.org Cell: (202) 374-4387