Ed Money Watch

Education in the Bailout

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:43:00 -0400

The recently enacted "bailout" bill was not entirely for Wall Street - the final bill included over $107 billion in tax breaks and other benefits for consumers, business owners, schools and students. The bill does not include any new programs to help lower the cost of higher education or solve school district budget crises, but it does expand or extend some valuable and important pre-existing education programs.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 extends the current $4,000 per year college tuition tax deduction through 2009, reducing revenue by an estimated $3.1 billion in 2009. The deduction was previously slated to expire in 2008. The classroom expenses tax credit for teachers and other school employees was also extended through 2009. The tax credit limit remains $250 per year and is expected to cost $214 million in forgone revenue in 2009.

The bill also expands HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits for students and families in the Midwest disaster areas for the 2008 and 2009 tax years. Both credits for these students will now cover expenses for books, equipment and room and board in addition to tuition and fees. The HOPE credit will cover 100% of expenses up to the first $2,400, and 50% of the second $2,400. This brings the total possible HOPE credit to $3,600, up from $1,650. The Lifetime Learning credit was also expanded for these students from 20% coverage to 40% coverage on expenditures up to $10,000, for a $4,000 maximum credit. The value of the credit increase for students in Midwest disaster areas is expected to be $71 million in 2009.

The Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs) were also expanded and extended through 2010 with a bond limit of $400 million. This program issues tax credits to bond holders in lieu of interest payments to help school districts with low income populations finance school renovation and repairs. They cover expenses deemed in a school's best interest including those for facilities, equipment, course materials, and teacher training. The cost of the extension is estimated at $6 million in 2009.

Finally, the "bailout" bill reauthorizes the Secure Rural School and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 for four years at $3.3 billion ($1 billion in 2009). This law will distribute funds to 700 school districts in 39 states that can no longer depend on federal timber sales to pay for schools and other social costs. For many districts, these funds will enable them to continue certain academic programs and hire new teachers to replace those that have retired.

It's hard to measure the immediate economic impact of these tax breaks and benefits. They seem small in relation to the $700 billion authorized to stabilize failing financial institutions. Collectively they don't address the full extent of the economic troubles schools are likely to face. And, despite a further bailout for student lenders, the bill provides no relief for indebted student borrowers.

The VPs on Education

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:22:00 -0400

In light of the Vice Presidential debate tonight we put together a short primer on where both of the VP picks stand on education. Needless to say, this is not an exhaustive or official list of either candidate's stance. Rather, we have attempted to trace both of their activities on education before they were potential VPs to paint a fuller picture.

Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic VP nominee, has a history of support for higher education legislation including expanding the college tuition tax deduction, the lifetime learning credit and the HOPE credits. He has co-sponsored bills related to Public Service Academies, education funding equity, expansion of school-age childcare, and school safety. He also co-sponsored the Educational Excellence for All Act in 2003 which aimed to increase the funding authorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Biden's platform from his presidential race website adds a few more details. He believes in a strong and comprehensive early education system, reduced class sizes, and the importance of graduating from high school. He would like to pay teachers more, create a scholarship program to encourage students to enter teaching, and improve mentoring and induction programs. His platform also presents a College Access Plan that would increase Pell Grant limits, begin college counseling in eighth grade, and create a $3,000 tuition tax credit.

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican VP nominee, ran for governor in 2006 on a platform that supported accountability, vocational and technical training, parental choice, charter schools, home schooling, and other alternatives to traditional public education. She proposed a three year school funding plan for Alaska that would increase funding by $1 billion each year to raise the base student allocation, provide more services for special needs students, and increase forward-funding to allow schools and districts to plan ahead. She also proposed creating a $20 million need-based aid program for the University of Alaska system.

In speeches and interviews, Palin has expressed her support for school choice, abstinence education, moral education, and career-readiness tests. As Mayor of Wasilla and during her gubernatorial race, she voiced her support for teaching creationism or intelligent design in science classrooms but did not introduce legislation tied to these issues. During her speech at the Republican Convention, she pledged to be an advocate for special needs students.

This background gives us a little peak into the candidates' approaches to education; we would love to learn more. While there is no guarantee that education will make an "appearance" during the debate tonight, we will be watching in hopes that it does.

Disclaimer: The editor of Ed Money Watch used to work for Senator Biden.

Looking into the Future

Jennifer Cohen — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:28:00 -0400

With No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorization on the horizon, it never hurts to look into the future of American public education. Thankfully, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recently released its Projections of Education Statistics to 2017. This report provides some valuable information when considering reasonable future expenditures on education.

According to NCES, total public school enrollment is expected to increase 10 percent between 2005 and 2017. This growth is expected to occur primarily in the South and West, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Texas. The Pre-K through eighth grades can expect the greatest enrollment growth, 12 percent, while the high school grades are only expected to grow by 4 percent.

The report predicts that the number of public high school graduates will increase 8 percent between 2005 and 2017. While Nevada, Arizona and Utah will see particularly large increases in the number of high school graduates, Louisiana, Vermont, and North Dakota will see particularly large decreases. These numbers highlight the states that are expected to particularly excell or fail at graduating students from high school.

Of greatest note, however, is the predicted growth in spending on education - about 42 percent (with a low estimate of 32 percent and high estimate of 50 percent) over the 12 year period. At this rate, projected K-12 spending in 2017 would rise to $626 billion. Of course this growth was predicted before the present economic situation.

On average, federal dollars account for 9 percent of education funding or $39.7 billion of the $441 billion spent on education in 2005 according to the report*. In order to maintain this spending level in 2017, the federal government will have to spend $56.3 billion on K-12 public education, or almost $17 billion more than currently spent. This is a hefty increase, especially given that inflation adjusted federal K-12 education spending has actually decreased slightly in the six years since NCLB was authorized. Reversing this trend in the next ten years to reach more than 40% growth in spending will represent a drastic change for the federal education budget.

If federal education spending does increase by 2017 to mirror the current 9 percent spending level, Congress should do all that it can to make sure that their money is well spent.

* All dollar amounts are given in inflation adjusted 2006 dollars.

Some Clear Thinking on Choice

Jennifer Cohen — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:42:00 -0400

Both candidates have been talking about "choice" as it pertains to education. It's a popular idea these days, especially as parents are demanding better educational opportunities for their children. But a recent article by the American Enterprise Institute's Rick Hess suggests that choice alone isn't enough to improve the quality of public education. Choice needs to be coupled with infrastructure and support to bring about innovation and success.

Choice means different things to each of the candidates. Barack Obama sees charter schools as the key to expanding public school choice. As such, he wants to double the funding for the Federal Charter School Program from the current level, $190 million, to $380 million. This program makes grants to states and other agencies to provide charter schools with planning, implementation, evaluation and expansion funding. Grants range from $10,000 to $20 million and between 30 and 40 are awarded each year.

John McCain believes that choice most often translates into vouchers that allow students to opt out of public schools. To start, he wants to expand the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides DC students with "scholarships" to attend private schools, from $13 million a year to $20 million a year. He also wants to expand federal funding for virtual education to $500 million. This money would provide students the opportunity to take courses they may not otherwise have access to online. Overall, McCain would like to create more equality of choice for students and parents across geographical and economic lines.

Clearly there are differences in how the candidates seek to achieve greater choice in education; one focuses on public school choice and the other would go beyond the public schools. Regardless, both candidates should consider Hess' findings before embracing "innovative" choice programs and pouring federal dollars into new or expanded initiatives. In his article, Hess uses the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program to underscore that simply "providing" choice does not ensure that the choices are good ones or that innovation and school improvement will follow.

Even though 20,000 students are enrolled in Milwaukee's 100 choice schools, academic achievement has not significantly improved across the district. Ten percent of choice schools are considered to have "alarming deficiencies" and few of the remaining 90 percent exhibit the type of innovation or excellence expected to develop in a choice-based system. The remaining traditional public schools have not done any better.

Hess believes that the absence of a "Milwaukee miracle" can be attributed to the lack of infrastructure to encourage and implement innovation, continued barriers to entry for new stakeholders, and limited quality control for choice schools. Unlike other sectors, which reward innovation and constantly seek new players and ideas, the education landscape remains an unfriendly terrain for entrepreneurs and reformers.

Hess uses the example of KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) charter schools to illustrate his point. Although KIPP is lauded as a great innovator in education, it has only opened 65 schools in its 14 year existence - barely scratching the surface of public education. By comparison, innovative companies like Google have become industry powerhouses in the same amount of time.

Hess posits that public schools in Milwaukee have not been able to respond to the competition brought on by choice schools because they lack the infrastructure and support to do so. He believes that good choice programs should provide remaining public schools with proper guidance to improve and foster actual competition.

Hess best sums up his opinion by saying: "Simply put, market reform is not just about choice; it is also about enabling market mechanisms to channel human energy and ingenuity into solving problems and satisfying needs." Choice programs, whatever their manifestation, are not beyond this challenge.

However the candidates choose to incorporate choice into their education reform agendas, we hope that they heed Hess' advice and incorporate greater infrastructure, flexibility and quality control into their plans. Milwaukee provides an important opportunity to learn from past mistakes to invest federal dollars more wisely.

Coming Up Short on Pell Grants?

Jason Delisle — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:00:00 -0400

A perfect storm has been brewing on the 2009-10 Pell Grant funding front and media reports have incited fears that next year's federal grant aid could be drastically reduced. Fear not, however, Congress is set to take action that makes this scenario much less likely.

The Pell Grant program is the cornerstone of federal grant aid for low-income college students. In academic year 2008-09 low-income students received Pell Grants worth $400 to $4,731 (the average grant award is likely to be $2,945) a piece to pay for tuition and other attendance related costs. Each year, Congress sets a maximum grant level and then appropriates what it estimates to be the necessary funding. Each student's grant amount is determined by a formula based on his or her financial need.

Sometime in the coming months, Congress is expected to set the maximum grant level for the 2009-10 school year and appropriate the needed funds. Unfortunately, it looks as though they may need to come up with a lot more money than previously estimated to ensure next year's grant level is at least as high as this year's $4,731. Why?

More Pell Grants have been awarded in the past two academic years than expected. In response to this unexpected growth, the U.S. Department of Education has had to dip into next year's funding to make sure each student gets his or her Pell Grant. But this "borrowed" money eventually catches up with Congress through budgeting rules, forcing legislators to "cover" the shortfall before providing any new funds for the upcoming year. (See the Federal Education Budget Project resource page for more information on this issue).

The current gap, or shortfall, now totals $2 billion, or 14 percent of last year's funding. To fill this gap, a good-sized piece of next year's funding will have to be used to pay for this year.

Luckily, Congress is set to pass a "continuing resolution" that provides stopgap funding for federal programs until final fiscal year 2009 approprations are passed. This continuing resolution (CR) is reported to include $2.5 billion to cover this past year's shortfall. As a result, when Congress sets the maximum 2009-10 Pell Grant level over the coming months, it won't need to fill in the shortfall from past years' underfunding. This will take a lot of budgeting pressure off of the Pell Grant program. But...

...due to whole host of factors, the Department of Education reports that Congress will need to provide at least $18 billion (we think closer to $19 billion) to cover next year's Pell funding; $4-5 billion more than was allotted this year. Why such a drastic change?

Congress changed eligibility rules so more students receive larger grants. And current economic and demographic trends have increased the pool of students who qualify as low-income. Ultimately, it appears that Pell will require a 29 percent funding boost from this year's $14 billion just to ensure each student's 2009-10 Pell Grant remains level next year.

In short, Congress will likely take the first step ($2.5 billion), albeit a small one, to preserve the current Pell Grant level. To meet need and maintain students' current grant levels it will have to go much further ($18 billion). Stay tuned.

Teacher Recruitment and Retention in the Next Administration

Jennifer Cohen — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:02:00 -0400

Districts across the nation are in need of highly qualified teachers, particularly in math, science and special education. Given that the estimated cost of current teacher attrition is around $2 billion annually, maintaining and growing the teaching force may be one of the greatest, and most expensive, challenges in education for the next administration. Sadly, little research has been done to examine the value added of current or potential teacher retention and recruitment activities.

Currently, the federal government makes some efforts to increase the pool of qualified teachers, with special emphasis on hard-to-staff schools. Title II of NCLB currently allocates $2.9 billion in state grants for teacher recruitment and retention activities such as incentive programs for teachers who work in hard-to-staff schools or teach hard-to-staff subjects. The TEACH grant program, part of the College Cost Reduction Act, provides up to $24,000 in tuition grants to college students in exchange for four years of teaching service in hard-to-staff schools and subjects with an expected total cost of $325 million over five years. The Higher Education Opportunity Act "spends" an unspecified amount to support innovative teacher training programs and accountability for teacher preparation schools as well as $300 million on partnerships between schools of education and high-need districts.

In response to the need for more teachers - highly qualified teachers - both presidential candidates have developed plans for teacher recruitment and retention, should they take office:

John McCain's plan dedicates 5 percent of existing NCLB Title II funding to states to recruit teachers in the top 25 percent of their class or who have undergone alternative certification programs. His platform also allocates 60 percent of Title II funding for incentive bonuses for teachers who teach in hard-to-staff schools and subjects and 35 percent of Title II funding for high quality professional development programs. Using today's Title II dollars, this would amount to roughly $145 million for recruitment, $1.7 billion for incentive bonuses and $1 billion for professional development.

Barack Obama wants to dedicate an unspecified amount to teacher incentive bonuses, expand funding for teacher mentoring to $1 billion, and dedicate $100 million to improving teacher education programs through school-university partnerships and research-based methods. His platform also mentions Teacher Service Scholarships (which sound very similar to TEACH grants) for college students and mid-career change teachers, and Teacher Residency Programs to bring new teachers into urban schools.

Thankfully, the candidates are dedicating time and money to teacher recruitment and retention. Some of their ideas sound similar to programs already in place and many of them have yet to prove their effectiveness. Yet, getting Congressional backing for expansion or creation of any of these programs will ultimately require the candidates to demonstrate why their programs are better or more deserving than programs already in place.

For example, Teacher Residency Programs, currently expanding in cities like Chicago and Boston, provide opportunities for second career teachers to enter classrooms alongside mentors while earning their teaching credential. While there is anecdotal evidence of their effectiveness, there is no rigorous research that definitively shows that Teacher Residencies are more effective than other teacher training programs. Similarly, the jury is still out on teacher incentive bonuses, grants for teaching service, and alternative certification programs as a whole.

Lack of evidence is not in itself a condemnation of a program. Conducting rigorous research on teachers is a challenging undertaking. The majority of states and localities lack the ability to link teachers to students, making it difficult to attribute student achievement to teacher characteristics such as participation in a particular training program. Building these data capabilities will take time and money, but the outcome will be invaluable as we consider expanding and improving our teaching force.

There is no question that teacher recruitment and retention deserves federal attention. Both candidates bring some new ideas to the table; it's a start. We would request that as the candidates' plans translate into policy, they incorporate opportunities for rigorous program evaluation at the start and further down the line.

Facing NCLB Head-on

Jennifer Cohen — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:50:00 -0400

The media is starting to notice that both McCain and Obama are shying away from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on the campaign trail. The law - once considered a shining achievement of the Bush Administration - seems to have become a sort of political kryptonite in the education world.

Although both candidates have recently released education-oriented campaign ads, an impressive feat given that education doesn't often rank as a top campaign priority, neither mentions the law specifically. This practice is quickly becoming problematic - the candidates can't ignore the largest K-12 federal education funding source forever.

NCLB funding may pale in comparison to the defense or agriculture budget. But it's not an insignificant portion of education funding. NCLB funding reached $24 billion in 2008, a large portion of which went to the nation's most needy schools and districts. It deserves a place in the candidates' stump speeches as much as any other issue.

Don't get us wrong, the candidates have talked about education. McCain wants to see an expansion in federal funds for virtual education. Obama has proposed an additional $10 billion for early education. Both have talked about teacher training, school choice and accountability.

But neither has couched the discussion in terms of NCLB and how they will change the law to strengthen schools around the country. By now we know that the law needs tweaking, if not significant changes. The candidates need to start flushing out their NCLB plans and stop fearing the law's association with the current administration.

Secretary Spellings meanwhile, as well other players in the education arena, have been waving their arms trying to get the candidates' attention. NCLB legislation expired at the end of fiscal year 2007 and efforts to reauthorize it have proven unfruitful so far. Without concrete direction and priority from the candidates, it is hard to know now in what direction, and with what speed, reauthorization will move forward.

Reauthorization is a pressing issue in the education world. The last seven years of NCLB have been a learning experience for the nation - we now know more about student performance than we ever have before. Bringing NCLB back onto the campaign trail will give the candidates a chance to reconsider NCLB's strengths and weaknesses. This process probably won't be pretty, but it is necessary.

We hope McCain and Obama stop beating around the bush (no pun intended) and start solidifying their plans for NCLB soon. Until they do, it will be hard to predict the future of the federal government's involvement in education.

The Dollars and Cents of Dropping Out

Jennifer Cohen — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:12:00 -0400

It's no mystery that America's failing high schools have a direct impact on the economy. A recent study released by the Alliance for Excellent Education attempts to place a price tag on the "dropout crisis" and the results are stunning.

According to the report's findings, the potential wealth the country could gain if every head of household was a high school graduate is over $74 billion. Even a 5 percent increase in the graduation rate of males alone would result in a $7.7 billion benefit to the national economy. And if every member of the graduating class of 2008 had graduated from high school, they would have produced an extra $319 billion in earnings, taxes and productivity over their lifetimes.

Not shockingly, the drop out crisis disproportionately affects poor students. Students from wealthy areas are nearly seven times as likely to graduate from high school as students from poor areas. As a result, the failure of our high schools reinforces the cyclical nature of poverty, particularly in today's economy. According to the report, virtually all high school dropouts have fallen out of the middle class due to their inability to secure well-paying jobs resulting in an annual wage gap of $9,000 between high school dropouts and graduates.

The repercussions of our high schools' failure to graduate poor and minority students are undeniable. It is no longer an issue that just concerns equity and fairness. It has become a dramatic economic problem to the tune of trillions of dollars. More than 12 million students are expected to drop out of high school in the next decade, taking three trillion potential dollars out of the economy. That amount could almost cover the cost of running the federal government in 2009.

Failing high schools have been labeled "dropout factories" by academics and become the subject of much media scrutiny and foundation attention. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, alone, has invested over $1 billion in high schools. But, these efforts have remained isolated at best and sweeping attempts to improve high school success, particularly in low income areas, are nearly non-existent.

Quantifying the impact of dropping out on the nation's economy is an important step in drawing attention to the current state of secondary education. And it will ultimately better guide federal policy and the use of federal funds concerning high school age students.

A forthcoming report by the Federal Education Budget Project's Sara Mead examines current federal investments in high schools, the majority of which target students who have already dropped out of school. While these may be worthy investments, the severity of the dropout problem demands interventions that keep students from falling out of the system to begin with. Until cities, states, and the federal government are willing to make more consistent and long term investments in America's failing high schools, it's difficult to imagine a time when dropping out will no longer be a crisis, but a thing of the past.

The Economy and Education- Will the Budget Crunch Facing States Affect Education Spending

Heather Rieman — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:27:00 -0400

As the economy continues to weaken, many states across the country are starting to face a budget crunch that may affect funding for education. A variety of factors--including the housing market, fuel prices, and a slowdown in tax collections--mean that states are going to see fewer revenue increases than in previous years.

When states face economic downturns, there are real implications for students, teachers, and schools. States often try to protect K-12 spending during tight budget times. But states spend such a large portion of their discretionary spending on education (about 34 percent for K-12 and 11 percent for higher education) that it is difficult to make cuts entirely in other areas. Other large discretionary expenditures include Medicaid (17 percent) and corrections (11percent).

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that during the end of the last recession (2002-2004), 34 states cut real per-pupil aid to school districts. Already this year 10 states have proposed or implemented funding cuts to K-12 education.

According to a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in fiscal year 2009, 29 states have a combined budget shortfall of $48 billion. California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida are particularly hard hit. We are already starting to hear stories about teacher layoffs in California; reduced summer school programming in Bethel, Conn.; a 10 percent budget cut for the Miami-Dade School District in Florida; fewer nurses and certified personnel for libraries in Mesa, Ariz.; and cuts to gifted and talented programs in Nevada.

The extent and severity of the budget problems vary widely, however, with some states facing much more severe funding issues than others. In energy- and agriculture-rich states, such as Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, and New Mexico, state revenues are actually increasing. However, higher energy and health care costs combined with lower property tax revenues doesn't necessarily mean that schools in those states are not feeling a pinch at the local level.

According to a recently released National Governor's Association report, The Fiscal Survey of States, 16 states are facing revenue decreases, and 23 states show no increase or decrease for 2009. When the economy is good, generally both state revenues and expenditures grow each year, because of inflation and population growth. Thus all 39 of these states are in for tough times. Additionally, during recessions the costs of social services tend to rise as people need more assistance, placing an extra burden on these already cash-strapped budgets.

If the economic slump in the early 2000's is any indication, the toughest time is still to come. The NGA reports that last time around, state's faced their largest shortfalls in the year or two after the economic downturn had ended. Considering we are still in the midst of a troubled economy with no end in site, it is likely that more and more states will be impacted.

For at least some states, there is still a little time left to tighten the belt for the rough road ahead. States seem to be doing that. According to the NGA report governors recommended only a one percent increase in discretionary spending in their 2009 budgets--the third lowest increase in the past 31 years. Hopefully, states are taking the time to carefully plan for the economic downturn and will make cuts to education only when they have to and in the places least likely to affect student learning.

We are just getting a first glimpse of what the economic downturn means for students, teachers and schools; the real fallout remains to be seen. Ed Money Watch will be closely following the economy and how it affects education funding around the country.

Let the Funding Debate Begin!

Jennifer Cohen — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:34:00 -0400

Now that Republican and Democratic presidential candidates Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama have both released their education agendas, Ed Money Watch has decided to examine the federal education funding implications of both plans. While both candidates' plans leave some questions unanswered, the differences between them on education funding are stark.

Sen. Obama's platform would increase federal funding for K-12 and early education programs by $18 billion annually. The largest share of that new funding-$10 billion-would go to Obama's "zero to five" early education plan to improve the quality and availability of childcare, preschool, and Head Start programs. Obama's proposal would more than double the current federal investment in early childhood programs such as Head Start and the Child Development Block Grant.

Fewer details exist on where the additional $8 billion intended for K-12 education reforms would go, however. Obama proposes significant investments in improving teacher preparation and quality, including $100 million to stimulate school-university partnerships for teacher education, $1 billion for teacher mentoring programs, and an unspecified amount to provide college scholarships of up to $25,000 to recruit 40,000 new teachers. But the campaign hasn't provided a price tag for many other teacher quality proposals, including the most significant ones.

Obama's proposal also includes $200 million for state grants for extended learning time, and would double the current funding level ($1.08 billion) for the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers afterschool program. Obama has also proposed doubling the current $260 million federal investment in education research and development. According to the campaign, these investments will be paid for by cutting programs and utilizing tax loopholes elsewhere in the federal budget to funnel money into education.

Sen. John McCain, in contrast, has said that he will freeze all federal discretionary spending until his administration determines which programs are actually working. Within that set funding amount, he will provide $250 million in grants to states to develop new virtual learning curricula and programs, and provide $250 million in scholarships for low-income students to take online coursework or tutoring. These programs would be paid for in part by repurposing the $267 current federal investment in Education Technology State Grants. McCain would also increase funding for DC's Opportunity Scholarships to $20 million, and reallocate 65% of the $2.9 billion in NCLB Title II teacher quality funds to teacher recruitment and performance pay bonuses.

McCain's platform also talks about providing school principals greater autonomy in their use of federal funds, but is unclear about how he would do that. Senator McCain has voted against fully funding No Child Left Behind and has not yet said whether he will support increases in funding for education programs to keep up with increased student population or inflation.

We look forward to seeing more details on both McCain's and Obama's education funding plans, particularly which programs they plan to cut to make new program spending possible. This is just a taste of the education debate that's yet to come. And if our event last Thursday was any indication, the audience for a conversation on education is large and ready and waiting for more.