I don't get why student loans is a part of the health care law?

Obama Signs Student Loan Reform Into Law
via LA Times

Obama Signs Bill on Student Loans and Healthcare
via NY Times

Does anyone really understand why this students loans law is attached to the healthcare law (I guess, it's called a reconciliation bill)? I hate when government does stuff like this. I find it to be confusing, hard to follow, and not transparent. It's like when property taxes are used to create a freeway in another county (I hope that's not being done!).

I'm glad that more money will be freed up for actual loans, but I wonder how much banks will suffer because they will no longer be receiving this money they would otherwise had gotten from the loans they give out (they after all are already in dire financial states, but then again, the public did bail them out, so a majority of them could survive? maybe it is fair?). I suppose because they were named "middlemen" in this transaction, banks were creating exorbitant fees for loans--- they were creating loans with extra, extra fees for what? I guess, that was what whoever discovered these fees thought as well, so they brought it to the President to enact a change.

In both speech and substance, Tuesday's event offered a preview, casting the healthcare law as part of a bigger Democratic plan to help American families against monied interests who have profited in their time of economic distress. Just as Democrats fought the insurance companies to reform health care, the president said, they put an end to the role of banks in the college loan process.

I think it's ironic and funny that Republicans are supposed to be fiscally responsible, but then they are also pro-big business. It's kind of paradoxical when you think about them voting against the health care bill because yes, the health care companies will suffer, but the health care companies were not being fiscally responsible when it came to fees and the like. The Democrats are trying to be fiscally responsible with loans/banks/healthcare in this regard because their slogan has been as of late, "Big business stop cheating the American people".

"We can't afford to waste billions on giveaways to the banks" when American competitiveness depends on the fortunes of its students, Obama said.

The White House estimates that the changes in the lending program will general $68 billion in savings over the next 10 years, money that can be used to help expand the Pell Grant program.

Money for me???!!

The new law will also put a cap on college graduates' annual loan payments, so that they only have to pay back 10% of their income.

What is it right now? That will be pretty amazing and helpful, so that college graduates can also enjoy the benefits of their job, rather than having to use a majority of it to pay their loans. Ughhhh nevermind, just read this is only going to apply to those that borrow in 2014.

Haha I think it's funny that he called out Sallie Mae... they call my house non-stop about our payments (but poor them if they do have to do away with a third of their 8,500 employees).

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and a former education secretary, also spoke out angrily against the plan to end the subsidies to private banks. Tennessee, too, is home to some big players in the private student lending industry. In a statement Tuesday, he bemoaned the government getting more deeply into the loan business directly. “The Obama administration’s motto is turning out to be: ‘If we can find it in the Yellow Pages, the government ought to try to do it,’” Mr. Alexander said.

The senator said students would be overcharged on their loans with the proceeds used for the health care law. He also said that 31,000 private sector workers would be out of a job and students would be forced to rely on four federal call centers instead of more than 2,000 community and nonprofit lenders---- jives with their argument about big government; the private sector can do it better.

The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, wasted no time in blasting both the health and education components of the reconciliation bill.

“Today the president will sign not one, but two job-killing government takeovers that are already hurting our economy,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “Employers across the country are continuing to reveal the costly fallout from ‘ObamaCare’ – including new tax hikes and mandates that make it harder to hire new workers, and put health care benefits promised to workers and retirees in jeopardy. As the White House continues to ‘sell’ this new law, we are seeing the same pattern we’ve seen for the past year: the more the American people learn about it, the less they like it.”

****But the “government takeover” argument may provide difficult to sustain. The health care bill is projected to direct more than 16 million new customers to private health insurance companies over the next 10 years. And the education changes essentially cut private banks out of what is already an entirely federalized program. The student loans are made using taxpayer money, with repayment almost entirely guaranteed by the federal government. The private banks get paid fees to originate the loans, and then sell them back to the government.****

Mr. Boehner also said the education changes would cost “hundreds of jobs in America’s heartland.” But officials have noted that private firms will still be hired to do most of the loan service, and other back office administration; and federal regulations require that to qualify for those contracts the jobs must be performed in the United States. Previously, Sallie Mae, the nation’s largest student lender, had outsourced many of those jobs to service centers overseas. Supporters of the changes say the only cuts are to the profit margins that allow the private banks to offer outsized pay packages and stock awards to their top executives.

Still, public apprehension about the legislation could give Republicans a powerful weapon in this year’s elections. “Republicans will fight to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with common-sense reforms that focus on lowering health care costs while protecting American jobs,” Mr. Boehner said.

Lookout Obama...

We're Improving in Math, but...

Stagnant National Reading Scores Lag Behind Math

via NY Times

Being someone who works for a literacy non-profit, it certainly feels like children's literacy needs to be worked on. Many of the children we work with are so far behind. It's like they never learned the proper tools to learn to read i.e. sounding out words, or learning words by recognition, or they are not practicing reading enough (and based on what I've encountered at EW!LA- maybe this is only true for Los Angeles, where there's an influx of ESL students), but many of those who have trouble with reading are from houses that don't speak English. Maybe whatever improvements are being made in reading are being skewed by ESL students? That's probably a stretch, I know.

But then again, according to this article, it is the well to do readers who haven't had much improvement in their scores (in the National Assessment of Educational Progress), but the worst readers have had significant gain. This assessment could jive with one of the causes as to why the reading scores have been so stagnant- students are given the correct tools to learn how to read in the beginning (Bush gave $1 billion a year to his Reading First initiative which focused on lower-level reading skills- this also goes along with findings that word recognition has increased, but reading comprehension has not which is what the NAEP mostly assesses), but they are not challenged later on with more difficult books- not just fiction classics, but also books in science in history. The advanced readers are not reading enough for their scores to improve.

I'm quite surprised that the article did not mention that math/science have really been pushed by schools in recent years which is possibly why there has significant progress in these subjects. I always hear about math/science related events/competitions (never really hear about reading events/competitions at schools?) at schools. I feel as if there has been a focus on math and science because these two subjects are the ones that can produce medical and technological breakthroughs or advancements- really important things that can lead to longer lives, making certain tasks possible or easier to do. These subjects are the key to the U.S. sustaining their super power status. We are still the number one country when it comes to these things i.e. the rich from foreign countries come to the U.S. to receive treatment when they are ailing; they do not stay in their home country, so it is in the U.S.' best interest to continually support education in these two subject areas, so we can produce the leaders of tomorrow in these fields.

I feel expectations should rise for everyone (poor and good readers), so all demographics can see significant progress. If the U.S. wants to continue to be a super power, they can't settle for stagnant scores, even from their best. Perhaps there should be some initiative that focuses on advanced reading selections for everyone- good and poor readers? This is how I looked at it when it came to grades- always aim for an 'A' because if you fall short, it won't be too short- your effort will be good enough for a 'B' at least.

Fed Aid Awarded to Delaware and Tennesse

Feds pick Delaware, Tenn. for $600M ed grants
via Yahoo News

by Dorie Turner

ATLANTA – The U.S. Department of Education on Monday awarded Delaware and Tennessee $600 million as part of the competitive "Race to the Top" program to help states improve student performance and transform struggling schools.

It's kind of interesting and ironic that the "Race to the Top" fund is almost a free market strategy. The administration gave the states tips on how to better their education systems and it was up to them whether to implement them or not. States would be rewarded if they made changes that would move them forward in an effort for real change in their schools. This "Race to the Top" fund is being pushed by a Democratic administration. They are not forcing any state to do anything, but they are giving incentives for change (so I don't understand some of the arguments being used against the "Race to the Top" fund; I find no 'big government' here; although, personally for education, I think it would great if the federal government could really set some standards all states had to meet- screw states' rights- that's so cliche 1700s and 1800s LOL). This strategy should inspire the public to question those in power; why are we not getting money, too (ughhh CA)?

The states, selected from 16 finalists, received the grants in the first round of the $4.35 billion federal competition, with both tweaking their education laws and enlisting the support of their school districts and teachers unions to better their chances.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan praised Tennessee and Delaware because all of their school districts approved the applications for the money. Tennessee will get $500 million, and Delaware will receive $100 million (OMG, that's a lot of money, even for 2nd place!!), he said.

"This is not about a pilot or a model," he said in a call with reporters. "They were trying to reach every child in their state."

Observers say the winners took to heart the education reforms pushed by the Obama administration, including performance pay for teachers and welcoming charter school policies.

In Tennessee, lawmakers passed a new law during a special session in January that requires half of teacher evaluations to be based on student achievement data (what do they use for the other half? I think that's a good compromise; their evaluation is not based solely on test results, but they need to be evaluated), a key reform pushed by the Obama administration, as part of an effort to better their chances.

Lawmakers also lifted the state's cap on the number of charter schools that can open each year and setting up a statewide school district specifically for failing schools. They got their teachers to sign off on the plan, too.

I believe in a parent's choice to choose the school they want their children to attend. I don't believe charter schools are taking away money from public schools by being publicly funded as well.

"This is a landmark opportunity for Tennessee," Gov. Phil Bredesen said in a news release. He added, "The funds provided by the grant will carry us forward in a dramatic and positive direction."

Delaware had all of its school districts and teachers approve its application, a document that highlighted the state's new law allowing educators to be removed from the classroom if they are rated "ineffective" for two to three years (half based on student achievement data? like Tennesse).

The state also offers financial incentives to top-notch educators willing to work in failing schools and in high-demand subjects (giving more respect/value to the teaching profession through financial incentives!). It will also hire coaches to meet with small groups of teachers several times a month to develop lesson plans based on student test data (best practices!).

"While we are very pleased Secretary Duncan has agreed to partner with us in these efforts, we have a lot of hard work and tough decisions ahead of us as we make these reforms a reality," state Education Secretary Lillian Lowery said in a statement.

The winners beat out: Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

Federal officials will collect a second round of applications for the highly selective program in June. The states that were not picked this time can reapply for grants then.

"A lot of people said 'They're going to end up giving it to lots of states' and 'the federal government can never really be selective.' It turns out they actually were," said Kati Haycock, president of The Education Trust, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "They're setting the bar this high that only two states met it, it sends a very powerful message."

Maybe beaucracy can work sometimes, if there's a true focus?

Officials said Georgia and Florida were third and fourth in the rankings for the grants, which means they may have an advantage over other states for the second round of grants. Still, most of the finalists are already vowing to reapply for the money.

"We were honored to be one of only 16 finalists for this highly competitive grant, and we will immediately begin working on our application for the next round of funding," said Deborah A. Gist, Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education in Rhode Island.

The grant program is part of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus law, which provided $100 billion for schools.

The Education Department asked states to concentrate their proposals on four areas: adopting standards and assessments to better prepare students for careers and college; getting high-quality teachers into classroom; turning around low-performing schools; and creating data systems to track performance.

Forty states and Washington, D.C., applied for the grants, scrambling to widen charter school laws and enact performance pay for teachers to prove that they deserved part of the money.

Some education observers have criticized the competition, saying the administration is out of touch because it is pushing reform at a time when states can barely afford basic necessities and are laying off teachers by the hundreds (states' money for schools is limited due to the deplorable housing market, property/tax revenues have fallen due to the values of houses dropping; this money is bread and butter for schools).

I would argue that this is the best time to be making changes. Things are going to get worse for our schools because state budgets are going to be cut back. This should force schools to reassess expenditures and find best practices that suit their economic situation. Maybe they could plan what changes they would make if they receive the federal aid?

Applications were read and scored by panels of five peer reviewers. The 16 with the highest average score visited Washington this month to present their proposals.

This is making me want to write a letter to my congressional representative. How come California wasn't even a top 16 contender?

U.S. Names Education Grant Winners via NY Times

This article touched on the political side of the grant. Both Tennesse and Delaware are states with Democratic governors. There has been some wonderment on whether or not this with coincidental? I don't really think there was any. It was mentioned that former Senator Bill Frist from Tennesse played an important role in creating the proposal. It should really come as no surprise that Democratic states would be awarded the money. After all, the changes they were implementing were ones that Democratic-leaning constituents/leaders would be in favor of (this is confusing when considering CA- a normally liberal state- I would guess CA didn't even come close to the money because of the power of the state/local teacher's unions- they really seem adamant in keeping things the same?). But I really don't find any political conflict of interest in this matter because there were a vast array of experts judging the proposals. I believe everyone who voted on the states, were voting on what was best for students.

I forget when exactly Obama/Duncan announced the "Race to the Top" fund, but it seems like it was only last summer? I'm very surprised this was announced so soon (government in fast action!). I just hope this is truly fully funded and that the state's laws that were passed will be monitored by the federal government and that money will not be given blindly (and there should be yearly reports on what good came of the reforms these states made, so that other states will want to follow suit, so they can earn they money to enact change).

Obama's Next Issue: Education Reform

Administration Seeks Converts to Education Plan

Array of Hurdles Awaits New Education Agenda

via NYTIMES

Today, President Obama signed into law the sweeping healthcare bill. He is now onto his next overhaul- the education system in America. Say what you will about Obama, but he and his staff are doing a phenomenal job of being focused on their agenda- healthcare- check, education- here we come. Might he be the next LBJ?

I think President Obama and Secretary Duncan are on the right track when it comes to education reform. While I think No Child Behind had good intentions (remember- the law came about with much help from the late Senator Ted Kennedy), there are problems with just using test scores as a measure of progress. It sometimes doesn't paint an accurate picture. There has been much talk about teaching to the test and lowering goals as well. And then to punish schools that weren't meeting their goals by closing them, or cutting off funding just didn't make sense.

In the "Converts" article, there seems to be much opposition to some of the suggested changes of the administation from teachers' unions. Many of them argue that the changes are putting much more responsibility on teachers, when it comes to students' success. Sure, administration leadership by the principal and funding are a major part of progress, but the Obama's assertion that teachers are really the key, I absolutely agree. They spend 7 hours a day in the classroom. Who is having the biggest impact on students then? This is why the teaching profession really needs to be respected even more than it is now. This should be reflected in pay and benefits. Teachers really need to understand the seriousness of what they're doing. They need to understand that because their job is sooo important, they need to be evaluated. Maybe this evaluation shouldn't be in the form of their students' test scores, but they need to evaluated somehow. I do understand this can be scary because the evaluations may seem to be subjective (so you might feel you shouldn't have been let go, when they do let you go), so some system needs to be developed to ensure the teacher of fairness.

We need to get more motivated people into this field. Teaching needs to be highly valued. Thus, if a teacher is not a good teacher--- they need to get out. I've definitely experienced teachers who had no business being in the field- those who didn't have the qualifications or the motivation to teach.

The "Hurdles" article stresses how ambitious Obama's plan is, and how long it is going to take to implement. For example, the blueprint calls on states to create new standards that make students college and career ready by the time they graduate high school. The plan also shifts focus off of student's meeting proficiency standards to them just improving gradually in whatever areas. The problem with this, however, is that many states don't have advanced student data tracking systems needed to measure student academic growth. It would take years to develop these systems. The plus side to some of this criticism is that many, including key Republicans, believe these plans are heading us in the right direction.

I like that the administration will focus more of their concentration on "failing" schools.

“It’s a serious blueprint, and one that would be a huge improvement over current law,” Michael Petrilli, a vice president at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute who served in George W. Bush’s Education Department, wrote in his blog. One feature he liked, Mr. Petrilli said, was that the blueprint would “focus most of its muscle and prescriptiveness on a handful of the worst schools.”

The current law requires that test scores increase in every school every year, to meet the requirement that 100 percent of students reach proficiency by 2014. According to a new research report by Mr. Jennings’s center, 31,737 of the 98,916 schools missed the law’s testing goals last year, vastly more than any level of government can help to improve.

The administration’s blueprint would refocus the most energy and resources on about 5,000 truly failing schools, and it outlines several models for how districts could intervene in them. Most would involve dismissing the principal and many teachers.

I think for these "failing" schools to succeed, we need to do a better job of sharing best practices with one another. What are distinguished schools, with a similar situation (demographics etc.) to a "failing" school, doing to succeed? Can't we share their best pratices with each other? And maybe we also need to look outside of the U.S.? What are they doing in Europe and Asia? For the United States to continue being a superpower, we need to level the field in education, so that our children can be the leaders in science, technology, and other fields.

Obama's goals:
-would encourage states to raise academic standards after a period of dumbing-down
-end the identification of tens of thousands of reasonably managed schools as failing
-refocus energies on turning around the few thousand schools that are in the worst shape
-help states develop more effective ways of evaluating the work of teachers and principals

*someone had argued that the 41 page blueprint was too short (NCLB was 600 pages in comparison)-- there will be questions--- I like that it's short because questions are good- perhaps gets more people involved?, there's a clear vision/expectation in play, so there's no confusion of what outcomes are desired

Drama Ensues with Passage of Landmark Health Care Reform

House passes historic healthcare overhaul
via LA Times

I think my old Pol-Sci professor at UC Irvine must be overwhelmed with glee over this development. I could see him now trying to analyze how in the hell this got passed.

President Obama, his staff, and Speaker Pelosi were scrambling for votes as late as yesterday afternoon from a batch of socially conservative Democrats who were concerned that the package would allow federal funds to be used for abortions. Obama was able to compromise with them by issuing an exectuve order saying this would not be allowed. I wonder though, what other promises Obama and Pelosi promised them in exchange for their votes (and not just them, but other Democrats who are from conservative areas)? I believe Obama made over 90 phone calls to members of Congress trying to persuade them over this issue. I would guess that the districts these representatives represent are also somewhat conservative, so they probably have some angry constituents at home they're going to have appease if they are running for an additional term. You know there must have been some backdoor deals because you know how politics works; you don't get something for nothing.

As purely an analyst of this bill's passage, I have to give major props to Obama and Pelosi for being able to pull this off. Only two months ago, Obama barely mentioned health care in his state of the union address. This probably stemmed from Soctt Brown's surprising victory in Massachusetts and the uproar that had been brewing for months all across America (remember those heated town hall meetings last year?!) about this overhaul. To be able to overcome all that, and pass this major legislation is incredible--- and after only less than 2 years in office! It also probably helped that the Democrats have a majority in both houses.

There has been some argument as to whether this bill isn't what Obama ran on and that this bill should be repealed due to the deep divisions it has created. I don't agree with this asessment. Even if healthcare wasn't a major part of Obama's campaign, you must have known the progressive agenda he was probably going to put into place. He did run a 'change' campaign. Obama also won the popular and electoral votes by an overwhelming majority. If you voted for Obama, this is a part of what you were going to get. I think the majority of the people who are upset by this bill are people who didn't vote for Obama- the Republicans, who have always been against the government taking on more responsibility than it needs to. Obama won the independent vote, and obviously the Democratic vote.

The only sad part of this bill is how partisan this issue has become. Not one Republican voted for this package- not even any of the ones who were considering it. This shows the major divide occuring in our country. I think a lot of the anger towards this issue, stems from the Republicans utter dislike of Obama. It's not just about universal healthcare.

I'm pleased with a lot of what this bill is supposed to accomplish.

From the White House:

• It expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans, guaranteeing that 95% of Americans will be covered.
• It makes health insurance affordable for middle class and small businesses -- including the largest middle class tax cuts for health care in history -- reducing premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
• It strengthens consumer protections and reins in insurance company abuses.
• It gives millions of Americans the same types of private insurance choices that members of Congress will have -- through a new competitive health insurance market that keeps costs down.
• It holds insurance companies accountable to keep premiums down and prevent denials of care and coverage, including for pre-existing conditions.
• It improves Medicare benefits with lower prescription drug costs for those in the ‘donut hole,' better chronic care, free preventive care, and nearly a decade more of solvency for Medicare.
• It reduces the deficit by more than $100 billion over next ten years, and by more than one trillion dollars over the following decade; reining waste, fraud and abuse; overpayments to insurance companies and by paying for quality over quantity of care.

Many of these things should have been passed and dealt with a long time ago. Many of these things are just common sense; are important in life and death situations i.e. insurance companies not wanting to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Something that directly affects me in this bill will be me being back on my father's health insurance plan. I'll be able to go to my doctors without worrying about paying a hefty visitation fee. This comes as a big relief to me being that I won't be 26 for a couple of more years, so I'll be able to health coverage while I'm working on master's.

The only thing I'm really concerned about is how much is thing going to cost us all. I know they say they're going to use the "new 3.8% tax on investment income for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000. In 2018, people with high-end "Cadillac" health plans would be subject to a new tax on their benefits", but is that really going to sustain this entitlement for all time. There will probably be new taxes that will trickle down into the middle-class in the years to come. This solution again begs the question- should the rich pay a little more for something that probably don't need because they already have a wonderful health plan- they in a sense are paying for the poor's healthcare?

Some other things that are questionable about this move- a move that is steering us in the direction of universal healthcare- how is this going to affect the quality of our healthcare? Are we no longer going to be the most advanced country in terms of medical technology/medecine/treatments? Are there going to be lines to see doctors, as there are in countries with universal healthcare? Time will tell.

Overall, I'm glad about the passage of this bill. 32 million more people will have access to healthcare. More lives will be saved. People won't have to worry about paying to receive treatment. People will now be required to have healthcare. They may have to purchase it, but it will be more affordable.

Hillary must be jealous... haha jk!