Ensuring next year's state budget is ready for federal impacts

 As I noted back in October, there were changes made to how the federal government is managing SNAP and Medicaid that will have impacts on school funding and on the state budget. I said then, and I continue to fear now, that I don't see indications that Massachusetts is making this part of our preparation for FY27 and beyond. 

where we are at on federal grants

 This came out from DESE's grants office this morning. While it is not new information, I thought it was a useful summary: 

On November 12, a “continuing resolution” was passed to reopen the federal government through January 30, 2026. However, most school year 2026-2027 federal education funding levels have not been resolved and are still subject to negotiation (ESSA, IDEA, Perkins, etc.). If Congress cannot come to an agreement on FY27 funding levels by January 30^th, they must either pass another “continuing resolution” or shut down the government yet again. It should be noted that the national school meals program was the one major area of federal education funding that did receive a new full-year appropriation, through September 30, 2026.
 
Early the following week, the U.S. Education Department (USED) informed state education leaders of its intent to transition the management of several major programs to other federal agencies. The announcement stated that the majority of programs currently managed by the federal Office of Elementary and Secondary Education will transition to the U.S. Department of Labor via an inter-agency agreement. These programs will include Title I-A, Title II-A, Title III-A, Title IV-A and B, and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Act, among others. 

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs will, for the moment, remain at USED, as will the Office for Civil Rights. USED officials noted that signed agreements with the Department of Labor and other agencies are only a first step and could not provide immediate details on the timing or specifics of the interagency transitions. These details will vary by program. The federal press release includes links to several federal fact sheets, including one on elementary and secondary education. 

New America on the proposed federal budget(s)

 You'll remember that last week, I told you not to panic on the budget just yet. New America this week released an analysis of both the Trump proposed budget and the House Appropriation proposed budget; you might remember that the Senate doesn't cut. Specifically, it looks at it by Congressional district. 

As it happens, the House proposal is actually worse than Trump's proposal: the President's proposal would cut an estimated $35.34 million per district, where the House proposal would cut $41.2 million from schools in each congressional district, on average. 

Now, what gets cut changes, too. For the Trump proposal: 

This figure is fairly similar between Republican- and Democrat-represented congressional districts. But there is a difference in the specific funding streams most impacted: Democrat-represented districts stand to lose the most in Title I funding for students in poverty and Title III funding for English learners, while Republican-represented districts would lose far more in Title V funding for rural schools. Both would see a major cut in funding for teacher professional development and after-school programs.

And for the House: 

 Without even hiding behind the smokescreen of “consolidating” funds into block grants, the House proposal would eliminate funding for a number of programs, including Title II funding for educator development and Title III funding for English Learners. It would reduce Title I funding for students in poverty by an astonishing and unprecedented $4.7 billion, slashing a program that is vital for students in every state.

Because the House's cut is worse, I'm including below that estimation for the Massachusetts Congressional districts; if you follow the link above, you can page through all of them to find yours if it isn't here, as well as see the projected Trump budget impacts.

 

KOSA is dead in the House

 Punchbowl News is reporting this morning that the House leadership won't bring it up.

While that may be for the wrong reasons, we'll take the win! 

Do note that there is still a House version of the bill, though time is limited and the Senate wouldn't pass what the House has.
If you haven't weighed in with your rep, it is still not a bad idea to do so, but take the win we got, too!

The Senate passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which is still bad

 I wouldn't read the mainstream press which is all "groundbreaking blah blah blah" but maybe look at The Verge. It's good to read the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Stop KOSA.
And as a reminder, here's my post on this from January. While the bill has changed a bit, the main issues with it remain.

..we can only hope that it tanks in the House.

If you're planning on contacting your rep (please do), you might find some of what is in this The 74 piece (in addition to the EFF and Stop KOSA links above) useful. 

Some suggested reading

• On what is absolutely a test case in Oklahoma on public funding of religious schools; this is the St. Isadora online charter school 
  
  
• On the messed up priorities of a Congress that moves to ban TikTok but doesn't get schools appropriately supported
  
  
• Jonathan Haidt's new book The Anxious Generation has been getting a LOT of press; Nature Magazine has a review which finally puts the claims into context
  
  
• Bill Runey, Superintendent of the Dighton-Rehoboth Regional School District, wrote a column about district budgets this year that will resonate with many

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday

The agenda for the December 6 meeting of the Worcester School Committee can be found here.
Note that the item on the foundation budget is not only back on (I believe it was held?) but it is also on the agenda as a public petition of the Educational Association of Worcester. I still think the number and date are a mistake, HOWEVER, please note that this is an EXCELLENT week to contact your reps and senators to remind them that advancing an updated foundation budget should be a MAJOR PRIORITY of their next session!

Also, looking back at that last agenda...did we hear literally a single thing about the superintendent's midyear evaluation? That would seem rather important.

There are recognitions and such, as well as another round of appointments, retirements, and resignations.
The Governance subcommittee is reporting out, largely that they're filing a large number of items (there are a few revised policies here, 'though they look to be the legally required or otherwise recommended updates).
There is a response on the Worcester State cohort (this is essentially the "making new administrators" program).
There is a response back that for the most part, no, Worcester didn't get any more money from the last federal budget; the one exception is about half a million more dollars in Title IV, going to safe and healthy schools, technology, and "well-rounded educational opportunities."
There is a response back that the Federal Education Innovation and Research Program from the same budget didn't have a ready application to the Worcester Public Schools.
...and likewise on federal safety money.
There is a response on advertising that senior citizens get lower admission prices at games and on proposed additions to coaching.
Mr. Monfredo is requesting monthly school newsletters, put online.
Mr. O'Connell is requesting email addresses from parents and online grading (...which makes me wonder if he's talked to parents at all?)
Mr. O'Connell suggests the adoption of the Orton-Gillingham model for dyslexia.
Mr. O'Connell proposes that the Positive Directions Program be replicated at all secondary schools.
The administration is requesting that the School Committee adopt the administration's own locally created policy on homeschooling to replace the language adopted previously (which is common in many other districts).
There is a request to approve a prior year payment of $680 for Madison Security Group.
There is a request to accept a grant of $5000 for the STARS Residency at Columbus Park School.

There is a request that the following donations be accepted:
 – $250.00 from WEDF to Canterbury Street Magnet School
 – $1,000.00 from Re-Elect McGovern Committee to Canterbury Street Magnet School
– $500.00 from New England Dairy & Food Council to South High Community School
– $500.00 from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care to Tatnuck Magnet School
– $125.00 from College of the Holy Cross to Woodland Academy
– $1,000.00 from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care to WTHS
– $100.00 from Hanioti Licensee Inc./DQ Grill & Chill to Belmont Street Community School
– $95.00 from Nicole Webley-Roberts to Tatnuck Magnet School

And there is a posted executive session for negotiations and a grievance.

Yes, you care about net neutrality

You may have heard about the FCC's plans to repeal net neutrality in a victory for big telecoms and a loss for...basically everyone else. Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal has a post from a few years ago (addressed to Senator Cruz) explaining why you should care.
There is (as so often is the case) an education angle, and this interview with the president of the American Library Association captures what it is. You might also look at this EdSurge post.

So, what can you do? The FCC doesn't answer to us, but they DO answer to Congress, so go check out BattlefortheNet for resources and contacts.

And, yes, the blog currently has a pop-up giving a countdown clock. It appears once per person per day. 

Don't copy and paste; weigh in on your priorities

Among the latest things making the rounds on Facebook is a call to action that looks something like this:

Betsy Devos has begun her catastrophic destruction of public schools. 

Please call your US House Representative now and ask them to vote NO on House Bill 610 the Choices in Education Act. This bill will effectively start the defunding process of public schools, in hand with eliminating student rights and programs that address poverty, etc. It also takes away nutritional standards for school lunches...

Please copy and paste! Don't hit share -- not everyone will be able to see it if you do.

Okay, first of all: if you set your posts to "public" on Facebook, YES, everyone will be able to see whatever post you share.

Second, HB610 follows a LONG tradition of such proposals being made: President Reagan proposed eliminating the department in 1982, and it went nowhere. Senator Dole promised to do so during the 1996 presidential campaign. There were proposals (most recently) in 2011, 2013 and 2015. In fact, it's happened so often, there's even a GAO report on it.

So let's not blame Betsy DeVos and let's not panic.
As NPR puts it, this bill is posturing. Why?

...The Education Department is unlikely to be eliminated, particularly by a bill that declines to specify who or what would take over its $68 billion annual budget and the functions of data collection, oversight, civil rights enforcement and student aid, among others. 

"Whatever you think about the Department of Education, the idea you could eliminate it with a one-sentence bill is just posturing," Schoenbrod says. "Posturing is not something that's just done by Democrats or by Republicans. It's done by both."

Also, while Republicans control both houses of Congress, not all Republicans support this, and it would burn political capital on something that isn't a high priority for many; from EdWeek: 

But even in the current Republican-dominated political landscape, abolishing the department would cost Trump and his allies political capital that they might rather spend elsewhere. 

"That's a heavy lift, and there's some Republicans that may not be comfortable with that," said Vic Klatt, a former aide to House Republicans on the education committee who is now a principal at Penn Hill Group, a government relations organization in Washington. He thinks such a proposal could get tripped up in the Senate, which requires a 60-vote threshold to get past procedural hurdles.

 So, assuming that Congress isn't going to fast-track a bill to eliminate the Department of Education, what should we be watching at the federal level of education?

Civil rights.The most significant charge of the Department of Education is around civil rights in education. Most of the programs they administer--and the federal laws that gives money to states for certain programs--is given for a particular group that traditionally has had their access to education in some way (or ways) curtailed. Title I is the biggest program; it is devoted to kids who are poor. The department doesn't simply function as a pass-through for funds, though; all of those funds come with strings to particular actions, most of which have to do with ensuring kids have access to a quality education without segregation, discrimination, or obstacle.
We saw the first hole in this earlier this week, when the Trump administration rolled back (in essence) their notification to states that how they treat transgender students would be part of how the federal government oversaw Title IX. Most of us know Title IX because it's what forced schools to ensure access to girls in sports; it also ensures sexual assault on campuses is dealt with appropriately. The federal government rolling back their overseeing this means the federal government is no longer ensuring that the civil rights of transgender students are protected.
And that's a problem. States and local districts have (do I have to link to something here?) a pretty atrocious record when it comes to ensuring the civil rights of the vulnerable are protected.

Beyond trans* students, who should we be concerned for?

• poor kids: Title I is the biggest program. This being sent to the state for block grants (aka: do what you like with this!) would remove one of the few things that nationally ATTEMPTS to address inequities in education around poverty (and, often, color). Note that school lunch programs ARE being undermined, but that's administered by US Ag; you should weigh in on that, too, but it's not out of this department. 
• kids of color: this is one that overlaps with the Department of Justice. We finally started to see some acknowledgement of the huge disparity in discipline in and around schools along the color line in the Obama administration. Given the history of Attorney General Sessions, I am very concerned that we'll see the exact opposite under this one. 
• kids with special ed needs: IDEA, while it has never fully been funded, is A) up for renewal (eventually. we hope.) and B) still a lot of money, Kids with special needs are, let's be blunt, expensive. It has been enormously important for the federal government to backstop their access to education with the federal funds and oversight.That, however, is done by the Office of Civil Rights, and DeVos has appeared willing to cut that. 
• English language learners: Title III. Again, expensive and in some places, pretty unpopular (cue the "my grandfather just was sent into a classroom and..." stories), particularly with the current backlash around immigration. We know what works for kids learning languages; we need the fed to make sure it's happening. There are places where it won't otherwise.
• Native American kids: Title VII is for Native American students, and the history here is sadly pretty awful. Because of their unique relationship with government, the federal government oversees much of this directly. There have been attempts in the previous administration to improve it. I don't see this as a priority for this administration.
• Girls, LGBTQ students, and anyone else covered by Title IX...which is everybody!: this gets not only into equal access issues (as we've seen above); this also gets into safety issues. Students cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, and that means their safety is part of the guarantee. With no national assurance of equity, anyone covered by Title IX will have to look at states to oversee access. 

...are we missing anyone yet?

Here's my recommendation: if you want to advocate to your delegation about this issue, start by saying "I oppose the closure of the Department of Education" and then tell them why! It is much more likely--it is already happening!--that we'll see rollbacks on these guarantees than we'll see the entire department disappear. Tell Congress you want US DoE to do its job. 

And by all means share this! 

House Child Nutrition bill would hit remove some from universal free lunch

The House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education released their reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act yesterday. That links to the bill: the release is here; the summary is here. While there are several things going on with the bill, there is one alarming change for a number of districts across the country, as pointed out by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (among others):

If Chairman Rokita’s bill becomes law, 7,022 schools now using community eligibility to simplify their meal programs and improve low-income students’ access to meals would have to reinstate applications and return to monitoring eligibility in the lunch line within two years, as we’ve explained.  These schools serve nearly 3.4 million students.  Another 11,647 schools that qualify for community eligibility but have not yet adopted it would lose eligibility. This is due to the bill raising the percentage of students needed for Community Eligibility to 60% from 40%.

CBPP has put together a spreadsheet on which districts in particular would lose eligibility; this of course doesn't include districts that have been fighting to get their eligibility up to 40% (through making sure the records are all in and students are all registered for the programs for which they are qualified).
In Massachusetts, this includes a number of charter schools (including, Worcester, Seven Hills) and at least some schools in the following districts:

• Athol-Royalston
• Gardner
• Gill-Montague
• Greater New Bedford Tech
• Hawlemont Regional
• Orange
• Quabog
• Salem
• Southbridge
• Taunton
• Wales
• Waltham
• Wareham
• Webster
• West Springfield

And, again, this doesn't include the districts that have yet to get to 40% but are working to be sure their records are complete.

Should this be of concern, get in touch with your representative.

Grade 3-8, 10 testing is going to stay in

I realize that no one is going to thank me for pointing this out, but I feel honor-bound to.

I continue to see calls via social media for some sort of hold on the NCLB renewal (ESSA is the new abbreviation, for "Every Student Succeeds Act"*) with a push to drop the grades 3-8 and 10 testing requirement.

That isn't going to happen.

The issue of grade level testing was raised in the deliberation in both the House and the Senate. In the Senate, nothing quite as far as dropping that requirement was proposed; an amendment that would just allow parental opt-out and notification failed, though. There also was considerable concern on the Democratic side if the rollback of federal oversight around testing would lead to civil rights abuses (Massachusetts, you may remember that this is why Senator Warren voted against the bill).
In the House, with its Republican majority, an amendment that would allow states to opt out of federal accountability entirely failed as "too conservative," though the parental opt-out passed.
The testing requirements are in the conference committee bill because that is what a majority of both the House and the Senate support; it's also pretty clear that it would be required to get the President's signature.

I'd just as soon this weren't the case; in my own testimony regarding this, I urged otherwise. It is clear, though, that the successor to NCLB is going to have grade-level testing in it.


*and enjoy the possibilities of "it's a"

ESEA Conference committee announced

So who are these guys?
EdWeek yesterday tweeted out some details about the makeup of the conference committee on the ESEA bill, which met for the first time today:

It sounded to me like the conferees are basically just the @GOPHELP & @HELPCmteDems. Right, Congress geeks? https://t.co/BgOxvN5pna

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 18, 2015

House Democratic conferees include: @RepBonamici, @jaredpolis, @RepMarciaFudge, @RepWilson Re. Susan Davis, Rep. Katherine Clark

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

Charter fan @jaredpolis named to ESEA conference committee. Check out details of the framework he'll be discussing. https://t.co/xXvmhDDcDp

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

Among #ESEA conferees, @RepMarciaFudge wants states to provide equal resources to close achievement gaps, and more STEM for minority youth.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

.@RepWilson, another #ESEA conferee, is a former teacher, principal and Miami-Dade school board member; is critical of standardized testing.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

.@RepWilson, another #ESEA conferee, is a former teacher, principal and Miami-Dade school board member; is critical of standardized testing.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

House Republican conferees named and include the usual suspects: Foxx, Roe, Messer, Thompson, Grothman, Guthrie, Russell, Curbelo

— Lauren S. Camera (@laurenonthehill) November 17, 2015

Among House GOP #ESEA conferees, @RepLukeMesser has pushed to have federal Title I funds made "portable" to private schools.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

House Dem #ESEA conferee @RepBonamici is no fan of "punitive labeling of struggling schools" and wants "robust" funding for Pell Grants.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

.@ToddRokita, like his fellow GOP House #ESEA conferee Messer, is a K-12 choice fan, and backed the House D.C. voucher bill.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

House GOP #ESEA conferee @RepGrothman wants you to know that he has really disliked NCLB for about 15 years: https://t.co/lcLQN3yxfo

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

House Dem #ESEA conferee @RepSusanDavis: She wants robust funding for Title I, IDEA, Impact Aid ... but not policies that punish teachers.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

House Dem #ESEA conferee @RepKClark wants full funding for IDEA but not "imperfect data" that hurts local innovation https://t.co/NJIHk9pA0S

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

And finally there's House Democratic #ESEA conferee @repbobbyscott who is a big supporter of subgroup accountability.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

We've now facilitated your Twitter speed-dating with all of the House conferees for #ESEA! Get their numbers, tell them to buzz off, etc.

— Politics K-12 (@PoliticsK12) November 17, 2015

Big day on the federal level

Post to come on the news of Secretary Duncan's resignation and former NY Commissioner John King taking his place (suffice for now to say: not good news). However, two quick things that I had missed in the change of month:

• October 1 started the new fiscal year on the federal level, and, no, they haven't passed a budget yet. We're into continuing resolutions (CR) and trying to fend of sequestration again.
• The Healthy and Hunger-free Child Act (that's school lunch) has expired. Here's hoping that they don't mess that up in renewal. This wrong in many particulars editorial in the New York Times last Sunday didn't help, 'though this Huffington Post post responded correctly and with links (I just wish it had gotten the same level of circulation that the Times article surely did). 

Strange bedfellows, coming right up!

Politico notice that the incoming GOP (federal) majority shares something with the teachers' unions: a wish to rollback the overdependence on standardized testing.
On a related note: I'm thrilled that I'll be  going down to the National School Boards Advocacy Institute in DC in February; it looks as though there may even be federal motion on education in the legislative arm to watch.

UPDATE: And hat tip to Stephen Krashen for catching the extremely ignorant comment from an unnamed federal DoE official:

An "unnamed Education Department official" said these stupid and outrageous things: ”We’re responsible for student learning every single day and every single year … If you’re waiting every three years to measure student learning, then what happens when a student has been falling behind? … Do you wait until that third year to figure out what their interventions ought to be?” IN OTHER WORDS, THE ONLY WAY OF KNOWING HOW CHILDREN ARE PROGRESSING AND THE OTHER WAY TO HELP CHILDREN IS THROUGH FREQUENT STANDARDIZED TESTING. TEACHER EVALUATION MEANS NOTHING. If you accept this, it means we should give standardized tests "every single day."

Please get this person away from education.

What was in the CRomnibus for education?

Per ASCD:

• Title I: Receiving an additional $25 million (for total funds of $14.4 billion) to assist schools with high percentages of low-income students.
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Receiving an additional $25 million (for total funds of $11.5 billion) to provide services to children with disabilities.
• Preschool Development Grants: Receiving $250 million in competitive grants to build or expand high-quality preschool programs.
• 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Receiving an additional $2.3 million (for total funds of $1.15 billion) to provide academic enrichment in high-poverty communities during nonschool hours.

In FY15, the Investing in Innovation program will lose $21 million (for total funds of $120 million), the School Leadership program will lose $9.3 million (for total funds of $16.4 million), the Teacher Incentive Fund will lose $58.7 million (for total funds of $230 million), and the Pell Grant program will lose $303 million (for total funds of $22.5 billion).

A little help here, Arne!

Looks as though Congressional members of the education committee would really appreciate it if the Obama administration might take an interested in ESEA renewal. They didn't give the Secretary a very easy time when he was before them today.

Senator Warren on budgeting

possibly more on this later, but for now: 

"We have got to align our spending with our values" @SenWarren
— Tracy Novick (@cascadingwaters) April 25, 2014

State of the Union 2014

While I did not watch last night, I did follow the conversation on Twitter (try #SOTU and #SOTUedu). The White House posted the full text here. 
The big questions beforehand were: would he mention Race to the Top? would he mention Common Core?
He started (to much reaction from teachers on the web) with a shout out to teachers:

Today in America, a teacher spent extra time with a student who needed it, and did her part to lift America’s graduation rate to its highest level in more than three decades.

Okay, list of Americans; you get a pass from me on rhetorical flourishes. The bulk of the education section--after economy and the environment--starts here:

 Five years ago, we set out to change the odds for all our kids...

Then he talks about college loans, which is generally beyond the scope of this blog, but I agree with those who think this could have been a great chance to talk about loan forgiveness (and if you haven't read this piece about how we could make public college free for everyone, you should).
Here's where some people lost their bets on if he'd mention Race to the Top (smart money was that he would, as he has every year):

 Race to the Top, with the help of governors from both parties, has helped states raise expectations and performance.  Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C. are making big strides in preparing students with skills for the new economy – problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, and math.

Oh, dear...no, Mr. President, it didn't. Even setting aside the debate over what exactly RTTT did to expectations (always a dicey thing to prove), you're way too early to talk about RTTT doing anything about performance. The Common Core just got implemented. Most of the tests haven't been used yet. It's simple cause and effect: changes take time. About all that's happened is a whole lot of money has been spent. And you should really read Bruce Baker  and Tom Loveless on what you can tell from NAEP results (surely we've got someone in the Department of Education doing that?).
And you caught that STEM mention, right?

Some of this change is hard.  It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test.  But it’s worth it – and it’s working. 

Ah, "more challenging curriculums". Sorry, if you bet that he would say "Common Core," you lost. That's as close as he gets. Notice that it's plural, because it's not a national curriculum; as we keep being told, it's a set of national standards.
Regarding the "curriculums" versus "curricula" debate, please see Kory Stamper on "octopi." 
"(M)ore demanding parents" is echoing his Secretary of Education who earlier this month essentially went after parental expectations of education as the new shadow enemy keeping our children from international excellence. That was in the same speech where Duncan derided the number of teachers who come from particular parts of the college graduating class, though, so the parental piece didn't get much coverage.
On bubble tests, we've been hearing for years that President Obama doesn't like them, and yet:

Must work on the disconnect between Pres Obama's thoughts on bubble tests and fact that they've increased five fold under Secy Duncan.@tcbgp
— Rita Solnet (@ritacolleen) January 29, 2014

Not sure where the fivefold is; suffice to say it's getting worse rather than better.
On "worth it and working" please see above regarding Race to the Top. Also note the large number of demoralized teachers, the crisis in local education funding, and the one in four children in the U.S. living in poverty--all, I would argue, of significant import in talking about education and if and where it's working.

The problem is we’re still not reaching enough kids, and we’re not reaching them in time.  That has to change. 

Yes! Absolutely!

Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life is high-quality early education.  Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every four year-old.  As a parent as well as a President, I repeat that request tonight. But in the meantime, thirty states have raised pre-k funding on their own.  They know we can’t wait.  

Okay, no argument there, EXCEPT that starting with three year olds is already granting a major gap among kids. We've got to go earlier and work with families. However:

 So just as we worked with states to reform our schools, this year, we’ll invest in new partnerships with states and communities across the country in a race to the top for our youngest children.  And as Congress decides what it’s going to do, I’m going to pull together a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists willing to help more kids access the high-quality pre-K they need.

Not. Another. Race to the Top.
We're talking about three and four year olds. We are having absurd conversations about "performance" about TODDLERS. Have any of the people making these decisions talked to a four or a three year old lately?
We're going to have another competition for funding? Are we not sick--and I mean that literally--of this pitting of children and their educations against each other yet?
And, oh, look who we're going to ask to help: elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists. Three groups--and I say this as part of one of them--that have demonstrated that they know a ridiculously small amount about what education needs, whilst having a ridiculous inflated sense of how much they know. WRONG CHOICE, Mr. President. It won't get you bold-faced names, but how about asking some preschool teachers? some parents of preschoolers? some child development specialists? some pediatricians?
You know, people who know about kids?

Last year, I also pledged to connect 99 percent of our students to high-speed broadband over the next four years.  Tonight, I can announce that with the support of the FCC and companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sprint, and Verizon, we’ve got a down payment to start connecting more than 15,000 schools and twenty million students over the next two years, without adding a dime to the deficit. 

Great, super, but the cynic in me points out that Verizon, Sprint and others are part of the reason that this has been hard and wonders what exactly they all want in exchange. And there are some things that government should pay for.
Then back to higher ed again--with an encouraging note about keeping young men of color on track (we'll have to see what that looks like)--before:

The bottom line is, Michelle and I want every child to have the same chance this country gave us. 

It's pretty clear that the President and Mrs. Obama had a lot going for them in terms of family support as they were growing up. It's not at all clear to me that he or his administration realize what a difference this makes in what happens to kids, or that he or they wish to do what they can for kids who don't have that.
Not to mention that the education that they are choosing for their daughters in no way reflects the education that he is moving the rest of the country towards.

Senator Markey introducing legislation on student privacy!

Hey, more good signs from the Massachusetts junior senator:

 Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) today announced plans to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to ensure that safeguards are in place for students data shared with third parties. Recent changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) have allowed for the increased sharing and use of student data in the private sector...

“Putting students’ sensitive information in private hands raises a number of concerns about the privacy rights of parents and their kids, some who may be as young as five years old,” said Senator Markey, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. “The time to act is now, before parents lose control of their children’s personal information. Parents, not private companies, have the right to control personal information about their children. We should help student scholars make the grade, not help companies make a sale. I look forward to working with my colleagues to introduce and pass this important and timely legislation.”

You can see Markey's remarks here.
Glad I complimented him on his actions on this at the city inauguration! 

MASC 13: Advocacy Strategies for School Leaders

Paul Schlictman, MASC Past President
advocacy committee through MASC
multi-layered approach: voters, locally, state, nationally