The Sequester Still Festers (But Maybe Not in 2014)

/ The Old Crank

(Updated Below)

This column by Jared Bernstein in the Times neatly summarizes the limited expectations people have for the upcoming budget conference committee meetings, which are focused right now on the hope that the committee might at least be able to do something about the 2014 sequester cuts. A “grand bargain,” or any significant progress towards addressing any of the long-term problems in the economy, appears to be out of the question.

The theory is that there might be a (relatively) easy way to replace the 2014 sequestration cuts with some other cuts (or savings) from (most likely) mandatory programs that wouldn’t kick in until many years later. If this sounds like only a slightly better version of the usual kick-the-can-down-the-road approach, that’s because that’s what it would be: a brief respite from the sequester in return for some new cuts over on the mandatory side of the budget that we don’t have to think about until later, while avoiding dealing with anything else.

Bernstein makes a number of illuminating points in his column, like this one:

[R]eplacement cuts will most likely have to come from the mandatory side of the budget, which includes entitlements. Now, there are definitely entitlement savings — say, from Medicare — in the president’s budget that do not affect beneficiaries, like reducing the amount that Medicare spends on drugs by allowing the program to use its clout to get better bargains from drug companies. And there’s other wasteful spending on this side of the budget, like farm subsidies, that could also contribute. (my emphasis)

This paragraph suggested to me a potential approach to a problem facing many of us who will be advocating for sequester relief for non-defense discretionary (NDD) programs (which means almost all federal education programs, such as adult education) this fall: we may be asked by folks on the Hill to support cuts to entitlements in return for lifting sequester cuts.

This is problematic for a couple of reasons. For one thing, our job is to make the case for the program we are there to represent, not to take a position on cutting other programs. And for many of us who represent NDD programs for low-income people, cutting benefits potentially hurts the people we are there to represent, just in a different way. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I think it’s safe to assume that a higher-than-average proportion of adult education students probably receive Medicaid and Social Security benefits, for example. It’s a hollow victory to preserve adult education funding while pushing adult education students who benefit from those programs deeper into poverty. (In his column, Bernstein notes that Social Security benefits alone are keeping 22 million people in this country out of poverty.)

At the same time, just saying no doesn’t seem helpful, since, as Bernstein notes above, there are ways to save on entitlements that don’t necessarily involve cutting benefits. So  perhaps NDD advocates could express a preference for looking at entitlement savings that do not touch the actual benefits that people receive, at least as a second best option if raising revenue is off the table. If I’m in a member’s office talking about federal education programs, I still don’t think I have any business talking a position on farm subsidies, but, as a basic statement of principle, taking the position that “sequester cuts to NDD programs should only be replaced with entitlement savings that do not directly affect beneficiaries” at least provides some guidance to members as to what kind of direction they should be going in if they insist on replacing sequester cuts with some kind of cut from the mandatory side.

I should note that Bernstein and his colleagues at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also take the position that while they are open to this kind of trade-off, it should only apply to non-defense sequester cuts. That is, folks who want to replace the sequester for defense programs shouldn’t be looking over at the non-defense side for more cuts. To do so would violate an essential principle embedded in the deal that created the sequester: that budget cuts should come in equal measure between defense and non-defense.

UPDATE 10:20am: Stan Collander, who has been pretty good with predictions of late, has just published a post in which he argues pretty convincingly that even a sequester deal is unlikely.

Quote of the Month

/ The Old Crank

According to this report from Southern California Public Radio, the Los Angeles Unified School system is in the middle of “revamping” its adult education program. (This comes after several years of budget cuts, plus an unsuccesful attempt by some LAUSD officials to eliminate the program altogether about a year ago—an effort that was thwarted in large part after some strong advocacy by L.A. adult education advocates.) I have no idea whether this revamping plan is a good one or not, but, in any case, it’s encouraging to read that the business community is involved and engaged. I’m not suggesting that business involvement in adult education is a panacea—I’m sure it can lead to new headaches in some instances—but can anyone imagine any significant adult education system growth without a big increase in business support? Just look at what the business community has been doing to rally public support for pre-K.

At the very least, I thought this quote was terrific:

“We have to provide better adult learning opportunities,” said David Rattray, Senior Vice President of Education & Workforce Development for the L.A. Chamber of Commerce. “For the business community and the economy to have what they  to have the talent they need, and for young adults and adults in L.A. to have the opportunity they deserve.” (my emphasis)

These are the kind of quotes we should have seen during the media coverage of the PIAAC report two weeks ago, had there been a strong, focused effort to prep the business community on the data and demonstrate how strong adult education programs are working across the country to help adults increase their basic skills.

It’s not too late.

U.S. PIAAC Report Is Finally Released

/ The Old Crank / 1 Comment

nces.ed.gov_pubs2014_2014008.pdfLate last week the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) quietly released their “First Look” U.S. country report on the PIAAC survey. (As you might have guessed, this report, which was originally supposed to be released concurrently with the OECD’s initial reports on the survey, was delayed due to the federal government shutdown.)

Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem Solving in Technology-Rich Environments Among U.S. Adults: Results from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies 2012: First Look can be accessed here. (You need to be at least a level 4 just to get through the lengthy, Wurster-esque title.)

U.K. Report: Millions of Children Held Back by Their Parents’ Poor Basic Skills

/ The Old Crank

The U.K.’s National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) has just released a report that serves as something of a response to the latest international survey of adult basic skills conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), aka PIAAC (the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies). Adults in England and Wales generally scored below average in the survey—especially among 16-24 year-olds.

The NIACE’s Inquiry into Family Learning was launched about a year ago to look at the impact of family learning and “develop new thinking and to influence public policy.” The Inquiry commissioners’ report, Family Learning Works, cites a strong link between children’s success in school and their parent’s educational attainment and suggest that learning opportunities for the entire family should be an integral to the country’s strategies to raise children’s attainment in school. They argue that investing in family learning programs would save money in the long run by cutting back on the need for other government programs that serve vulnerable families.

In the forward to the report, the Chair of the Inquiry writes:

“The recent results of the OECD’s survey of adult skills show that parents’ educational attainment has a stronger-than-average impact on adults’ proficiency in both literacy and numeracy. Adults whose parents have low levels of education are eight times more likely to have poor proficiency in literacy than adults whose parents had higher levels of education. Surely it is a moral outrage that a nation such as ours should be in this position. Evidence shows that family learning could increase the overall level of children’s development by as much as 15 percentage points for those from disadvantaged groups. Family learning has multiple positive outcomes for adults and children, for families and communities. It could, in one generation, change the lives of a whole generation. We would be foolish to miss such an opportunity.” (my emphasis)