And here we thought Groundhog’s Day was February 2.

Earlier this week, President Obama unveiled his FY2013 federal budget proposal.  This year’s budget – at least in terms of K-12 education – is a reprise of what we have seen in previous years.  Another small increase for the U.S. Department of Education.  Another round of proposed Race to the Top money.  Another commitment for edujobs money.  Another effort to “consolidate” smaller programs and turn them into competitive grant efforts.  We are even seeing yet another round of federal school construction funding.

For those not looking for “vintage” federal education budgets, we have the somewhat new “Community College Career Fund,” an $8 billion partnership between the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Labor to continue our focus on college-career readiness.

All told, we are looking at a federal budget that is relatively uninspired.  We are revisiting the ideas put forward in the past, but ultimately rejected by Congress.  We are looking at another $300 million in RttT, while we still wait to see if the first and second rounds were effective.  And we again generally fail to address the needs and value that education technology provides.

But there is a little glimpse of hope.  Following the unveiling of the presidential budget, the White House focused on its plans to create a new $5 billion competitive grant program focused on teacher quality.  As Education Week notes, it is “a new, competitive grant program that would help states take what the administration is billing as big, ‘bold’ steps to overhaul teacher quality.  For example, states could use the funds to revamp colleges of education and make them more selective, make sure teachers’ salaries are tied to student achievement, improve professional develop and offer teachers more planning time, and craft new evaluation systems.”

The White House also seeks to redirect the $2.5 billion a year currently used under Title II to reduce class sizes and improve professional development offerings into another competitive grant program targeting STEM and teacher prep.

If one accepts competitive grants as a way of driving improvement, these developments are quite promising.  But as we’ve seen in recent years, the devil is in the details.  What will ED prioritize in the competitive grant process?  What will earn extra points in the scoring?  How will we ultimately define teacher quality?

Last year, I wrote on these pages about the value of establishing a new round of Race to the Top focused on ed tech priorities.  So as we look at these new competitive grant programs – particularly those targeting teacher quality – why not focus them even further on education technology?  Priority points for those who adhere to ISTE’s digital age standards, the NETS.  Greater attention for those who link teacher tech skills to classroom learning.  Extra help for those who link ed tech instruction to the STEM priorities.

If what is old is now new again, we need to go back and look at what works.  How do we better equip our educators for their 21st century classrooms?  How do we build on the successes of programs like EETT?  How do we truly invest in the skills that ultimately lead to the classroom outcomes we seek?

Yes, we must remember that these are merely the suggestions of the President and his Administration.  Congress will now have its say, and this budget will end far differently than it started.  But isn’t now the time to advocate to those Senators and Representatives about how we can improve the President’s recommendations and how we can better serve the teachers and kids in the classroom?

Patrick Riccards is the author of Eduflack blog. The opinions expressed here are his own.