[Senate Hearing 108-218]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:04 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Specter, Stevens, Harkin, Murray, and
Landrieu.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. RODERICK PAIGE, SECRETARY OF
EDUCATION
ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM HANSEN, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
Senator Specter. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services,
and Education will now proceed.
This morning we will hear from the distinguished Secretary
of Education, the Honorable Rod Paige, who will present the
administration's budget, which is $53.1 billion, an increase of
$26 million over the fiscal year 2003 program level. That is an
increase, obviously, of a minor proportion, less than the
inflation rate.
PROGRAM REDUCTIONS AND ELIMINATIONS
As we take a look at some of the programs which are being
cut or eliminated, they pose some real issues for the
subcommittee--the reduction in GEAR UP, the Rural Education
program cut by $167 million, which would, I am told, eliminate
the program; a significant cut of $326 million for vocational
education programs; and a problem which confronts this
subcommittee is that the budget for education is joined in our
overall allocation with health and also labor worker safety,
which gives us a lot of very hard choices.
We have advanced the time of this hearing to 9 o'clock, so
that we could be available to meet with the full committee,
which is going to hear testimony from the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretary of Homeland Security at 10:00.
And I will yield now to the chairman of the full committee,
Senator Stevens, with your permission, Senator Harkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you, because I do have to
organize that other hearing with both the Homeland Security and
Defense. I do have a long statement. I would like to have it
put in the record.
Senator Specter. Without objection.
ALASKA'S REQUEST FOR FLEXIBILITY
Senator Stevens. I would like to personally ask the
Secretary about the problem of responding to Alaska's request
with regard to flexibility. We have had both the letter that
was written to you last June and then the meeting with our
Governor Frank Murkowski about the problem that we have of so
many small schools in areas where, in many cases, we are unable
to get teachers, let alone teachers' assistants; and we have
not received any indication that there is going to be any
flexibility in dealing with those issues.
RURAL EDUCATION IN ALASKA
I urge you to read my statement. I do not want to hold up
the committee. But Alaska's native population is 25 percent of
the enrollment of our schools. The bulk of it is in these small
areas, very small areas, small villages. And it is just
impossible for us to follow the bill we support, which is that
no child should be left behind, from the point of view of
getting the people that are necessary to carry it out. If we
cannot hire teachers, how can we hire teachers' assistants and
people, special people, to qualify those who are not keeping
up? And in many cases, it is a cultural language problem, where
the parents refuse to allow the children to study in English.
We do not have BIA schools. And yet we find that your
budget has reduced the funding for the two basic programs, the
Education Equity Act from $31 million to $14 million, and the
Alaskan-Native Hawaiian Institution Program from $8.2 million
to $4 million. And you also reduced the funding for the Carol
White Physical Education Program from its current level to $10
million. It was $60 million. That meant you put $10 million in
another program that is not really authorized by Congress.
Now, Mr. Secretary, some of us have taken on a lot of
responsibility around here trying to help run the Senate. And I
do not think that means we deserve any extra consideration, but
it means we should be treated as a State and as representing a
State in a way that we can get answers. I would again ask you
to come up and take a look at the villages and see the
problems. I do not think your people--your people came up, and
they did not leave the main cities. They did not go to the
villages. And our problems are in the villages. Even our small
Barrow College, the college that is there for native children,
your people ignored it entirely.
prepared statement
So I hope that by the time this markup comes, Mr. Chairman,
I am going to ask you to put some severe restrictions on the
Department of Education with regard to the use of funds unless
they pay attention to the rural areas that cannot comply with
this law.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ted Stevens
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I'm pleased to welcome Secretary Paige
to our subcommittee.
Mr. Secretary, I thank you for the leadership you are demonstrating
in working to ensure that no child in America is left behind in getting
an education that will prepare him or her to lead a productive life in
the 21st century.
Yours is not an easy task, especially in times like these when our
ability to provide funding for these programs is severely challenged by
the needs of homeland security and supporting our defense needs.
I do have some concerns about how your Department is responding to
our State of Alaska's need for flexibility in meeting the standards of
the ``No Child Left Behind Act.''
Last June, Alaska's education commissioner sent you a letter
requesting flexibility for our State in meeting timelines for
qualifications of teachers and teacher aides, and testing in english of
students at early ages.
To the best of my knowledge, the department has yet to receive a
written response from the Department to its request.
In January, Alaska's Governor, Frank Murkowski, met personally with
you and your senior staff to discuss the issues raised in the June 2002
letter.
I understand that the Department has taken the position that it
will not grant any waivers for the ``No Child Left Behind Act''
requirements.
I also understand that when the Department sent up a team to alaska
to ``peer review'' its proposed State plan, that the team did not
choose to accept the State's invitation to visit remote rural
communities to see just how different conditions in my State are from
those in the South 48.
Alaska has 54 school districts, with the largest 5 enrolling 70
percent of students. Thirty-nine school districts in my State each
enroll less than 1 percent of the student body.
My State has a large number of very small schools, each with only a
handful of teachers. Of 506 schools, 135 schools have fewer than 50
students and 82 enroll 25 or fewer students.
Many of these schools are located in villages not served by roads,
where the only means of transport among villages is via plane or dog
sled.
I am concerned about what my State perceives as a lack of
responsiveness by your Department to these issues.
Last year I invited you to come to Alaska and see these conditions
for yourself. Once again, I extend the same invitation.
I also ask that within the next 30 to 60 days you send appropriate
members of your staff to my State to visit representative schools in
rural Alaska and to work with Governor Murkowski's administration to
arrive at an equitable solution to these issues.
I'm also disturbed about several decreases and program eliminations
in your budget proposal.
Alaska's Native population is almost 25 percent of total enrollment
in our schools. Our State has assumed the responsibility for educating
all of its students, and we do not receive any Indian education
funding, nor do we have BIA schools.
Alaska's Native children need the resources provided under the
Alaska Native Education Equity Act to provide the extra help many of
them need to succeed in school.
Yet, for the second year in a row, your Department is proposing to
cut this funding to $14 million from its present fiscal year 2003 level
of $31 million.
In the higher education area, your budget proposes to cut funding
for the Alaska Native--Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions program
from its present level of $8.234 million to only $4 million.
You have eliminated entirely funding for the Echo Act, which
provides funding for cultural enrichment and job training activities
for our Alaska Native Heritage Center and our Inupiat Heritage Center.
All of these programs are authorized in law.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to have you share with this
subcommittee why your Department persists in slashing funding and even
eliminating programs which are desperately needed by my State's Native
people.
On another topic, the Department has also zeroed out funding for
the ``Carol M. White Physical Education for Progress'' program--also
authorized in law--from its current level of $60 million.
I am particularly disturbed by this, because you and the
administration have publicly voiced support for physical education
programs as a means of combating our epidemic of obesity among
America's children, and your budget proposes a similar initiative to be
funded at $10 million.
Mr. Secretary--what's wrong with my pep program--one that is
supported by most of the advocacy groups supporting increased emphasis
on physical fitness for kids?
Mr. Secretary, I'm also concerned over significant cuts to the
Impact Aid program, which is of great benefit to many schools in
Alaska, and I hope your staff will work with our subcommittee to
restore this important source of support to federally-impacted school
districts.
I look forward to your testimony Mr. Secretary and to your visiting
Alaska in the near future.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Stevens.
Senator Harkin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be
brief. I would also ask that my full statement be made part of
the record.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REDUCTIONS
I just want to associate myself with the statements of our
chairman, Senator Specter, in his opening remarks. The
President's budget would increase Education Department funding
by $26 million or .05 percent. It does not help schools meet
the requirements of No Child Left Behind.
In Iowa, it is estimated 56 percent of all the schools will
be designated next year as needing improvement under the No
Child Left Behind law. It will go up even higher in years after
that. But this budget cuts funding for the No Child Left Behind
programs by $1.2 billion from this year's level.
Now I noticed in your opening statement, you point out that
the President's budget represents more than a 25 percent
increase since 2001. Well, thanks to Congress. In spite of the
President's budget, we increased it that much. The President's
budget did not. We did here in the Congress on a bipartisan
basis. I just think that the cuts that are made in the budget
request from this year's level are really unconscionable.
The $400 million cut for 21st Century Community Learning
Centers would mean no more after-school services for 550,000
children. Surely the administration does not think kids will be
better off alone or home alone or out on the streets than in
after-school programs in school-based settings.
RURAL EDUCATION PROGRAM CUT
I also want to again repeat for emphasis' sake what the
chairman said. The $167 million cut in the Rural Education
program is really not acceptable. That zeroes out the whole
rural education fund program that we had specifically outlined.
It is important to my State of Iowa. It has never been a
partisan program, Republican or Democrat. It was authorized in
No Child Left Behind. It has broad support here. And yet the
administration wants to zero it out.
prepared statement
Mr. Secretary, again, I just repeat: This budget is totally
inadequate. And it is leaving us in a heck of a situation here
to try to correct it and get the education funding back up.
Again, as you know, I have personally a high regard for you and
respect for you. But this budget from the administration is
just unacceptable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin
Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today for this hearing. I
believe this is your third appearance before this subcommittee.
We've had some vigorous debates in the past, and maybe we'll have
another one today.
Unfortunately, once again I am disappointed in the President's
proposed budget for education. Overall, it would increase Education
Department funding by just $26 million. That's just 0.05 percent--it
doesn't even cover inflation.
The President's budget is far from adequate to help schools meet
the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.
In Iowa, many parents and educators are just now coming to grips
with the fact that next year, an estimated 56 percent of all the
schools in the state will be designated as ``needing improvement''
under this new law. The numbers will go up even higher in the years
after that.
But what does this budget do? It cuts funding for No Child Left
Behind programs by $1.2 billion from this year's level. That is
unconscionable.
I am particularly disturbed by the proposed $400 million cut for
21st Century Community Learning Centers. This cut would mean no more
afterschool services for 550,000 children. Does this administration
really think that children will be better off at home alone or out on
the streets than in a school-based, afterschool program?
But beyond the question of funding, I'm frustrated by the
Administration's disregard for Congressional priorities when it comes
to programs like rural education, dropout prevention, and dozens of
others that the President plans to eliminate.
Take the rural education program, which is particularly important
for my state of Iowa. This is not a Democratic program or a Republican
program. It is a bipartisan program authorized in the No Child Left
Behind Act. It has broad and strong support in Congress. It helps a
group of students that are particularly at risk of being left behind.
Members from both parties understand this. And yet the
Administration wants to zero it out.
Mr. Secretary, you know I have a great deal of respect for you
personally. I know you want all children to succeed. But this budget
will not do the job. I assure you that I and others on this
subcommittee will do everything we can to increase funding for
education in the months ahead.
I look forward to hearing your statement and discussing this more
in the question-and-answer period.
Senator Specter. Senator Murray, would you care to make an
opening comment?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I know we have a short amount
of time, and we want to hear from the Secretary and have a
opportunity to ask our questions. So I will submit my statement
for the record.
BUDGET CUTS AND NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACCOUNTABILITY
But I want to associate myself with the remarks made by
both the chairman and the ranking member. I find the
President's budget to have serious shortfalls. And I think all
of us who have been home are hearing screaming and yelling from
our States. Everyone wants to meet the accountability
requirements of No Child Left Behind, but at this point they
really believe this is an unfunded mandate that has been passed
down to them because we have not followed through with the
resources.
prepared statement
I agree that zeroing out funding for impact aid and rural
education reductions in everything from after-school programs
to safe and drug-free schools, not meeting the commitments of
Title I, all of it just puts our schools at a serious
disadvantage in trying to meet the accountability requirements
they really want to meet. They want to work with us to do that.
So I am very disconcerted by the President's budget. And I have
some questions, and I will ask them during the round.
Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving us this opportunity to discuss
the Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget with Secretary Paige. And
thank you Secretary Paige for being here today.
I'd like to remind everyone of the context in which we sit here
today. The Administration has sent us a budget that proposes a $1.2
billion cut in funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, while funding
a $1.4 trillion tax cut. This budget request--with its meager
investment in funding for the No Child Left Behind Act--fails our
children and fails their future. It fails the very promise that the
President made to students when he signed the No Child Left Behind Act
just two years ago.
Leaving no child behind is a noble goal, and with bipartisan
support, we passed an education reform bill to meet that goal. But this
budget does not come close to meeting the needs of our students or
keeping the promises of that legislation. When we passed the No Child
Left Behind Act, we passed it based on two commitments. First, we would
hold schools accountable for their progress, and second, we would
provide schools with the resources to meet those new requirements.
We're certainly keeping the first part of that bargain. But this
budget suggests that the Administration does not intend to keep the
second part of their promise. Why is this Administration willing to
keep the commitment to identify schools in need of improvement, but
unwilling to keep the commitment to provide the resources for those
schools to improve?
Let me highlight a few of the ways this budget shortchanges
America's students. This budget could cut funds for after school
programs for more than 500,000 latch key children. That's on top of the
more than 6 million latch key children we're already not serving. It
leaves 6 million of our most disadvantaged students behind by not
providing the Title I funding they need. Among other things, it also
falls short on funding for teacher quality and class size reduction,
for English language acquisition, for Impact Aid for Safe and Drug Free
Schools, and for rural education.
At a time when we are demanding more than ever from our students,
teachers and schools, this budget does not invest more in them. At the
Department of Education you are no doubt getting a bird's eye view of
how hard our states are struggling to implement this law. Everywhere I
go in my home state of Washington I hear from educators who believe in
the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. They're willing to work as
hard as they have to do to make it work. But they can't do that without
resources. That's why the bill promised significant increases in
resources.
Leaving no child behind means making serious investments in things
like Title, IDEA, smaller classes, teacher quality and after school
programs. These are the type of real reforms that will make a
difference for our students, and these are the reforms that are
underfunded or cut in President Bush's proposal.
Senator Specter. Senator Landrieu, would you care to make
an opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Yes, I do. Thank you.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
BUDGET REDUCTIONS AND NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Senator Landrieu. I look forward to continuing to work with
you as we fashion a stronger accountability program for our
Nation's schools. But just a note: I associate myself with the
remarks previously made. I want to go on record as saying that
the President's budget is wholly inadequate to support the
commitment that he made personally to the schools in Louisiana
and to the schools throughout our Nation. He reneged, in my
opinion, on his promise to fund the Leave No Child Behind Act.
I think it is the height of hypocrisy for him to open his
budget with the quote ``The time for excuse-making has come to
an end.'' The President himself continues to make excuses to
this Congress about why he cannot find the money to meet the
commitment that he made specifically to Title I and to Special
Education.
There was no, to my knowledge, misunderstanding in these
negotiations. I was in the room when the negotiations were
made. It was very, very clear in the negotiations made on Leave
No Child Behind that Congress would adopt the testing
requirements and the President would step forward with the
funding. Well, he reneged on this promise. He continues to make
excuses and I think it is a shame.
LOUISIANA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Second, I want to say that there are five States in this
Union, Louisiana being one of them, that have an extraordinary
accountability system that was in place long before the one
that we designed went into effect. My superintendents and my
principals have been operating this system with extremely good
results. I am told the current Federal law is in some ways in
conflict with their efforts.
Louisiana is not asking, Mr. Chairman, for lower standards,
we are asking for using common sense. I know the Secretary is
aware of Louisiana's situation and I would like you to
personally examine our unique situation and try to respond as
soon as possible.
[TThe information follows:]
Louisiana State Accountability Plan Under No Child Left Behind
Louisiana's plan for an accountability system, which both builds
upon the State's existing accountability system and responds to the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requirements, has been approved by the
U.S. Department of Education. Louisiana is the 11th State to gain
approval of its State accountability plan.
Included below is the April 17, 2003 U.S. Department of Education
Press Release announcing the approval of Louisiana's plan. Information
on the No Child Left Behind Act may be found at the No Child Left
Behind website: /http://www.nclb.gov/. A copy of the Louisiana State
Accountability Plan, along with other approved State plans, may be
found at the Ed website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/CFP/csas/
index.html.
paige approves louisiana state accountability plan under no child left
behind
Baton Rouge, La.--Louisiana has completed work on a plan for a
strong state accountability system aligned with the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige
announced today.
Paige made the announcement today during a visit to the state
capitol where he was joined by Governor Mike Foster and State
Superintendent Cecil Picard.
``Louisiana has built upon its existing state accountability
system to produce an even stronger and more cohesive plan to benefit
every child in the state,'' said Paige. ``I congratulate Superintendent
Picard and Governor Foster for this step forward. Louisiana has a
distinguished history of education reform and cutting-edge work in
assessment and accountability. With these improved accountability
provisions and an established record of reform, Louisiana is firmly on
the path to ensuring that no child is left behind.''
Under NCLB's strong accountability provisions, states must describe
how they will close the achievement gap and make sure all students,
including disadvantaged students, achieve academic proficiency. In
addition, they must produce annual state and school district report
cards that inform parents and communities about state and school
progress. Schools that do not make progress must provide supplemental
services such as free tutoring or after-school assistance, take
corrective actions and--if still not making adequate yearly progress
after five years--must make dramatic changes in the way they operate.
Louisiana is the 11th state to gain approval. Other states whose
plans have been approved include Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, Ohio and West Virginia.
No Child Left Behind is the landmark education reform law designed
to change the culture of America's schools by closing the achievement
gap, offering more flexibility, giving parents more options and
teaching students, based on what works. Foremost among the four key
principles is an insistence on stronger accountability for results. To
achieve that, states must develop strong accountability systems or
improve those already in place, establish high standards and hold all
children to the same standards. They also must provide instruction by
highly qualified teachers that results in steady progress and,
ultimately, proficiency for all students by the 2013-14 school year.
Secretary Paige recently asserted that the new law aims to correct
the ``previous and pervasive separate and unequal education systems
that taught only some students well while the rest--mostly poor and
mostly minority--floundered or flunked out.''
All states submitted draft accountability plans to the U.S.
Department of Education by the Jan. 31 deadline. Following an initial
review and technical assistance, if needed, the next step is on-site
peer review of each state's proposed accountability plan. Teams of
three peer reviewers--independent, nonfederal education policy, reform
or statistical experts--conduct each peer review. Following a review of
the team's consensus report, the department provides feedback to the
state and works to resolve any outstanding issues. Ultimately, Paige
approves the state plan, as he did today.
To date, 47 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
have had peer reviews of their accountability plans. Additionally, the
senior staff of the Department of Education has finished meeting with
education officials from the states to discuss the specifics of their
plans and the unique challenges and issues in each state.
Despite all the priorities competing for our tax dollars, President
Bush's budget boosts federal education funding to $53.1 billion--an $11
billion increase since the president took office. Louisiana alone will
receive more than $914 million, including $385 million to implement
NCLB. If the president's budget is approved, federal education funding
for Louisiana will have gone up $166 million since he took office.
Louisiana's plan will be posted online in the coming days at:
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/CFP/csas/index.html.
For more information about the No Child Left Behind Act, go to
www.nochildleftbehind.gov.
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY PLANS UNDER NCLB
Senator Specter. Senator Landrieu, could you conclude your
opening statement?
Senator Landrieu. Yes, I will.
The reason, Mr. Chairman, I raise this is because this
trend could be quite discouraging to the other States. If the
five States that are moving forward so aggressively are
discouraged from their efforts, then I fear that all the other
States will be discouraged and we will be defeating our
purpose.
prepared statement
I would end my remarks by saying: The time for excuses is
over. The President and his administration should be the ones
that stop making excuses and be a good example for everyone
else.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary Landrieu
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here
this morning. As evidenced by my work in passing the No Child Left
Behind Act, I believe wholeheartedly in this law's founding principles:
accountability for results, flexibility and local control and the
targeting of resources to the school districts, who because of a lack
of local revenues, are most in need of federal assistance. The State of
Louisiana is proud to be a leader in the effort to hold schools and
districts accountable for performance. In fact, a nationally renowned
publication, Education Week, recently singled out our statewide
accountability system as being amongst the best in the Nation. I remain
hopeful that accommodations can be made by your department to allow
this success to continue.
I would like to begin my comments here this morning with a quote
from the speech that President Bush delivered on January 8, 2003, the
day he signed the NCLB Act into law. He said, ``the time for excuse
making has come to an end.'' The President is right, we can no longer
allow excuses to stand in the way of all of our children receiving a
high quality education. The future of our National economy is dependent
on our ability to replace excuses with results. But what I think may be
lost in the translation, is that the time for excuse making has come to
an end for us all. It is no longer appropriate for the federal
government to excuse themselves from their responsibility to America's
public school system.
Mr. Secretary, as you know there were a lot of things written into
to law by the No Child Left Behind Act. I would like to call your
attention to Section 1002 of Title I of this bill. It is here that we
made the commitment to increase Title I by $2.5 billion a year for the
next six years. In addition, in Section 4206, of this bill we carefully
laid out the funding for the 21st Century After School program. In both
cases, the amount of the increases were the result of a carefully
constructed compromise between the White House and members of Congress
who felt that reform and resources for reform must go hand in hand.
Despite this, the President's budget only calls for an $650 million
increase over last year for Title I and perhaps even more shocking,
calls for a reduction of $400 million in after school. By doing this,
the President, in essence, excuses himself from the requirements of
these sections of the NCLB act while at the same time insisting that
States, locals and schools be bound to all other requirements of this
bill.
In addition, the President insisted that all new programs,
particularly in reading, be research based programs and then excuses
himself from the federal commitment made to provide the funding to
promote this research and best practices through programs such as the
Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers and the Eisenhower Regional
Math and Science Consortia. In my state of Louisiana, these programs
are crucial to our ability to translate research into effective
practice. The rationale behind these cuts, I am told, is that States
are allowed to use their limited Title I dollars to fund research and
best practices at the local level and it is the view of this
Administration that the states are better suited than Universities and
Regional Academic Consortia to engage in this practice. Not only does
this policy add to the burden on states to choose between the many
needs of limited Title I funds but it also wrongly assumes that states
are better equipped to perform this function.
The most disturbing excuse of all, however, is that these smaller
than promised increases and cuts are the consequence of a deficit
budget and the costs of the war. True, these efforts will require the
majority of our attention and resources. Yet, while the President is
saying that his recommended increase are all our current fiscal status
will allow he is at the same time able to find the resources to fund
$100 million mentoring program, $75 million school choice demonstration
program and a $2,500 tuition tax credit for children who transfer to a
higher performing schools. While each of these programs may be
worthwhile, I can't help but wonder if it is appropriate for us to be
spending our precious resources to give a few students the option to
attend a better school instead of funding the reform necessary to give
all students the opportunity to succeed.
Mr. Secretary, there are a lot of good things in this budget, but
there are also a lot of excuses. I hope that we can work together to
make the targeted investments necessary to provide the high quality
education our children need and deserve.
Senator Specter. It is not customary to have anybody but
the chairman and ranking make an opening statement. But in view
of the limited number of people here, I try to extend the
courtesy. But they have to be brief in the context where we are
having another hearing at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Secretary, the floor is yours.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. RODERICK PAIGE
Secretary Paige. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you so much for this opportunity to come. Ladies and
gentlemen, thank you. I have just a brief statement here.
In total, the President's budget demonstrates his ongoing
substantial commitment to supporting educational excellence and
achievement. More importantly, it reaffirms that the Federal
support for education is about more than money. It is about
reform through high standards and through leadership and
through the use of proven education methods. Only through the
combination of these resources, with effective leadership
exemplified in the President's No Child Left Behind initiative,
can America's children and adults benefit.
prepared statement
I will end this by asking that you recognize that the
President's 2004 budget request is somewhat unusual in that it
was developed before the Congress completed its work on the
2003 appropriations. The request for the Department of
Education reflects the administration's relative priorities at
that time within the overall 2004 discretionary totals. We are
prepared to work with the Congress to adjust some of these
priorities in light of the 2003 appropriations, as long as the
overall discretionary appropriations do not exceed the total of
the President's budget.
Mr. Chairman, with that abbreviated statement in vieu of
the time, I end my statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Roderick Paige
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of President Bush's 2004 Budget for
the Department of Education. I am proud to appear before you today,
discussing the many ways that President Bush's 2004 Budget and other
initiatives support educational opportunity for American children and
adults.
As you know, earlier this year we celebrated the first anniversary
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which President Bush signed
into law on January 8, 2002. State officials, administrators, and
teachers across the country now are working hard to strengthen their
accountability systems, identify research-based strategies for
improving student achievement, and offer new choices to parents whose
children attend low-performing schools.
The President's budget seeks $53.1 billion for Department of
Education programs in 2004. That represents more than a 25 percent
increase since 2001, and a 130 percent increase in Federal education
funding since fiscal year 1996. Key requests for the cornerstones of
the Federal role in education include:
--$12.4 billion for Title I, a 41 percent increase since the passage
of No Child Left Behind;
--$9.5 billion for IDEA grants to States, a 50 percent increase since
he was elected President; and
--$12.7 billion for Pell grants, for a record 4.9 million students.
In addition to discretionary spending, the President's budget
provides significant mandatory support for education. The President
seeks additional loan forgiveness for teachers in high-demand
disciplines. He also seeks changes in the tax code to improve
education. As you will recall, the President backs the CRAYOLA credit
for teachers, allowing them a $400 above-the-line deduction for out-of-
pocket expenses. He also continues to support the changes in last
year's tax law that help students and families save for higher
education.
In total, the President's budget demonstrates his ongoing,
substantial commitment to supporting educational excellence and
achievement. More importantly, it reaffirms that Federal support for
education is about more than money. It is about reform through high
standards, leadership, and the use of proven educational methods. Only
through the combination of these resources with the effective
leadership exemplified in the President's No Child Left Behind
initiative can American children and adults benefit.
Before I go into more detail about specific areas of our request, I
want to recognize that the President's 2004 Budget request is somewhat
unusual, in that it was developed before the Congress completed its
work on the 2003 appropriation. The request for the Department of
Education reflected the Administration's relative priorities--at the
time--within the overall 2004 discretionary total. We are prepared to
work with the Congress to adjust some of these priorities, in light of
the 2003 appropriation, as long as overall discretionary appropriations
do not exceed the total in the President's budget.
implementing no child left behind
As President Bush said on the first anniversary of No Child Left
Behind, ``We can say that the work of reform is well begun.'' The
Department of Education has approved the accountability plans of five
States, and all remaining States submitted their plans on schedule at
the end of January. We will be working with these States over the next
few months to refine and complete those plans, and I am confident that
all States will be on board when the new school year begins next fall.
Now that the fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill has been completed
and signed, the Department will be able to provide States with more
reliable estimates of the Federal funding that will be available for
the coming school year.
The 2004 Budget request will help ensure that this work does not
falter, but continues until, in the President's words, ``every public
school in America is a place of high expectations and a place of
achievement.''
The request would provide $12.4 billion for Title I Grants to Local
Educational Agencies to help States and school districts turn around
low-performing schools, improve teacher quality, and increase choices
for parents. This level represents a $3.6 billion increase, or 41
percent, in Title I Grants to LEAs funding since the passage of No
Child Left Behind. The budget also provides $390 million for State
Assessment Grants to help States develop and implement--by the 2005-
2006 school year--the annual reading and math assessments in grades 3
through 8 that are integral to the strong State accountability systems
required by the new law.
We are seeking $1.05 billion for Reading First State Grants and
$100 million for Early Reading First, two programs that require State
and local educational agencies that receive funds to capitalize on
recent research findings by supporting proven methods for improving the
reading skills of young children. A $185 million request for Research,
Development, and Dissemination would build on this research base and
fund new efforts to develop proven, research-based instruction in other
subjects like mathematics.
more choices for parents
No Child Left Behind provides unprecedented choice for parents of
children in low-performing schools. To support and enhance the law's
reforms, the budget provides $75 million for a new Choice Incentive
Fund to increase the capacity of State and local districts to provide
parents, particularly low-income parents, more options for obtaining a
quality education for students in low-performing schools; $25 million
for Voluntary Public School Choice grants that would encourage States
and school districts to establish or expand statewide and interdistrict
public school choice programs; and $100 million to expand the new
credit enhancement program that will help charter schools pay for
school facilities.
improving america's teaching corps
The President believes that well-prepared teachers are essential to
ensuring that all children reach high State standards. That is why in
his budget he calls for over $4.5 billion to support our Nation's
teachers. Included in this total is $2.85 billion for Title II Teacher
Quality State Grants; more than $500 million in loan forgiveness and
teacher tax reductions; an estimated $814 million in funds supporting
improvement through Title I, Educational Technology State Grants, and
Title III professional development grants; $25 million for Troops to
Teachers; and $190 million for the high-need areas of special education
and American history.
special education and vocational rehabilitation
President Bush has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving
educational opportunities for children with disabilities, both by
requesting significant annual increases for Special Education Grants to
States and in his determination to apply the same rigorous
accountability demanded by No Child Left Behind to the upcoming
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Over the next year, we will be working with Congress to renew
IDEA to strengthen accountability for results, simplify paperwork and
increase flexibility to do what works based on sound research, and
increase choice and meaningful involvement for parents.
The President also recognizes, however, that educating students
with disabilities is a special challenge for States, school districts,
and schools. This is why his budget would provide $9.5 billion for
Special Education Grants to States, the highest level of Federal
educational support ever for children with disabilities, and a $3.2
billion or 50 percent increase in Grants to States since the President
took office.
The 2004 budget also supports the reform of the Federal
Government's overlapping training and employment programs, first
proposed in last year's budget, for individuals with physical or mental
disabilities. A $2.7 billion request for Vocational Rehabilitation (VR)
State Grants would help State VR agencies increase the participation of
those individuals in the labor force while at the same time reduce
duplication and complexity in the operation of Federal training
programs.
vocational and adult education
The Administration also will be proposing fundamental changes to
vocational and adult education programs during their upcoming
reauthorizations. For Vocational Education, this means greater emphasis
on student outcomes and stronger links with high school programs,
including activities supported by the ESEA Title I program. Our request
would provide $1 billion for a new Secondary and Technical Education
State Grants program that would create a coordinated high school and
technical education improvement program in place of the current
Vocational Education State Grants program. The new program would build
on No Child Left Behind by ensuring that States and LEAs focus more
intensively on improving student outcomes, such as academic
achievement, and that students are being taught the necessary skills to
make successful transitions from high school to college and college to
the workforce.
A $584 million request for Adult Basic and Literacy Education State
Grants would support reauthorization proposals that would strengthen
accountability, require State standards for adult literacy activities
leading to high school-level proficiency, and train teachers in the use
of research-validated instructional practices.
postsecondary education--grant, loan and work-study assistance
Finally, our 2004 request would support more than $62 billion in
grant, loan, and work-study assistance to an estimated 9.2 million
postsecondary students and their families. The cornerstone of this
assistance is a $12.7 billion request for the Pell Grant program. Since
taking office, President Bush has requested an unprecedented $4.7
billion in additional funding for this critical program. The 2004
request will enable almost 4.9 million students to receive a Pell
Grant, an increase of 1 million students or 25 percent since the
President took office 2 years ago.
Our postsecondary student loan programs also continue to make
available needed assistance to millions of students and their families.
For 2004, new student loans provided under the Federal Family Education
Loans and Federal Direct Student Loans programs will grow from $44.3
billion to $47.6 billion, an increase of $3.3 billion or 7.4 percent.
And these students are borrowing at the most favorable interest rates
in the history of the student loan programs--just 4 percent. At the
same time, student loan default rates remain low, reflecting both
improved management practices and flexible repayment plans that can
accommodate student needs both before and after graduation.
loan forgiveness for math, science and special education teachers in
low-income communities
Also, the President is again asking Congress to approve his plan to
provide additional loan forgiveness for highly qualified math, science,
and special education teachers who work in low-income communities. The
President's proposal will provide up to $17,500 in loan forgiveness for
teachers in these three fields who work for 5 consecutive years in
schools that serve high poverty student populations. This is more than
three times the $5,000 in loan forgiveness now allowed for other
qualified elementary and secondary teachers serving low-income
communities. This proposal will help our neediest schools recruit and
retain highly qualified teachers in fields that have critical teacher
shortages, as well as fields that face fierce competition from the
private sector.
tax-related assistance in paying college costs
In addition to grants and loans, postsecondary students and their
families benefit from a variety of tax-related assistance in paying
college costs passed as part of President Bush's tax proposal in 2001.
Under the new tax law, families are able to make tax-free withdrawals
from pre-paid qualified State tuition savings plans, and can contribute
up to $2,000 to Education IRAs. Plus, students are eligible for up to
$4,000 in above-the-line deductions for higher education expenses. The
tax bill also eliminated the 60-month limitation on student loan
interest deductions and increased the income levels of individuals able
to claim the deduction. This change makes this tax benefit simpler to
administer and increases the affordability of student loan repayment.
Additionally, the bill extended the income exclusion for employer-
provided educational assistance and the benefit of the exclusion to
graduate level courses. Combined with other tax benefits already on the
books, over $10 billion this year in tax breaks will be provided to
working families who are struggling to meet the skyrocketing cost of
college and to students who are repaying their student loans. The
President's 2004 Budget would make the important benefits provided in
the 2001 tax law permanent.
historically black colleges and universities and hispanic-serving
institutions
Our $224 million request for the Strengthening Historically Black
Colleges and Universities program demonstrates the President's
commitment to help close achievement and attainment gaps between
minority students and other students by assisting institutions that
enroll a large proportion of minority and disadvantaged students.
Similarly, a $94 million request for Hispanic-serving Institutions
would help increase academic achievement, high school graduation,
postsecondary participation, and life-long learning among Hispanic
Americans.
Overall, the President's 2004 higher education budget proposal
further demonstrates his commitment to invest in the future of
America's neediest students at all levels of education. The substantial
funding increase we are seeking will help millions of needy families
pay for higher education and give millions of students the opportunity
to pursue their educational goals and make the most of their potential.
departmental management--clean audit
While No Child Left Behind reforms are asking States and schools to
improve their accountability in the use of education funds, we have
tried to set an example by improving our own management. Just last
month, the Department of Education received its first clean audit since
1997 and only the second in the history of the Department.
president's management agenda--``green light''
I am also proud to report that the Office of Management and Budget
has given the Department its seal of approval by giving us a ``green
light'' for our progress in improving management on all items in the
President's Management Agenda. This is especially rewarding since we
had to work our way up from the bottom on each of the initiatives,
ranging from financial management to electronic government to linking
program performance and budgeting.
program assessment rating tool
Also, in the 2004 Budget, the Administration launched the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process to rate programs according to
performance. The President's goal was to rate 20 percent of all Federal
programs in the first year. In the 2004 Budget, the Department of
Education rated 18 programs, covering $28 billion, or more than half of
its appropriation. One finding was that many programs lacked
performance information. We will work on that in the future, because
the PART scores tend to fluctuate based on the strength of data about
program success. The PART is a new process and we look forward to
increasing our ability to base budget decisions on program
effectiveness.
I believe we have a strong budget for education in fiscal year
2004, one that puts significant resources where they can do the most to
help improve the quality of educational opportunities at all levels of
the American education system. I will be happy to take any questions
you may have.
RURAL EDUCATION
Senator Specter. Well, Mr. Secretary, thank you for those
comments. The critical aspect of what you said is that you will
work with us so long as it is within the total figure. And that
is the problem, as to how to stretch the dollars to reach so
many of these programs which will have to be cut.
Where there is such a major challenge with rural education,
how can we justify the elimination of the entire program with a
$167 million cut? Rural education is important not only to
Iowa, the ranking member's State, or Kansas, but also my home
State, Pennsylvania, which has more people living in rural
Pennsylvania, 2.5 million, than any State in the Union. How can
we go back to justify that to our constituents?
Secretary Paige. Yes. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to that
by using Alaska as an example, but the same thing will be true
for many of the other rural States. And we are learning a lot
about rural States, and we are moving now to have discussions
specifically about that topic, about rural education.
The various representatives from these States have had a
chance to sit down with us, and we with them, to learn about
their idiosyncratic issues. We have learned an awful lot about
these States. And we are continuing to learn how we can be
helpful to the States. They have enlisted the help of very
capable accountability experts and are making noble efforts to
include all students in their accountability efforts.
Alaska has proposed a comprehensive accountability plan
designed to hold all schools, even small schools, accountable.
And what they are finding is a Department of Education that is
willing to serve as a partner with them to help overcome some
of these difficulties. And the same thing is true with
Nebraska.
Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, how does accountability
bear on eliminating the funding for a program? Mr. Secretary,
would you give us a written answer there? We have a very
limited amount of time.
Secretary Paige. Absolutely. I look forward to that,
because I think there are answers. And I would like very much
to have a chance to----
Senator Specter. If you would provide it in writing, I
would appreciate it.
Secretary Paige. Absolutely. We will do that.
[The information follows:]
Elimination of Rural Education Programs
We believe that providing funds through the large formula grant
programs, coupled with flexibility in using the funds, is the most
effective way to help rural districts to ensure that their students
meet challenging State academic content and student achievement
standards. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is intended to encourage a more
comprehensive education reform strategy responsive to specific local
needs. We believe that school districts will identify problem areas,
adopt scientifically based improvement strategies, and use the
flexibility of the NCLB Act to combine Federal, State, and local
resources to support those strategies. In this context, the important
question is not whether a specific program receives a particular level
of funding, but whether local officials make effective use of the total
resources available.
In addition, recognizing the different needs of small, rural
districts, NCLB provided those districts with greater flexibility in
their use of Federal formula funds than is available to other
districts. For example, a district eligible for the Small, Rural School
Achievement program can consolidate its formula allocations from three
different programs (Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational
Technology State Grants, State Grants for Innovative Programs, and Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants) to carry out
activities authorized by any of the consolidated programs. In addition,
rural districts are able to use the consolidated funds for activities
authorized under Title I, Part A program, the Title III (Language
Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students)
program, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers.
Unlike districts that transfer funds under the State and Local
Transferability authority, the rural flexibility authority enables
eligible districts to carry out activities under the various
authorities without having to meet separate program requirements. We
know from discussions with States that eligible districts are taking
advantage of this increased flexibility.
Rural districts not eligible for the rural flexibility authority
may use the flexibility allowed by the new State and Local
Transferability Act, which allows a district not identified for
improvement under Title I to transfer up to 50 percent of its
allocation from four different formula programs to any of those
programs or to use those funds for Title I, Part A purposes.
GEAR UP
Senator Specter. The GEAR UP Program is also cut. That is
the other end of the spectrum, moving from rural education to
inner city. The GEAR UP Program has been advanced by
Congressman Chaka Fattah on the House side, and this
subcommittee has added enormous funds to it. GEAR UP seeks to
intervene with seventh graders who come from disadvantaged
backgrounds, to provide mentoring and close monitoring of
individuals to try to work with them through the next 6 years
of their education before college and then go on to college.
It seems to me that that is exactly the kind of a program
we ought to be emphasizing, where those inner city youth are
most at risk. Now should we not be adding funds to programs
like that instead of cutting?
MENTORING INITIATIVE
Secretary Paige. Yes. And that is why the President's
mentoring initiative is such an important part of our request.
What is included is, I think, $300 million over 3 years for a
mentoring program specifically for middle school students,
where the need is greatest, and to recruit mentors from all
across the spectrum of professional people who love children
and are willing to work with them. It is one of the most
exciting mentoring programs that we have seen anyplace.
So mentoring is a great concept. In fact, we believe that
the most important determinant of a child's success or failure
is the quality of the adult relationships in their lives. And
mentoring fills that gap. So, far from not thinking it is a
good idea, we think it is a superb idea.
FLEXIBILITY OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, let me move to one more
question before my time expires, because I am going to observe
the time, I will expect other members to do so as well.
Yesterday there were some representatives here, in what
they call the Creative Coalition, emphasizing education. And
the group had a number of high-powered performers. One of them
was Ron Reagan, Jr., another of whom was Fran Drescher, who
made a very impassioned plea for funding for the arts in
schools. And she was almost poetic in her characterization of
the issue, trying to get young people to love themselves
instead of loathing themselves, trying to be productive instead
of destructive.
The question is: How can we structure funds from the
Department of Education to encourage or perhaps--well,
``mandate'' is a word we do not like to use in the Federal
Government, telling people what to do in schools--but to see to
it that there is more creative work on this very critical
aspect of the educational process, which is significantly
ignored?
Secretary Paige. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think many people
miss the power of the creativity that is unleashed by the
flexibility in the bill, the No Child Left Behind Act. It
provides an opportunity for people at the scene, the local
level, who choose to focus on arts or focus on other
activities, or to be able to use funding flexibly to support
that. The amount of funding overall is up. The flexible funding
actually is a reallocation of funds, and putting it in
localities so that it can be used by those who are on the scene
who can make the judgments on where these funds would be best
used.
There are places across our Nation that have high interest
in the arts. There are places that have interests in other
priorities. Each of these things can be met by the flexibility
in the bill. So if we just judge, make a judgment, that there
is not a category with arts in it and a large number attached
to it, we fail to focus on the fact that that possibility
exists through election by the people who are at the local
level and who are best able to make those judgments.
IMPORTANCE OF READING AND READING INSTRUCTION
Senator Specter. Is art as important as reading?
Secretary Paige. I think reading is a fundamental activity.
I think it is the one upon which all other learning is based.
And if a child fails to read and fails to read early, all of
the other activities, I think, are made much more difficult.
And that is why the President has focused so heavily on
reading. About 50 percent of our special education students are
there because they cannot read or have never been taught to
read properly. If we can conquer the reading problem
substantially, we will reduce the other problems.
Senator Specter. Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Secretary, in your prepared statement and also in your
verbal statement here before us this morning--let me get back
to it and read it. You said that the President's 2004 budget
request is ``somewhat unusual in that it was developed before
the Congress completed its work on the 2003 appropriation. The
request for the Department of Education reflected the
administration's relative priorities, at the time, within the
overall 2004 discretionary total.''
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Harkin. You said that. It is in your statement.
Secretary Paige. Absolutely.
Senator Harkin. You also said, and I made note of this,
``We are prepared to work with Congress to adjust some of these
priorities''----
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Harkin [continuing]. ``In light of the 2003
appropriation''----
Secretary Paige. yes.
Senator Harkin [continuing]. ``As long as overall
discretionary appropriations do not exceed the total in the
President's budget.''
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Harkin. Well, in plain English, what you are saying
is that the President would support cutting funding for some
other Cabinet agencies to increase funding for education. Is
that right?
TOTAL EDUCATION BUDGET REQUEST
Secretary Paige. I think it would be best to characterize
my thoughts about that in this fashion: That given all of the
other competing priorities for funds, the appropriate funds to
support education would be the $53.1 billion that the President
has recommended.
ADJUSTMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2004 EDUCATION REQUEST
Senator Harkin. Oh. Oh, so you are not saying that you want
any--wait a minute. Let me go back to this statement. You said
that ``we would work to adjust these priorities.'' You do not
mean any more money. You say--what you have requested in the
budget is the maximum. That is what you just said just now.
Secretary Paige. Yes. What we request in the budget is our
view of the appropriate funding level for education. Some of
the categories inside the request might be higher, viewed as
having a higher priority than others. Those kinds of
adjustments are entirely possible.
Senator Harkin. Oh, I see. Let me get this straight. What
you are saying, Mr. Secretary, is that when you are talking
about adjusting some of these priorities, you are talking about
within that amount that you submitted.
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Harkin. You are not saying that you could get any
more than that.
Secretary Paige. Yes. I am saying that it is our view----
Senator Harkin. That is not what your written statement
said. Your written statement said the request for the DOE----
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Harkin [continuing]. ``Reflected the
administration's relative priorities, at the time, within the
overall 2004 discretionary total.''
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Harkin. And you said, ``We are prepared to work
with Congress to adjust some of these priorities, as long as
overall discretionary appropriations,'' that is, total----
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Harkin [continuing]. ``Do not exceed the total in
the President's budget.'' So what that says to me is that the
President, and you, are saying that you are willing to increase
funding for the Department of Education as long as you cut it
someplace else. Is that right, or that is not right?
Secretary Paige. Yes, that is exactly right. That is what
we are saying.
Senator Harkin. You are--oh. So this is different than what
you just said about 2 minutes ago.
Secretary Paige. Okay.
Senator Harkin. Let us see if we can speak to each other
here.
Secretary Paige. Okay. Let us try that.
Senator Harkin. Let us try to speak to each other.
Secretary Paige. Okay.
Senator Harkin. Are you saying that the President would be
willing to cut some funding in other Cabinet agencies to
increase funding for education?
Secretary Paige. No.
We are speaking about the $53.1 billion for education and
adjusting the priorities within it.
Senator Harkin. Oh, I see.
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Harkin. The President will not support more than
$53.1 billion.
Secretary Paige. I am not speaking for the President with
regard to that statement. The statement that I am making is
that within the $53.1 billion in our budget, it is our view of
the appropriate spending level for education. And inside that
$53.1 billion, adjustments----
Senator Harkin. Well, that is not what your statement says.
Secretary Paige. Give me just a minute. Give me just a
minute.
Senator Harkin. That is not what your statement says. But
we have to figure this thing out. I am just trying to get a
handle on whether or not we might have some hope here. Is hope
alive or not?
Secretary Paige. Okay. Let me try it again. And I have some
more counsel here.
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 EDUCATION REQUEST
Within the overall President's budget, we can work with
some adjustments in education. It might go higher than $53.1
billion for education, as long as the overall spending in the
budget does not increase.
Senator Harkin. Then back to my point: If that is the case,
then there has to be some cuts in other Cabinet agencies.
Secretary Paige. That is true.
Senator Harkin. And the President would be willing to
support that.
Secretary Paige. That is right.
Senator Harkin. Do we have any suggestions where the
President might be willing to cut other departments, so that we
can have more money for education?
Secretary Paige. We do not have those suggestions
presently.
Senator Harkin. Could we expect to get something like that
from the administration?
Secretary Paige. I am sure we can.
Senator Harkin. Well, this committee, I am sure, Mr.
Chairman, would love to have some guidance and some suggestions
from the administration, since we appropriate money for all of
the Cabinet agencies--not our subcommittee here, but the full
Appropriations Committee--about where we might cut some of the
other departments to get money for education. To me, that is
encouraging. Thank you.
Secretary Paige. Mr. Harkin, if I could, the Office of
Management and Budget has been working with us. And I think the
same way in which we worked with you on the development of the
2003 bill, when the education budget went up and there were
other priorities, but it stayed within the President's overall
amount. During the appropriations process, the administration
will be happy to work with Congress as long as the overall
President's number remains the same.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I assume from that conversation then that we can expect to
see a revised budget request from the Department of Education.
Secretary Paige. No. We are saying that we are willing to
work with the Congress and talk to you about those issues.
Senator Murray. But you are not going to give us a formal
request of any kind so that we know how the President wants to
set these priorities?
Secretary Paige. That is correct.
FUNDING FOR TEACHER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Senator Murray. Well, okay. That makes it difficult for us,
as we try and manage this. But let me ask you about one of the
biggest challenges that I am hearing from the people in my
State. They are struggling to meet the requirements to have all
teachers and most paraprofessionals highly qualified by 2005,
which feels like it is fast approaching.
Do you not agree that fulfilling that kind of mandate will
require significant investments in training and recruiting and
retaining and testing teachers in order to meet that
requirement that we have put forward, that all teachers and
most professionals have to be highly qualified by 2005?
Secretary Paige. Yes, I do agree it will take significant
resources. And that is why the $4.5 billion in the President's
budget is there.
Senator Murray. But what I see in the President's budget is
your request of $2.85 billion for Title II teacher quality,
which is what the mandate was under the bill. Last year we
actually funded, in 2003, $2.95 million. So your request is
below what we funded in 2003. Now I know that you said that you
had to prepare this before we did the 2003 appropriations.
Secretary Paige. Yes.
Senator Murray. And despite the conversation you just had
with Senator Harkin, given that you are not going to send us a
revised budget, your budget actually calls for $2.85 billion--
which is less than we just appropriated for this year for
meeting this requirement. I do not see how our schools are
going to meet the requirements to have all our teachers and
professionals highly trained when we are providing them less
money to do it.
Secretary Paige. When we discussed Federal funding for
teacher quality, preparation, and recruiting and retention, we
have to look at the full gamut of support available in the
budget for that purpose. And when you do that, it will total
$4.5 billion, not just the $2.85 billion.
Mr. Hansen. And if I might add, Senator Murray, that is an
increase even over and beyond the $4.25 billion that is in the
current 2003 bill. If you look at our proposals on teacher loan
forgiveness, our troops-to-teachers, transition to teaching,
other proposals, and total what is provided for in our Title I
program with the 5 percent set-aside for teacher training----
Senator Murray. With all due respect, let me just tell you
that when we worked on the No Child Left Behind, the
authorization for this requirement and this money were under
the Teacher Quality State Grants. What you are now saying to us
is that we are not going to pay attention to the language of
the bill and the Teacher Quality State Grants. We are going to
pull money from all these other things that we do, and say that
that counts.
Well, that is--you know, the schools are already using
those funds for specific things. We have added a new
requirement, a new accountability requirement, on top of that.
And now you are just saying: Use the money you use for
something else. That is what it sounds like to me that you are
saying to our schools.
Secretary Paige. No. We are not saying that. What we are
saying is: All of the dollars in the budget for teacher quality
improvement are not captured under that line item that includes
the $2.85 billion. There are other places.
Senator Murray. When we wrote the No Child Left Behind, the
teacher quality money was under the Teacher Quality State
Grants. That is what we expected to work with the
administration in good faith to increase the funding for.
Mr. Chairman, I know we do not have much time. I have a
number of other questions I will submit for the record.
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE REQUIREMENTS
But I do have one question in particular that I wanted to
ask about, because a lot of our schools, in trying to implement
the public school choice requirements, are following your
guidance. And your guidance says, and I am going to quote it,
``Lack of capacity and health and safety concerns, including
overcrowding problems, do not excuse an LEA from meeting the
Title I public school choice requirement.''
Well, I know you are an educator. And you cannot believe
that it makes sense to transfer students to schools that are
overcrowded even to the point of causing health and safety
concerns. So I am very concerned about that language in your
guidance, and I want you to clarify it for us.
Secretary Paige. Our language in the guidance was as
flexible as we could make it under the language in the law. And
so what we were doing there was trying to provide as much
flexibility as the law permits us to provide in the capacity
issue. We are fully aware of the problems that capacity
presents to teaching and learning.
TITLE IX ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Senator Murray. Well, I am deeply concerned about that. And
in my last 30 seconds, I want to just jump to one quick
question on Title IX. It is another issue that I have dealt
with your office on.
You said recently that you would consider only the advisory
commission recommendations on Title IX that are unanimous. And
two members, at least two members, of the commission have
repudiated their support for a number of those so-called
unanimous recommendations in their minority report. And I
wanted to find out from you this morning if you will consider
those recommendations as unanimous or if you will respect the
dissenting views on that question.
Secretary Paige. The two persons that you refer to voted
for the ones that we agree are unanimous. They were a party to
that and had more participation and discussion than anyone
there. They were part of----
Senator Murray. Well, Mr. Secretary, I have talked----
Secretary Paige. They were part of the unanimous vote. That
is why it is unanimous.
Senator Murray. Well, I have talked extensively to them.
And they believe that the way the report was written was not
the way that their discussions were going. They have submitted
a minority report saying that they have dissenting views on
that and do not consider them unanimous. I hope that you take a
look at that, because there is a lot of disagreement on that.
Secretary Paige. Senator, the other 13 members of the
commission thought that their conduct with respect to that was
very inappropriate. They voted for those issues that were
unanimous.
Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, again, with all due respect,
I hope that you look at the language of the minority report.
They are very specific in their concerns about how those were
worded and what the final outcome of that was.
Secretary Paige. The commissioners were advised even before
they had their first meeting that we wanted them to reach
agreement, consensus, and that those were the issues that were
going to be included, and that we are going to consider. Even
before they had their first meeting, they were advised about
that. And so they were fully aware of what the ground rules
were and what the rules of engagement were before the meeting,
before the report was prepared.
Senator Murray. Will you look at the minority report?
Secretary Paige. I am going to look at the issues that were
voted on unanimously.
Mr. Hansen. Mrs. Murray, I think it is important to note,
too, that Cynthia Cooper, who is the co-chair of the
commission, takes great issue with the representation of the
other two commissioners--and I think actually the transcript
speaks very clearly as well that everybody knew exactly what
they were voting for. And I think Cynthia Cooper spelled it out
very clearly in the press conference during the----
Secretary Paige. And not only Cynthia Cooper, the other
members of the commission as well.
Senator Murray. I hope we will have further discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. Senator Landrieu.
FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Secretary, do you agree that one of
the roles of the Federal Government is to try to close the
opportunity gap between the affluent districts in this Nation
and the disadvantaged districts?
Surely, as your background suggests, you are aware that the
local school systems are funded, primarily through property
taxes; not in every case, but in most cases throughout the
Nation. In those school districts where there is a strong
middle class or affluent area, property taxes are paid and
therefore schools are fairly well funded. In other areas that
are poorer and more disadvantaged, where the property is not as
valuable, there is by contrast less money that goes into the
schools.
In my view one of the roles of the Federal Government is to
try to close that gap and help those children that come from
less affluent neighborhoods to actually have equal opportunity
to succeed. Do you agree?
Secretary Paige. Yes, especially if you mean by that the
equity. Our role is to--we have two roles--to ensure equity and
to promote excellence. And I would consider what you said
ensuring equity.
TAX CREDIT PROPOSALS
Senator Landrieu. Well, I am very encouraged by that,
because I think that is absolutely what we should be doing. But
I am perplexed and confused then about the President's
proposals. Two initiatives that I see outlined in this budget
from your Department and the President are to expand the
Coverdell tax credit and then to give an additional tax credit
for up to $5,000 in tuition costs. In order to get the tax
credit, you would have to be able to have paid $5,000 in
tuition, correct?
How do those two programs, one that you are seeking to
expand and one that is brand new, meet the objectives that you
just stated?
Secretary Paige. Well, we believe that one of our greatest
failings in education is tying a child to a school that is not
serving them well. And so the President is attempting here, and
I agree fully, to provide options for parents, so that if a
school is not serving a child well, that child has other
options. And this is a vehicle to promote that possibility.
Senator Landrieu. Well, let us discuss that a minute.
Explain to me how a child that comes from a family that cannot
afford even $1,000 for tuition would be helped by these two
programs. Go ahead and explain that to me, if you would.
Mr. Hansen. Well, the----
Senator Landrieu. In other words how does the tax credit
work for them?
Mr. Hansen. Senator Landrieu, the tax credit, it needs to
be kept in mind, that it is an above-the-line tax credit. So it
is specifically targeted to disadvantaged families. And I think
it is----
Senator Landrieu. Excuse me. Could you start again?
Mr. Hansen. Sure. It is an above-the-line tax credit for
families. It is also important to note that the average
tuition----
Senator Landrieu. Excuse me. Hold on. Explain what you mean
by ``above the line''?
Mr. Hansen. It basically means that they are eligible for
it no matter what the rest of their tax is. If they do not owe
any tax, they still are eligible for the tax credit.
Senator Landrieu. That is true, but in order to get it, do
they not have to first pay the tuition?
Mr. Hansen. That is correct. And that is also----
Senator Landrieu. So a parent has to have the $5,000, or up
to half of $5,000, to pay for tuition before they can either
claim the credit. Explain to me then how the people in this
country who have two children and who, let us say, make the
minimum wage can afford $10,000 in tuition they must pay to be
eligible for this credit.
Try to explain that to me how someone pays rent, buys food
and clothes, and then pays $10,000 tuition, what benefit are
you are offering them.
Secretary Paige. There are--go ahead.
Senator Landrieu. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary. That would be
good.
Secretary Paige. There clearly would be many people where
this would be a burden. And they would have to find other
sources. This category would meet some of the needs for some of
the parents. There are other parents who would have to look to
other sources. And there are other sources. This is just one of
many mechanisms that are designed to provide options for
parents.
Senator Landrieu. Well, I will finalize this point with my
37 seconds left. What you just stated, goes in direct
contradiction to your goal, which according to your testimony
is to help those parents that need the help the most, because
the gap is so great. The programs that you are proposing in
this budget go against that principle.
I am going to do everything I can to oppose these two
programs and instead try to support the public schools, as well
as choice for parents, real choice that means something to
them.
Thank you.
FISCAL YEAR EDUCATION BUDGET PRIORITIES
Mr. Hansen. Senator Landrieu, if I could, I think it is
important to note that the top three priorities in our budget
were a billion-dollar increase in the Title I program, with all
money in the targeted program; the billion-dollar increase in
the Special Education program, which serves the most
educationally disadvantaged children in our country. It also
included a $1.9 billion----
Senator Landrieu. I----
Mr. Hansen [continuing]. Let me finish, please--a $1.9
billion increase for our Pell Grant program. Ninty percent of
those dollars go to families making less than $40,000. So all
of our programs are geared to help those who need it the most.
This tax credit, if people do not take it, it does not go to
wealthy families. It is opportunities for those families that--
--
Senator Landrieu. I did not say it went to wealthy
families. Mr. Chairman, I want to get this on the record. I did
not say it went to wealthy families. I do not have a problem
helping wealthy families. My problem is when resources are
limited we should help the poor families first, the middle-
income families second, and the wealthy families third. Your
budget does not reflect that principle. I disagree with it.
Mr. Hansen. Our budget does do that.
IMPORTANCE OF ARTS EDUCATION
Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, my concluding question to
you was about focusing on the arts. And reading, obviously, is
the critical issue on education of young people. And
mathematics is not far behind and so many of the substantive
issues, history and civics, health courses. But I would
appreciate it if you would direct some special attention to
what might be done to stimulate the arts.
I started to tell you about this group of The Creative
Coalition. A young woman, Fran Drescher, and young Ronald
Reagan, and others make such a compelling case. And the
emotionalism and self-worth that comes from theater and art are
so important that I would like you to take a special look at
it.
Now I am not quite sure how we get there, because we do not
direct the local boards as to what they do. But there are ways
that we can encourage it, perhaps.
Secretary Paige. Senator, we have a special interest in the
arts. So we would be happy and pleased to do that.
Senator Specter. Okay. We would appreciate that.
ATHLETIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS
The issue on Title IX with respect to athletic
opportunities has been of great concern. I appreciate your
focus on athletic opportunities for women and girls. It has
been really amazing to see the women compete in basketball. In
a bygone decade, that would have been thought to be
unobtainable. So much of the funds are directed to men's sports
because they are big moneymakers, big television, NCAA, et
cetera.
But with what we have now seen as to the competitive
capabilities of young women and what a vital part it plays in
the educational process and the development of women and girls,
I think that is a line which we have to take really very
positive steps to promote.
Let me turn to a question, Mr. Secretary.
Oh, do you want to make a comment?
Senator Harkin, sotto voce--in fact, not sotto voce.
Everybody in the room heard it.
He has a great article titled: ``Strike Up the Band, keep
music in schools.'' And in light of our limited time, we will
just make this a part of the record. We will get a copy for you
to read, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
Senator Harkin. I would like to have you read this. It was
written by the former CEO of Meredith Publishing Company. It is
a great article about the arts and school music. It is really a
great article, in light of what the chairman was just saying.
[The information follows:]
[From the Des Moines Register, March 25, 2003]
Strike up the Band (and Keep Music in Schools); Iowa View
(By James A. Autry)
I have just returned from a magical mystery tour in which I
witnessed a transformation from the ordinary to the sublime. The thing
is, this happens all the time but not many of us get to see it from
beginning to end. You have to be in the right place at the right time.
I was.
But I get ahead of myself.
First, let me begin with a confession: On Saturday night, March 15,
I let go of my adult inhibitions in the midst of 149 teenagers, and
screamed myself hoarse.
It happened when the chairman of the Heritage Music Festival at
Disneyland announced that the top festival award was being presented to
Des Moines Roosevelt High School. I jumped to my feet, pumped my hands
in the air and yelled my fool head off.
I was as caught up in the moment, as excited and exhilarated as
those band, orchestra and chamber choir students who had traveled to
Anaheim on March 12 for four days of fun and festival, and who were
taking home the top honors.
Later, I wondered if anyone would notice; if the media would bother
with a musical triumph when there's so much to be written and shown
about the triumphant world of sports.
I wondered how many people know there are more kids involved in
public school music than in all the sports put together.
And I thought about the proposed cuts in music programs, and the
havoc that may cause for bands, orchestras, choirs, and choruses as
they have cuts and changes in teaching staff, plus diminished resources
all around.
I am not attacking the administrators or the school board. I am
painfully aware of their difficult choices, and the so-called ``Leave
No Child Behind Act'' puts no emphasis on art and music programs.
My purpose is simply to assert that life is about more than the
basic ``3 Rs.'' What students learn from music and art programs can't
be taught anywhere else.
As a consultant and author, I work with companies that stress
teamwork and cross-functional projects. I tell managers to stop using
the metaphor of sports teams, with their superstars and bench-warmers,
and think of a band or orchestra in which every player has an important
role, in which the greatest accomplishment is the ensemble.
Isn't this what good organizations are about, what a democracy is
about, what communities are about?
There is no better education--repeat, no better education--for
becoming a productive member of society than participation in a musical
ensemble. In a band or orchestra or chorus, no child is ever left
behind.
And I know. Our son Ronald, now a senior at Roosevelt, has autism.
He's not the most accomplished musician in the band, but he always
gives it his best effort. And the band has been a defining activity for
him. I can't imagine how his high school experience would have been
without band.
While I think of the band as having put a little magic in Ronald's
life, that's not the magic or the mystery I started writing about. Just
as the awards ceremony was not the high point of the Anaheim trip.
That came earlier in the day when the symphonic band, chamber
orchestra and chamber choir performed. My description: an utterly
mystical experience.
How else would you explain the transformation of typical teenagers
into divinely performing musical ensembles? Picture busloads of young
people looking and acting as young people do, dressed in a strangely
conformist style (boys in baggy jeans, the waistline relocated
somewhere around the the mid-to-lower buttocks, girls with low-cut
jeans and bare bellies) and talking with one another in a language
hardly intelligible to aging adults.
Then picture those same kids in tuxedos and long, black evening
dresses, intensely attentive and concentrating fully on their
instruments (or voices) and the directions of the conductor, and
producing music of a quality unimaginable from high school musicians
back when I was one.
It is a mystical transformation brought about by two factors:
One is the transcendent quality of music that inspires kids to
reach beyond themselves to perform at their peak.
The key factor: teachers. I sit in awe of these educators--in this
case, Treg Marcellus, Joseph Rich, Sandra Tatge and John Wallag--who
devote their lives to bringing forth exquisite music from young people
who, when they begin, can't imagine the possibilities of what beauty
they can create together.
I wish everyone in Des Moines could have the experience I've just
had. They would be proud of the performances and the awards, but they'd
be equally proud of how the students behaved and represented our city
and state.
I can't imagine school activities that produce more positive,
lifelong outcomes than these music programs. They deserve everything we
can do to preserve them.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Harkin, for insisting
on not interceding.
Senator Harkin and I always have a good time, in addition
to being very cooperative in how we handle these issues.
CAMPUS CRIME AND CLERY ACT ADMINISTRATION
Now, Mr. Secretary, on the subject of campus crime, we had
a particularly heinous rape/murder in Pennsylvania which
inspired the parents of the victim to come forward on a
crusade, which has been so well focused on trying to inform
parents and students who are going to college campuses what
kind of risks they might expect. And the Department prior to
your administration had not done a very good job in
administering these campus crime informational requirements.
We have provided you with $750,000 to provide institutions
of higher education with a handbook on how to comply with the
Clery Act, I would be interested to know how you intend to use
it. Do you have a plan now, or if not, you can submit it in
writing, if you have not focused on it? What activist programs
do you have to see to it that there is enforcement of the
provisions in law related to campus crime?
Secretary Paige. Well, we share your view about safety. The
Department is developing a handbook on compliance with the
Clery Act. We intend to use the funds that you have made
available in strict compliance with congressional intent. The
handbook will focus on explaining programs and regulations in
clear language to school officials. We are consulting with
interested organizations, including Security on Campus and
participating institutions. The handbook will be distributed to
all higher education institutions immediately after it is
completed.
We have some other activities going on as well, including a
data collection system to facilitate the submission of campus
crime data from postsecondary institutions--this is for the
third consecutive year--a help desk to provide institutions
with technical assistance, and a website to provide easy access
to campus security legislation and regulations and data and
resources.
We have an enormous array of activities that are underway
to promote campus safety. We are very grateful for the $750,000
that was provided, and we are going to make sure that it is
used in strict compliance with your intent.
Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Thad Cochran's prepared statement will be made part
of the record at this point in the hearing.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to have Dr. Paige serving as
Secretary of Education. He is doing a fine job, and I look forward to
working with him on the Department's budget for fiscal year 2004.
One program I need to mention, because nearly every school in
Mississippi is dependent upon its funding, is the Title I program for
the education of disadvantaged students. I'm pleased to see an increase
of $1 Billion in this program. It is always a challenge, though, to get
a share of any increase directed to Mississippi. That is a result of
the formula distribution and also the child counts that are used by the
department to determine eligible students. I hope this year we can come
to a resolution that is fair to my state.
I am interested in, and some of the vocational and technical
education leaders in my state are concerned about, the Department's
proposal for eliminating the Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Program. These are programs that have been very successful. The
Mississippi Department of Education and the vocational and technical
education centers have contacted me, and met with my staff. They do not
understand how a new formula based program will be beneficial to them.
So, as we work through the appropriations process, and the
reauthorization process, I hope you will consult with the people
currently running these programs.
There are also several small, but critically important education
programs in which I have a deep interest.
I'm happy that this year, some are included in the Department's
Budget request. I commend the Department, and you, Mr. Secretary, for
noticing in particular the benefits of and recommending continued
funding for the Ready to Learn Television Program, which provides
educational television shows to nearly every child in the United
States.
I congratulate you on placing a priority on civic education by
recommending funding for the Education for Democracy program. It
sponsors the We The People Program here in the United States and the
Cooperative Education Exchange Program in almost 30 emerging
democracies abroad.
There are however, a number of programs listed in the budget
proposal under the heading: ``Program Terminations.'' I know we have
difficult decisions to make, but I want you to know about a few of
those in which I continue to have an interest.
I understand that the Department plans to streamline as many
programs as possible, but school leaders in my state advise me that
even with the advantages of flexibility, there is still a need for
schools and districts to have direct access to grant making programs
and others that are best served through a single source.
The Arts in Education program funds a number of high quality
programs that use a small federal contribution to leverage other state
and private funding. Most successful has been the relatively new grants
to schools to provide arts education in their curriculum. The
Department of Education published a collection of studies in 1999 and
another one last year, both of which gave us clear evidence fo the
value of arts in schools. The variety of advantages are amazing. These
include decreased drop out rates, increased academic performance,
better interpersonal skills, and higher sensitivity to social issues.
Another Arts in Education program is VSA Arts. This is popular
program which supports a national network that assures accessible arts
programming for children and youth with disabilities. Each year
approximately 4.5 million individuals participate in VSA Arts programs.
The National Writing Project is another program that has not only
proven its worth, but I am advised that it consistently receives the
highest rating from its official federal review. The fact is, that the
modest federal funds that have been directed to this program ($14
Million in 2003) are leveraged as much as 7 times in some areas. The
National Writing Project does not dictate a certain method of teaching
writing, but it provides a highly trained network of teachers who share
proven methods with other teachers. Teachers are energized by this
training and become better teachers.
The grant program for foreign languages in schools is another one
that I truly hope we can continue to fund. Mr. Secretary, during the
celebration of International Education Week, you stated a commitment to
the elements of what you called a ``world-class'' education. Foreign
languages taught early and throughout a child's life is a corner stone
to that goal. Today we have national security issues that beg a
population better prepared to conduct themselves with an international
awareness. The experts told us at a hearing in 2000 that college is
simply too late. We need to start sooner.
There are other programs of importance, such as those which deal
with gifted education, physical education, and school counseling. All
of these need our attention.
I hope that during this appropriations process, we can again come
to some compromise and continue to fund the programs that have national
significance and have proven to be successful.
I know that you have the best interests of our children at heart,
and I look forward to working with you.
CHAIRMAN'S CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Specter. There are many more subjects. We had a
pretty good attendance with the five Senators here this morning
on an extraordinarily busy morning at 9 o'clock.
We are going to be proceeding to a full committee hearing,
as I said earlier, with Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Ridge.
And with the customary roller skates around here, I have to go
to a judiciary committee meeting for a few minutes to try to
confirm Justice Priscilla Owen.
But we thank you for what you are doing. We appreciate your
coming from Houston, from a very activist program in education
and taking on a very big responsibility. There are many other
questions of concern to my State, not only as to the rural
education but also as to big city education. We will be having
a dialogue with you further and I look forward to an
opportunity to invite you to Pennsylvania.
You have been very gracious with your time in the past. And
we look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY'S CLOSING REMARKS
Secretary Paige. We thank you so much for your leadership.
And we invite you and the members of the committee,
subcommittee, to contact us if there is any discussion you want
to have around any of these issues.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much.
Secretary Paige. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Specter. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
title i school improvement
Question. Does the fiscal year 2004 budget request provide
sufficient funds to pay the costs of corrective actions--public school
choice, supplemental services, school restructuring, etc.--which must
be taken with respect to schools which fail to meet adequate yearly
progress standards for 2 or more consecutive years?
Answer. State and local educational agencies have been required to
take corrective actions to improve Title I schools in need of
improvement since the 1994 reauthorization. We believe that the
President's $12.4 billion 2004 request for Title I, an increase of $3.6
billion or 41 percent over the amount provided for the final year of
the previous law, is more than adequate to help States and school
districts provide the new educational options and carry out the
improvement measures required by the NCLB Act.
In particular, by statute, 2004 school improvement funding would
double from 2 percent to 4 percent of the overall Title I Grants to
LEAs funding. The President's request is large enough to ensure that
this increased school improvement funding comes from new funding and
not from existing Title I allocations.
Question. How many schools have been affected by this requirement
during the 2002-2003 school year?
Answer. We do not yet have precise figures from the States, but a
survey conducted last summer, combined with data from earlier years,
suggests that roughly 8,000 schools were identified for school
improvement in the 2002-2003 school year.
title i choice and supplemental services
Question. Have any localities received waivers from the requirement
to provide supplemental services?
Answer. Such waivers may be approved by State educational agencies
only if there are no available service providers and the school
district is itself unable to provide services. We do not yet have any
data on how many waivers have been granted by the States.
Question. What evidence is there that third-party supplemental
services providers will be any more successful than their regular
public schools in providing Title I services?
Answer. While we do not yet know how successful supplemental
educational services will be in raising student achievement, we do
know, first, that students are eligible for such services only when
their schools have failed, for at least three years, to meet adequate
yearly progress requirements. In other words, we know the schools are
not getting the job done. And, second, we know that there are service
providers that have a strong record of improving student achievement,
as demonstrated in part by the willingness of parents to pay for their
services.
I also should clarify that supplemental educational services, as
the name suggests, are not a replacement for regular Title I services,
but additional instruction available to those students with the
greatest need for improvement. Students receiving supplemental
educational services can continue to benefit from the regular Title I
program offered in their schools.
Finally, service providers are subject to monitoring by State
educational agencies and must meet performance objectives included in
the agreements negotiated with parents. If a particular provider
consistently fails to meet its objectives for improving student
achievement, few parents are likely to request its services and it will
likely lose the State-approved status required for participation in the
program.
parental notification of public school choice and supplemental services
options
Question. Are parents of affected pupils eligible for public school
choice and supplemental services options being informed of these
options in a timely and effective manner?
Answer. In general, I believe most school districts have made a
good-faith effort to notify parents of their children's eligibility for
both public school choice and supplemental educational services. Some
districts experienced difficulty in this area during the current school
year, in part because these are new requirements and districts are
still developing appropriate procedures and processes for complying
with those requirements. In addition, some States did not post their
lists of approved providers until well into the second semester of the
school year, making it difficult for local educational agencies to make
the services available on a timely basis.
I am encouraged by anecdotal reports in the media of districts
responding to complaints by parents by improving notification and
increasing the range of options available to parents. I expect this
improvement will continue as both districts and parents become more
familiar comfortable with the choice and supplemental service
requirements. In any case, this is an issue we will follow closely over
the coming months and years.
Question. Are the parents typically being offered a substantial
range of choices?
Answer. We do not yet have sufficient information to describe a
``typical'' public school choice program under the NCLB Act. Based on
reports in the media, the range of choices offered has varied
considerably, depending on such factors as the district's understanding
of the choice requirements and the number of eligible schools within
the district. I think this is pretty much what we expected,
particularly during the first year of implementation.
no child left behind ``report card'' requirements
Question. What are the costs to States and local educational
agencies of meeting the report card requirements of the No Child Left
Behind Act?
Answer. These costs will vary considerably based on such factors as
the size of the State and district involved and the number and type of
schools that must be included in State and local report cards. It is
important to remember, however, that report cards are not new to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but were required under the
previous authorization. The NCLB Act did add some requirements for
additional information in the annual report cards, but this reflects
only incremental cost increases for an existing activity.
Question. How are most States and local educational agencies
disseminating their report cards?
Answer. Information about State and local plans and procedures for
disseminating their annual report cards was included in the
accountability plan workbooks that each State submitted in January 2003
as part of the consolidated application process. The Department is
currently subjecting the plans outlined in these workbooks to peer
review, and will have more data on report cards when the peer review
process is completed early this summer.
Question. If they are disseminated primarily through the Internet,
how will parents and other individuals without home computers and
Internet access obtain them?
Answer. We do not yet have any data suggesting that the Internet
will be the primary means of disseminating annual report cards.
However, the Title I regulations require that States and school
districts communicate all school improvement information, including
annual report cards, directly to parents through such means as regular
mail, and not just through broader means such as posting report cards
on the Internet.
Question. May Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I-A
funds be used to develop or disseminate report cards?
Answer. Yes, States and school districts may use Title I, Part A
funds to meet the requirements of Title I, Part A of the ESEA, which
include annual report cards.
Question. How many States and local educational agencies are
currently meeting the No Child Left Behind Act requirements to publish
report cards on their performance?
Answer. The Department currently does not have complete data on the
number of States and school districts meeting the report card
requirements of the NCLB Act. Many States and school districts were
producing and disseminating report cards under the previous law, but
the NCLB Act required additional information that will likely require
modification to these pre-NCLB report cards. The Department will have
more data on State and local efforts to meet the new report card
requirements once it completes the process of peer reviewing State
accountability plans early this summer.
evaluation of 21st century community learning centers program
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposes $600 million for
21st Century Community Learning Centers, a reduction of $393.5 million
from the amount provided in last year's bill. These centers help
communities provide extended learning opportunities for students--
including after school programs--and related services for their
families, such as family literacy. The stated reason for the proposed
reduction is that the Department's recent national evaluation of
centers revealed shortcomings in the program, in particular related to
the academic performance of students attending such programs.
Mr. Secretary, given that the findings from the national evaluation
that are your basis for reducing the program are not nationally
representative and are only first year findings, is it appropriate to
cut this program so significantly, especially given the fact that other
studies have found academic improvement and other benefits from such
programs?
Answer. The rapid growth in funding for the program over the past
few years occurred almost entirely in the context of an increased
emphasis on improving student achievement. For example, the 2001
request submitted by the previous Administration, which proposed to
more than double the appropriation to $1 billion, was justified by the
perceived need to give students in all low-performing schools the
opportunity to attend after-school programs to help improve their
academic achievement. There was a specific link between the size of the
request and the academic benefits expected from that request. In this
context, our proposal to scale back the program, on the basis of
evidence that it is not achieving those expected benefits, seems
entirely appropriate. Preliminary findings from the current evaluation
of 21st Century Community Learning Centers, conducted by Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., indicate that the centers funded in the
program's first three years, on average, provided academic content of
limited intensity and had limited influence on academic performance, no
influence on feelings of safety, and no positive impact on student
delinquent behavior. Attendance in the programs was found to be low (on
average, less than two days per week, even though centers were open, on
average, four to five days a week).
Additional analyses compared the outcomes of frequent and
infrequent program participants. Frequent participants were more likely
to be from disadvantaged households and to want to improve in school;
however, analyses did not reveal that more frequent participation led
to better outcomes.
The evaluation study uses far more rigorous methodology than other
studies cited in the after-school program literature. The evaluation
includes an experimental research design (randomly selected
participants in programs) for the elementary school portion of the
study and a quasi-experimental research design (matched comparison
groups) for the middle school portion. Other studies in the literature
used less rigorous methodologies (and thus produced less reliable
results), often presented highly selective results from small samples,
and offered information about outcomes rather than impacts. (In
contrast to ``outcomes'' that provide description information on the
performance of those who chose to participate in the program,
``impacts'' provide evidence of outcomes that are caused by their
participation in the program.)
Question. Isn't it true that there were many positive findings from
the study, such as more parental involvement and better quality of
homework produced that argue against such a reduction?
Answer. The Department did not discount those findings. The report
states that the achievement gains of African-American, Hispanic, and
female students were very small (with improvements only in math and
then by less than 2 points on a 1-100 point scale). While parental
involvement is often thought to be important, the study reported no
clear evidence that a link to achievement exists.
impact of current vocational education programs
Question. Given that the National Assessment of Vocational
Education's final report has yet to be released by the Department, will
you provide specific information about any possible findings that have
led the Administration to conclude that the current vocational
education programs are not improving student outcomes?
Answer. Since 1917, the Federal Government has invested in helping
States and schools better prepare young people for the future, seeking
to ensure that every young person leaves high school with the skills he
or she needs to succeed. However, evidence shows that we are failing to
adequately prepare our youth for the future. For example:
--Recent NAEP and TIMSS data show little improvement in high school
students' relative academic performance. Nationally, the high
school graduation rate has declined, with many non-graduates
eventually obtaining GEDs or other alternative certificates
that have less value in the labor market than traditional high
school diplomas have.
--Large proportions of high school students enter college, but many
fail to complete. The best available data suggest that rates of
remediation in college are high, and that students who have
taken remedial course work are much less likely to persist and
eventually earn a college degree than are other students.
--With regard to employment and earnings, students with higher-level
math skills earn substantially more than do students with the
same level of educational attainment but weaker skills. A
similar pattern exists with regard to reading skills.
--Surveys of firms indicate that many test job applicants and that
the proportion of applicants who lack the necessary basic
literacy and/or math skills may be growing. Thus, even students
who enter the job market directly out of high school must have
a strong foundation of academic competencies.
--There is no evidence that vocational course taking, as it has been
structured, is likely to address deficiencies in academic
achievement or improve rates of college going. The previous
National Assessment of Vocational Education (NAVE) Final
Report, published in 1994, commissioned and reviewed several
studies and found: (1) no relationship between vocational
education and academic achievement gains, or a negative effect
if students substitute vocational for academic courses, and (2)
a similar relationship to postsecondary education. A more
recent rigorous evaluation of career academies, representing a
broad vision of vocational education, found that these programs
did not improve standardized math and reading achievement test
scores, had no effect on the graduation rate, and did not
increase the proportion of students who enroll in postsecondary
education by the end of the first year following high school
graduation.
The current structure of the Federal vocational and technical
education program is not adequately addressing these issues. The NAVE
final report is likely to provide additional supporting evidence of the
program's inadequacies.
Question. Are these findings applicable to all groups of students?
Answer. Yes. In fact, while there are significant achievement gaps
between low-income and minority students and their peers, the overall
academic attainment of all high school students is inadequate and
disappointing. Too few students, regardless of their family income,
race, or ethnicity, are leaving high school without the skills they
will need to succeed in postsecondary education and the job market.
reauthorization proposal for secondary and technical education
Question. Please explain how the Administration's proposed
secondary and technical education program would better prepare a
complete workforce, with a broad range of skills that will be needed in
the Nation's current and future economy.
Answer. The Administration's proposed Secondary and Technical
Education Excellence program would shift the Federal role from
supporting traditional vocational education to focusing on improving
high school academic achievement and on supporting high-quality
technical education programs that span the high school and college
levels, thus making sure that students are taught the academic
knowledge and technical and practical skills needed to make successful
transitions from high school to college and from college to the
workforce.
In particular, States would use their Federal formula allocations
to make grants to partnership of local educational agencies and
community and technical colleges to develop or implement academic/
technical education programs that show promise or are effective (or
show promise of) in improving students' academic and technical skills,
increasing degree attainment, reducing the need for remedial courses at
the postsecondary level, and improving employment outcomes. Further, to
improve the quality and labor market responsiveness of the curriculum
and to make it easier for high school graduates to transition to
postsecondary education, the proposed program will promote greater
collaboration between technical and community colleges and high schools
in planning and delivering technical education coursework for secondary
school students, as well as continue to support postsecondary programs
for adult, career-changing students.
Creating cutting-edge programs of this kind can be costly and time-
consuming for administrators, teachers, college faculty, and business
leaders, but the proposed program will provide communities with both
incentives and resources to take on the difficult but important task of
better preparing our young people for the future.
fiscal year 2004 budget request for the secondary and technical
education excellence program
Question. Given the proposed reduction of $326 million in
vocational education programs and the proposed authority to transfer
funds for use under Title I of ESEA, are you concerned that there would
be sufficient Federal financial assistance to support effective career
and technical education programs throughout the United States; and, if
not, why?
Answer. We believe that the 2004 budget request is sufficient for
the proposed Secondary and Technical Education Excellence program.
Under the current program, $1.19 billion is spread thinly, supporting
general expenses like equipment purchases and hiring of staff, but
having little direct impact on student learning. The new program would
target funds to a smaller number of high-need high schools that show
promise for raising student achievement and to community colleges that
are able to provide students with high-quality education and training
leading to successful employment outcomes.
In particular, at the high school level, the program would provide
funds to local educational agencies to develop or implement technical
education programs that include the high-level academics that all
students need in order to succeed in postsecondary education and the
job market. In addition to promoting high-quality community and
technical college programs for adult, career-changing students, the
program would encourage technical and community colleges to act as more
active partners in secondary technical education, both to improve the
quality and labor market responsiveness of the curriculum and to make
it easier for high school graduates to transition to postsecondary
education. Thus, Federal funds would be more tightly focused on
promoting the development and implementation of programs that are most
responsive to the academic and technical skill demands of the 21st
century workforce.
student aid administration
Question. The President's 2004 budget request proposes the
development of a new, discretionary Student Aid Administration (SAA)
account that would consolidate all student aid management costs
previously funded through the discretionary Program Administration and
Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) accounts and the
mandatory Federal Direct Student Loan Programs (HEA Section 458)
account. Secretary Paige, could you please explain why the President
and the Department are seeking to move the mandatory funds obligated
under Section 458 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, from
a mandatory to discretionary account when the Higher Education Act is
up for reauthorization this year?
Answer. The current student aid administration budget structure--
split among multiple mandatory, discretionary, and subsidy accounts--
makes it difficult to hold Federal Student Aid, the performance-based
organization within the Department, accountable for reducing program
operations costs. The fiscal year 2003 appropriations act took a first
step toward rationalizing this structure by unifying discretionary
funding for student aid operations in the Student Aid Administration
account. We believe that it is appropriate to complete the process in
the 2004 appropriation, consistent with the President's management and
financial improvement agendas.
Question. Why should this provision be enacted through the
appropriations process, instead of taking the regular course through
the authorizing committee?
Answer. As noted above, the fiscal year 2003 appropriations act
took a first step toward rationalizing the funding structure for
student aid operations by unifying discretionary funding in the Student
Aid Administration account. Completing the process in the 2004
appropriation is a key component of the President's budget, management,
and financial improvement agendas.
Question. One of the purposes identified by the Congress for
establishing the Performance Based Organization (PBO) was to improve
service to students and other participants in the student financial
assistance programs authorized under title IV of the Higher Education
Act. Given that administrative expenses for the PBO are closely
associated with the number of loans issued in a given year--a level
which could be difficult to predict--how will the proposal to make
administrative expenses subject to annual appropriations better achieve
that purpose behind the creation of the PBO?
Answer. Mandatory administrative funding levels are typically set
for 5-year periods, and for the past few years have been straightlined
except for growth in guaranty agency administrative payments. We
believe that setting funding levels as part of the annual
appropriations process will actually allow greater flexibility to
ensure that sufficient funds are available to provide the best possible
service to student aid program participants.
The Administration is developing a true activity-based budget
formulation process for student aid administration to better
incorporate Department workload projections in its annual budget
request. (The number of loans in a given year is but one of a large
number of variables, including the number of student aid applications,
awards, loans in default, Direct Loans in repayment, etc., that
determine student aid administrative costs.) This process will also
allocate student aid management expenses to specific business
processes, allowing the Department to more accurately determine the
cost of individual activities or programs, and facilitating efforts to
budget administrative funds to each business process, set cost
reduction targets, and easily compare actual performance to budget
targets.
student aid appropriations and administrative costs
Question. What happens if funds appropriated fell short of the
amount required to meet the operations of the PBO?
Answer. We are confident that Department managers will be able to
operate their operations effectively within the requested funding
level. The Department has long experience managing program operations
with discretionary funds--as you know, it is already the case with the
Department's program administration funds and, indeed, virtually all
other administrative appropriations in the entire government.
Question. How would services to students and other participants be
affected?
Answer. We do not expect that this proposal would affect service to
students, schools, and other student aid program participants. This is
a management improvement designed to improve program efficiency while
being transparent to program beneficiaries.
student financial assistance: pell applicant growth and projected pell
funding shortfalls
Question. Given the unexpected 9 percent and 10 percent growth in
the Pell Grant program over the past two years, do you expect that your
estimates of 25 percent applicant growth in the coming academic year
and 1.5 percent for the following year create a shortfall greater than
the one estimated under the President's budget request?
Answer. The Administration believes that the applicant growth
estimates underlying the President's Budget request for Pell Grants are
prudent assumptions based on an analysis of historical trends. During
the previous period of Pell Grant funding shortfalls--from academic
years 1990-91 to 1993-94--the applicant growth rate increased
cumulatively by 22.5 percent, or at an annual average of 5.6 percent.
Immediately following this period of (then) unprecedented applicant
growth, the number of Pell applicants grew by only 1.4 percent in
academic year 1994-95. Furthermore, applicants grew only 13 percent
during the 7-year span between academic years 1994-95 and 2000-01. The
average growth rate per award year for this 7-year period was 1.6
percent.
During the current funding shortfall, Pell applicants increased
cumulatively by 18.6 percent during award years 2001-02 and 2002-03.
Based on historical data, the Department's applicant projection for AY
2004-05 assumes a similar pattern of decline immediately following
cumulative surges, as recorded during the last funding shortfall. In
addition, given the recent cumulative growth among older, independent
students and projected population figures for students in the
traditional college age cohort, it is possible that the pool of Pell
applicants not already receiving awards will begin to shrink.
pell grant funding history
Question. Over the life of the Pell Grant program, how often have
there been annual funding shortfalls, as reported in Pell Grant End-of-
Year (EOY) Reports?
Answer. A comparison between total expenditures and appropriation
level for a given award year in the Pell Grant EOY Report does not
accurately portray the cumulative funding shortfall or surplus since
prior-year unobligated funds may be used in current years and funds
from future appropriations are often used to cover current year
shortfalls. Moreover, appropriation levels are often determined based
on the estimates of prior-year shortfalls and surpluses, in addition to
the estimated current year program cost.
A table from the Award Year (AY) 2000-01 Pell Grant EOY Report is
provided, however, to illustrate the total expenditures, appropriation
level, current year shortfall/surplus, and the reduction method
employed to help alleviate Pell Grant shortfalls.
An additional table is provided to show a more accurate portrayal
of the Pell Grant shortfalls and surpluses dating back to 1989. These
data are taken from final budget documents and financial systems,
illustrating cumulative shortfall and surplus amounts over time.
HISTORY OF PELL GRANT FUNDING: AY 2000-01 EOY REPORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current year
Fiscal year Award year Total Appropriation surplus/ Action
expenditures \1\ (shortfall)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1973...................................... 1973-74 $48,469,000 $122,100,000 $73,631,000 Stepped Reduction
1974...................................... 1974-75 361,188,000 475,000,000 113,812,000 Stepped Reduction
1975...................................... 1975-76 932,083,000 840,200,000 (91,883,000) Full Funding
1976...................................... 1976-77 1,485,164,000 1,325,800,000 (159,364,000) Full Funding
1977...................................... 1977-78 1,534,395,000 1,903,900,000 369,505,000 Full Funding
1978...................................... 1978-79 1,550,360,000 2,160,000,000 609,640,000 Stepped Reduction
1979...................................... 1979-80 2,369,911,375 2,431,000,000 61,088,625 Full Funding
1980...................................... 1980-81 2,400,656,660 2,157,000,000 (243,656,660) Flat $50 Reduction
1981...................................... 1981-82 2,313,263,380 2,604,000,000 290,736,620 Flat $80 Reduction
1982...................................... 1982-83 2,433,130,730 2,419,040,000 (14,090,730) Stepped
1983...................................... 1983-84 2,810,851,530 2,419,040,000 (391,811,530) Full Funding
1984...................................... 1984-85 3,066,734,552 2,800,000,000 (266,734,552) Full Funding
1985...................................... 1985-86 3,611,447,366 3,862,000,000 250,552,634 Full Funding
1986...................................... 1986-87 3,473,304,086 3,579,716,000 106,411,914 Linear Reduction
1987...................................... 1987-88 3,768,737,216 4,187,000,000 418,262,784 Full Funding
1988...................................... 1988-89 4,491,684,679 4,260,430,000 (231,254,679) Full Funding
1989...................................... 1989-90 4,794,454,987 4,483,915,000 (310,539,987) Full Funding
1990...................................... 1990-91 4,952,215,055 4,804,478,000 (147,737,055) Linear Reduction
1991...................................... 1991-92 5,811,633,979 5,375,500,000 (436,133,979) Full Funding
1992...................................... 1992-93 6,195,912,589 5,502,800,000 (693,112,589) Full Funding
1993...................................... 1993-94 5,673,231,640 6,461,900,000 788,668,360 Full Funding
1994...................................... 1994-95 5,537,849,327 6,636,700,000 1,098,850,673 Full Funding
1995...................................... 1995-96 5,489,766,815 6,146,800,000 657,033,185 Full Funding
1996...................................... 1996-97 5,798,361,158 4,914,000,000 (884,361,158) Full Funding
1997...................................... 1997-98 6,349,755,300 5,919,000,000 (430,755,300) Full Funding
1998...................................... 1998-99 7,252,057,389 7,344,900,000 92,842,611 Full Funding
1999...................................... 1999-00 7,039,119,041 7,704,000,000 664,880,959 Full Funding
2000...................................... 2000-01 7,975,801,349 7,640,000,000 (335,801,349) Full Funding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total Expenditures also include Administrative Cost Allowance (ACA) payments.
Note: Since prior-year unobligated funds may be used in current award years and funds from future appropriations may be used, fiscal year appropriation
levels are often based on estimates of prior-year funding shortfalls and surpluses--in addition to the estimated current year program cost. Therefore,
the comparison between total expenditures and appropriation level may not provide an accurate representation of funding shortfalls and surpluses
Moreover, obligation levels continue to fluctuate after the EOY Report has been printed.
HISTORY OF PELL GRANT FUNDING SURPLUSES/SHORTFALLSBASED ON BUDGET/FINANCIAL SYSTEMS: FISCAL YEAR 1989-2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual surplus/ Cumulative
Fiscal year Award year (Shortfall) Surplus/ Shortfall Action(s) taken for cumulative shortfall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989........................................ 1989-90 ($75,366,675) ..................
1990........................................ 1990-91 ($230,367,465) ($305,734,140) Fiscal year 1991 funds used.
1991........................................ 1991-92 ($396,568,870) ($702,303,010) Fiscal year 1992 funds used.
1992........................................ 1992-93 $18,219,444 ($684,083,566) Fiscal year 1993 Appropriation ($240M); fiscal
year 1993 Supplemental Appropriation ($341M);
Transfers ($9M); fiscal year 1994 funds used.
1993........................................ 1993-94 $459,709,140 ($224,374,426) Fiscal year 1994 Supplemental Appropriation
($250M); Transfers ($3.1M).
1994........................................ 1994-95 $807,731,000 $583,356,574
1995........................................ 1995-96 $715,845,000 $1,299,201,574
1996........................................ 1996-97 ($864,440,000) $434,761,574
1997........................................ 1997-98 ($396,000,000) $38,761,574
1998........................................ 1998-99 $123,934,000 $162,695,574
1999........................................ 1999-00 $474,000,000 $636,695,574
2000........................................ 2000-01 ($317,283,000) $319,412,574
2001........................................ 2001-02 ($1,242,000,000) ($922,587,426) Fiscal year 2002 funds used.
2002........................................ 2002-03 ($310,000,000) ($1,232,587,426) Fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriation
($1B); fiscal year 2003 funds will be used.
2003........................................ 2003-04 ($305,353,000) ($1,537,940,426) Fiscal year 2004 funds will be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Funding surplus/shortfall amounts reflect supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and transfers
Data for award years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are estimates based on assumptions used in the President's fiscal year 2004 Budget and final fiscal year 2003
action.
Question. Please outline how each of those shortfalls has been
addressed?
Answer. As shown in the first table above, the Pell Grant maximum
award has been reduced in eight award years, by various methods, due to
insufficient funding. The additional table lists supplemental
appropriations, transfers, and other steps taken during the years of
cumulative shortfalls.
pell grant maximum award and cost of higher education
Question. Does your proposal to establish a maximum Pell Grant at
$4,000 for fiscal year 2004 mean that students served by the program
will lose ground relative to the price of postsecondary education?
Answer. Since 2000, the increase in the Pell Grant maximum award
has matched the increased average cost of attendance at 4-year public
institutions. We will work with our partners in States and institutions
to ensure students--especially the most needy students--retain access
to quality postsecondary education.
fiscal year 2004 education budget request and student access to
postsecondary education
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request reduces funding for
Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, Federal Work-study, the
Perkins loan program, GEAR UP and TRIO programs. In addition, the
budget proposes reducing the maximum Pell Grant award to $4,000. The
Nation's neediest students are the ones supported by these programs.
How does the Administration justify reducing and in some cases
eliminating funding for these programs at a time when State budget
reductions are forcing higher tuitions and fees and there is a rapidly
growing population of needy students that want and should go to
college?
Answer. Because the fiscal year 2004 budget request was prepared
before the fiscal year 2003 appropriation was finalized, it was based
on the Administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request. As a result,
in a number of cases where the actual appropriation exceeded the 2003
request, the Administration's intent to provide level funding in fiscal
year 2004 now appears to be a decrease in support. (This is true for
the Pell Grant maximum and the Supplemental Education Opportunity Grant
(SEOG), TRIO and GEAR UP programs. Our request for Federal Work-Study
would be an increase over the final fiscal year 2003 level.) The
Administration is prepared to work with Congress to adjust priorities
in the fiscal year 2004 budget, but is committed to maintaining an
overall discretionary spending limit that is consistent with the
Administration's request.
That said, our priority for 2004, as it has been for the past few
years, is the Pell Grant program, the largest and most need-based of
Federal student grant programs. Accordingly, the President proposed a
record $1.35 billion, or 12 percent increase, for Pell Grants, for an
all-time high total of $12.7 billion. We believe that concentrating our
resources in this way--the Pell increase alone is actually
significantly larger than the entire SEOG or Work-Study program, or
TRIO and GEAR UP combined--is the most efficient way to help the most
needy students.
Question. What other sources of assistance are available under the
budget request to continue to provide access to quality postsecondary
education for all Americans?
Answer. Under the Administration's fiscal year 2004 budget request,
the Federal Family Education Loan and William D. Ford Direct Student
Loan programs will provide nearly $47.6 billion in loans to help
students and parents pay for postsecondary education. In addition, the
request maintains support for several other higher education programs
that help to provide access to postsecondary educational programs. The
Byrd Honors Scholarships program would receive $41 million under the
2004 request to provide more than 27,000 merit-based scholarships for
undergraduate students. The Javits Fellowships and Graduate Assistance
in Areas of National Need programs also would receive a combined $41
million to provide merit- and need-based awards for students pursuing
advanced degrees. Additionally, the Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education would receive $39.1 million to support a wide
range of innovative projects, including many focused on increasing the
access and retention of underrepresented students.
administration's proposed income tax provision and reduction of
erroneous student aid payments
Question. The Administration has proposed to allow the IRS to match
income tax return data against student aid applications, in order to
reduce the number of erroneous student aid payments. According to the
U.S. Department of Education, this proposal would save the Federal
Government $292 million in erroneous payments during the 2003-2004
academic year and $346 million in the 2004-2005 academic year. What
steps have you taken to gain the support of the authorizing committees
of jurisdiction?
Answer. We have been working closely with both tax writing
committees as well as the Joint Committee on Taxation (``JCT'') to
enact this proposal. While there is support for the goal of eliminating
erroneous payments in the student aid programs, the JCT has raised
questions about the privacy implications of allowing Department
contractors access to applicant tax data in order to implement the data
match. We are working closely with the JCT to demonstrate that the
Administration's proposal will actually strengthen protection of
applicant tax data versus the current verification process.
other steps taken to reduce and eliminate erroneous federal education
payments
Question. What other steps is the Department taking to reduce and
eliminate erroneous Federal education payments?
Answer. The Department is taking a number of steps to address the
problem of erroneous payments, including working closely with the
Office of Management and Budget in implementing Public Law 107-300, the
Improper Payment Information Act of 2002. The Act mandates tracking
erroneous payments down to the sub-recipient level for grants and all
procurements, in addition to loans, loan guarantees, etc. The threshold
will be 2.5 percent or $10 million in improper payments, whichever is
greater, proven by a statistical sample with a 90 percent confidence
level.
leveraging educational assistance partnerships
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget eliminates the Leveraging
Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program. Since nearly all
States are facing deficits, tuition rates are being forced up, and
research by the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance and
others has documented the need for more State/Federal partnership
program funding to close the growing college access gap between low-
and high-income students, can you tell me why you think eliminating
this program is a good idea?
Answer. Since LEAP was first authorized as the SSIG program in
1972--when only 28 States had undergraduate need-based grant programs--
the State commitment to providing need-based student aid has grown
exponentially. Today nearly all States have need-based student grant
programs, with grant levels that have expanded greatly over the years,
and most States significantly exceed the statutory matching
requirements. For academic year 2001-2002, for example, estimated State
matching funds totaled nearly $1 billion, more than $950 million over
the level generated by a dollar-for-dollar match, and far more than
would be required even under the 2-for-1 match under Special LEAP. This
suggests a considerable level of State commitment, regardless of
Federal expenditures.
javits fellowships and graduate assistance in areas of national need
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Graduate Assistance in Areas of
National Need (GAANN) and Jacob Javits programs attract exceptionally
promising students into graduate study to pursue degrees in areas of
national need--such as chemistry, information sciences, and
engineering--as well as in the arts, humanities, and social sciences.
The fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes roughly level funding for
these programs at a time when supporting advanced study in these areas
is of great importance to the Nation. The National Science Foundation
(NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have proposed
increasing their graduate education budgets for fellowships and
traineeships. Why have you not done the same, given the important niche
these programs serve in the Federal Government's graduate education
portfolio?
Answer. The general approach this year was to request increases for
selected high-priority programs. Our priority for 2004, as it has been
for the past few years, is the Pell Grant program, the largest and most
need-based of Federal student grant programs. We believe that
concentrating our resources in this way is the best way to help the
most needy students. The Administration supports the Javits Fellowships
and GAANN programs and recognizes that they play an important role in
preparing students for scholarly careers and careers in areas of
national need. The funding requested for these programs would support a
total of 1,116 fellowships, including approximately 400 new
fellowships. However, in light of the current budget conditions, the
Administration considered it necessary to demonstrate fiscal discipline
and limit program increases to only the highest-priority programs.
recreational programs for individuals with disabilities
Question. With a success/sustainability rate of nearly 75 percent,
recreational programs have proven to be an effective approach to
leveraging local and private funding to support the integration of
individuals with disabilities into the community. Budget documents
indicate that this program has limited national impact and that funding
is more appropriately derived from States, local agencies and the
private sector. Doesn't the Federal Government have a specific role in
stimulating and leveraging local and private funding for recreational
programs that support the community integration needs of individuals
with disabilities?
Answer. We do believe that the Federal Government has a role in
helping individuals with disabilities become full and active members of
society. We have targeted resources on those activities in which the
Federal role is critical. For example, the Department is supporting
over 20 National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR) projects that include some attention to issues relating to the
participation of individuals with disabilities in recreational,
physical exercise, or leisure activities. For example, NIDRR just began
support for a 5-year $5.4 million Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Center on Recreational Technologies and Exercise Physiology Benefiting
Persons with Disabilities. This center will study recreational
opportunities for individuals with disabilities, interventions to
increase physical activity and recreation participation of individuals
with disabilities, and strategies to reduce physical activity relapse
and dropout rates. The center will be conducting randomized clinical
trials to evaluate improvements in health and function.
Another example is the Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Model System
located at the University of Washington's Department of Rehabilitation
Medicine. The project conducts research on the effect of exercise on
depression after TBI. This low-cost community intervention seeks to
combat depression and emotional distress in persons with stable TBI, by
employing exercise as a positive approach to improved emotional and
physical functioning and socialization. This 5-year project began in
fiscal year 2002 and is budgeted to receive a total of $1.825 million.
continued availability of recreational programs for people with
disabilities
Question. What evidence does the Department have that recreational
programs for individuals with disabilities would continue to be
available to those in need of them without the seed money provided by
this program?
Answer. The best evidence the Department has is the track record of
the programs we have funded. Grantees are required to provide an
increased level of support from non-Federal sources over their 3-year
project period. Of the 33 grantees whose projects received their last
year of Federal support during fiscal years 1998 through 2000, 24
projects are still in operation and providing recreational services to
individuals with disabilities. Even more importantly, most recreation
programs have been initiated and sustained without Federal funds.
assistive technology act state grant program
Question. State Grant funding provided under title I of the
Assistive Technology Act has been critical to building an
infrastructure specifically designed to ensure that people with
disabilities--regardless of age or disabling condition--have access to
the technology devices and services they need to be independent and
productive members of society. Without this national infrastructure,
there will be unbridgeable gaps in access to Assistive technology
devices throughout the country. Why does the Department's budget
request propose to eliminate Federal financial support for these
activities?
Answer. The Assistive Technology (AT) State grant program was
designed to be time-limited. The authority for this program originally
authorized 10 years of funding for States. However, in fiscal year 1998
Congress enacted the new Assistive Technology Act in order to provide
States with an additional 3 years of funding, among other things. The
Administration believes that the AT State grant program has fulfilled
its original mission by providing 10 or more years of Federal funding
to States to assist them with achieving the goals of AT Act. In fiscal
year 2003, all States will have received 10 years of funding and 31
States will have received at least 13 years of funding.
helping people with disabilities achieve independence
Question. Numerous technological and policy changes such as the
Olmstead decision, Section 508 final guidelines, and the
Telecommunications Act Section 255 were not anticipated when the sunset
provisions related to Federal support of Tech Act Projects were
originally conceived. Does the Department believe that Assistive
Technology State grant projects have a role to play in building an
infrastructure that ensures that people with disabilities can be
independent and productive members of society?
Answer. The AT State grants program has helped States to increase
access to AT services and devices through changes in State laws,
regulations, policies, practices, procedures, and organizational
structures. State AT Act programs have had over 10 years of experience
in developing and implementing AT policies, procedures, and programs
that support community integration and full participation of
individuals with disabilities in home, work, education, and community
settings. States now have a much greater capacity to deal with changes
in policy and technology that have occurred since the AT Act was first
enacted. The Administration is committed to helping people with
disabilities achieve independence through such efforts as the New
Freedom Initiative. It has targeted Federal investments on such
activities as research and development, through the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research's Rehabilitation Engineering
Research Centers, the AT alternative financing program, which makes
loans for purchasing assistive technology available to individuals with
disabilities, and dissemination and technical assistance efforts like
the NIDRR's Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers
(DBTACs http://www.adata.org/dbtac.htm), which provide information,
materials, technical assistance, and training on the ADA and accessible
information technology.
Question. If so, what is that role and how will it be carried out
without Federal financial assistance?
Answer. Federal support provided under the AT State grants program
has played a role in building an infrastructure specifically designed
to ensure that people with disabilities, through assistive
technologies, have full access to home, work, education, and community
activities. States are well positioned to continue to identify consumer
needs and address changing trends.
programs eliminated in fiscal year 2004 budget
Question. The fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes to eliminate
48 categorical grant programs funded at $1.6 billion last year, ranging
from the Smaller Learning Communities program and Arts in Education to
Rural Education. Many of these programs are programs that were just
reauthorized last year as part of the No Child Left Behind Act and have
strong congressional backing. Can you explain why you propose to
eliminate these programs?
Answer. Major program increases in the 2004 President's budget are
offset in part by these proposed program terminations, nearly all of
which are narrow categorical activities that have achieved their
purpose, have a limited impact, or may be funded through other more
flexible State grant programs. Without these reductions, it would be
impossible to provide significant increases to major Administration and
Congressional priorities such as Title I, Special Education Grants to
States, and Pell Grants. In addition, the Administration believes it is
more effective to deliver scarce Federal education resources to States
and school districts through large, flexible formula grant programs
rather than small, categorical grant programs mandating particular
approaches to educational improvement.
assessing education program effectiveness
Question. Please provide the subcommittee with the names of and
primary findings from the evaluation studies used for identifying
ineffective programs. If it is the Department's view that these
programs are duplicative of other broader authorities, please provide a
list of the eliminated programs, categorized by the broad authorities
under which the activities may be undertaken.
Answer. The primary vehicle for assessing program effectiveness
during the development of the 2004 President's budget was the new OMB
``Program Assessment Rating Tool'' (PART), which was developed to help
integrate budget and program performance. The PART instrument rated
programs based on responses to 26 questions in four areas, including
program purpose and design, strategic planning, program management, and
program results. PART also relied on evaluation results whenever they
were available for the programs under review.
The PART process identified 4 of the Department's programs as
ineffective: Even Start, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
State Grants, TRIO Upward Bound, and Vocational Education State Grants.
For the Even Start program, the evaluation findings provided the basis
for the ineffective rating. The PART assessment found, among other
things, that 3 national evaluations of the program (National Evaluation
of the Even Start Family Literacy Program (1995), Second National
Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Final Report
(1998), and Third National Even Start Evaluation: Program Impacts and
Implications for Improvement (2003)) show that the program has had no
significant impact on the children and parents served.
Below is a list of programs authorized in NCLB that the 2004 budget
proposed for elimination because they are duplicative or the activities
authorized can be carried out under other programs, such as the Title I
Grants to Local Educational Agencies, Improving Teacher Quality State
Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, and Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities State Grants. Also, if States and districts
chose to do so, activities supported by most of these programs can be
carried out under State Grants for Innovative Programs (Title V-A).
Comprehensive school reform; Close Up fellowships; Dropout
prevention programs; School leadership; Advanced credentialing;
National writing project; Preparing tomorrow's teachers to use
technology; Elementary and secondary school counseling; Smaller
learning communities; Javits gifted and talented education; Star
schools; Ready to teach; Community technology centers; Parental
assistance information centers; State grants for community service for
expelled or suspended students; Alcohol abuse reduction; Rural
education.
fiscal year 2004 budget vs. flexibility and accountability
Question. Under the State and Local Transferability Act enacted as
part of the No Child Left Behind Act, States and local school districts
are provided with additional flexibility to target certain Federal
funds to Federal programs that most effectively address the unique
needs of States and localities, and to transfer Federal funds allocated
to certain State grant activities to allocations for certain activities
authorized under Title I. How did the Department consider this
authority in making its fiscal year 2004 budget request?
Answer. The 2004 budget request maintains high levels of funding
for the programs that are included in the transferability authority
(Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology State
Grants, State Grants for Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities State Grants). Supporting State and local
efforts to transfer funds is consistent with the Administration's
belief that the most effective use of Federal funds is to provide them
to States and districts through flexible formula grant programs that
target funds to the classroom and allow local districts to use the
funds in a manner that best meets their needs. Federal formulas cannot
deliver funds to all school districts in amounts that align with their
priorities.
state and local transferability act authority
Question. How will the authority be considered in assessing the
relationship between Federal funding provided and the performance
outcomes achieved with such funds?
Answer. The Department plans to collect information, through
program performance reports and a study of resource allocation, on the
amount of funds transferred among programs under the transferability
authority. Unlike the other flexibility demonstration options,
transferability does not require States or districts to submit
applications or to meet additional performance goals or separate
accountability requirements. Through the statewide accountability
system, districts are accountable for making adequate yearly progress
(AYP). Transferability is a tool best used as part of a larger strategy
for improvement.
As for the relationship between Federal funding and performance
outcomes, in general, we believe that it is often not possible to
isolate the separate impact of many Federal programs on student
outcomes, in due to the fact that Federal programs frequently seek to
leverage broader State and local improvements in education programs.
However, we will also continue to collect and report information on
trends in student outcomes in order to assess the overall impact of
Federal, State, and local reform efforts on student achievement.
Question. How will this authority shape decisions on future budget
requests for affected programs?
Answer. The transferability authority supports the Administration's
emphasis on rationalizing and consolidating the delivery of Federal
education resources in order to give States and school districts
maximum flexibility in using these resources to meet local needs and
improve student achievement while reducing administrative, paperwork,
and regulatory burdens. As with the 2004 budget request, I expect that
we will work to maintain or increase funding for the flexible State
grant programs included in the transferability authority, while
reducing budget support for smaller categorical programs with limited
impact and more complex administrative requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
fiscal year 2004 budget request for education
Question. Mr. Secretary, during the March 27 hearing, you agreed
after much discussion that the President would be willing to support
funding cuts in other Cabinet agencies in order to increase funding for
the Department of Education, as long as overall discretionary
appropriations do not exceed the total in the President's budget. You
stated that you did not have any recommendations at that time about
where to make cuts in the other Cabinet agencies, but that we could
expect some guidance later.
Given that the Senate Appropriations Committee could begin marking
up appropriations bills very shortly, we need that guidance as quickly
as possible. Do you have any suggestions for how much money the
Committee should add for education, and where it should offset those
increases with cuts?
Answer. The President does not intend to change his 2004 Budget
that was prepared and submitted to Congress, prior to Congress
completing action on the 2003 Omnibus bill. The President's 2004 Budget
was developed within a framework that set a proposed total for
discretionary spending in 2004, and each agency and program request
reflected the Administration's relative priority for that operation
within that total. We recognize that Congress may believe there is a
need to reorder and adjust some of these priorities, and the
Administration intends to work with Congress to develop alternative
figures for education programs as you go through the 2004 appropriation
process, always within the requirement, however, that whatever is done
for Education must fit within the overall President's 2004 budget total
for discretionary programs. As Congress considers Education and related
programs, I would urge you to consider our recommendations for reducing
or eliminating individual categorical programs that have fulfilled
their original purpose, proven ineffective, or which are duplicated by
other larger, more flexible grant programs. That is a good way to
stretch the education dollar.
fiscal year 2004 budget and title i formulas
Question. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS),
the Education Finance Incentive Grant funding (EFIG) stream authorized
under Title I of the ESEA provides a modest financial reward, or
incentive, to those States with education finance systems that minimize
disparities in the distribution of State funding. CRS also reports
that, in fiscal year 2002, the EFIG formula targeted a higher
percentage of its funds to the two highest-poverty quintiles of needy
students than any other funding formula (50.4 percent of EFIG funds,
compared to 49.8 percent of targeted grant funds).
education finance incentive grant funding (efig) vs. title i targeted
grant formula
Question. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2003,
included $1.5 billion for EFIG, while the fiscal year 2004 President's
budget reduces this funding to the fiscal year 2002 level of $793
million and instead provides additional funding under the Targeted
Grant formula. Given that the education finance funding stream is more
targeted to the neediest students than any other formula and provides
an incentive to States for reducing disparities in funding streams, why
does the Administration propose reducing this funding stream and
providing all of its proposed fiscal year 2004 Title I increase under
the Targeted Grants program?
Answer. The budget requests the entire increase under the Title I
Targeted Grants formula because the formula delivers a larger share of
Title I funds to high-poverty local educational agencies (LEAs) than
the Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formula. Increasing the
funding for Incentive Grants would simply divert more resources away
from the highest-poverty States and districts with the greatest need
for Title I funds.
For example, the 10 poorest States by poverty rate account for 41.4
percent of the total population of children in poverty aged 5-17. Based
on fiscal year 2003 Preliminary allocations, these 10 States would
receive 45 percent of the Targeted Grants funds and only 40 percent of
the EFIG funds. By contrast, the 10 States with lowest poverty rate,
which account for 6.7 percent of children in poverty aged 5-17, would
receive 6.5 percent of the Targeted Grants funds and 7.9 percent of the
EFIG funds.
The EFIG formula, added to Title I in the 1994 ESEA
reauthorization, includes ``effort'' and ``equity'' factors intended to
benefit high-poverty districts by encouraging States to spend more on
education and to improve the equity of the State funding systems.
However, the formula unfairly shifts money from high-poverty States to
low-poverty States, and has a very limited impact.
The ``effort'' factor reduces the targeting of Title I funds to the
highest-poverty States, primarily because the lower level of resources
available for education in these States (at least on a per-capita
basis) produces a lower level of ``effort'' in the formula. This
reduced targeting is diametrically opposed to the purpose and design of
the Title I program.
States with the largest and highest-poverty urban centers--
including New York, Texas, and California--receive a significantly
reduced share of funding under the Incentive Grants formula when
compared to the Targeted Grants formula. For example, New York would
receive 9.65 percent of Incentive Grants funding compared to 12.65
percent of Targeted Grants funds and California's share of Incentive
Grants funding is 13.72 percent compared to 15.7 percent of Targeted
Grants.
The ``effort'' factor also could adversely affect States
experiencing a local recession, which may have to reduce education
spending in response to declining local tax revenues. A further decline
in Title I support--as would occur under the Incentive Grants formula--
would only exacerbate the problem faced by local districts and schools.
The ``equity'' factor, which produces highly variable patterns of
gains and losses among States, suffers from flaws that seriously
undermine its validity. These include the absence of any adjustment for
cost-of-living variations among LEAs and reliance on a single measure
of equalization.
Finally, the Education Finance Incentive Grant program does not
provide a significant incentive for States to increase education
funding or improve the equity of their funding systems. Even the $11.7
billion currently spent on Title I LEA Grants contributes only about 3
percent of national spending on elementary and secondary education.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
poverty data for fiscal year 2003 title i allocations
Question. Since fiscal year 1997, Elementary and Secondary
Education Act Title I funds have been allocated on the basis of
estimates of school-aged children from poor families provided by the
Census Bureau's Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program, with
updates every two years. Until the 2000 Census became available,
Mississippi's poor student number was underestimated and using that
method would have decreased the amount of Title I money for our State.
For 2003, the Department has a choice of using these updates, or
school district population estimates from the 2000 Census. Which source
of data do you plan to use for fiscal year 2003?
Answer. In determining Title I school district allocations for
fiscal year 2003 (SY 2003-04), the Department will use the model-based
poverty estimates provided by the Census Bureau. These estimates
reflect sample data from the 2000 Census, which looks at income year
1999, and 1999 estimates provided through the Bureau's Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program.
We believe that the updated poverty estimates produced through the
SAIPE model provide a more valid measure of school district poverty
levels than the Census 2000 data and a more reliable basis for
determining Title I allocations. These estimates factor in other, more
up-to-date poverty measures such as Federal tax return and Food Stamp
data, and address problems in the Census 2000 school district estimates
resulting from sampling error.
Question. Are there significant differences in State shares using
these two population data sources?
Answer. Overall, the total poverty count from the SAIPE model-based
estimates is about 2.5 percent greater than the counts from the 2000
Census. Both sources produce State shares that are very similar for
most States. For example, South Carolina's State share of the total 5-
17 poverty with the 2000 Census is 1.54 percent, compared to 1.48
percent with the SAIPE model-based estimates. This translates to a 3.9
percent difference in South Carolina's State share when comparing the
two. Over half of the States have State share differences less than 4
percent and three-fourths of the States have differences less than 7
percent. Only 6 States (Kansas, Idaho, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts,
and South Dakota) have State share differences over 10 percent.
Massachusetts has the most significant difference in State shares, with
1.45 percent of the total 5-17 poverty count with the 2000 Census and
1.84 percent of the total 5-17 poverty count with the SAIPE estimates
(a 26.6 percent difference in State share).
no child left behind provision for annual updates on children in poor
families
Question. Finally, the No Child Left Behind Act allows for the use
of annually updated data on children in poor families, rather than
every second year--when do you expect to begin implementing this
provision?
Answer. We plan to use annually updated model-based poverty
estimates of children ages 5 through 17 by school district beginning
with the fiscal year 2004 (SY 2004-05) allocations. Fiscal year 2003 is
the final year for which we are using data updated on a biennial basis.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Specter. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee
will stand in recess to reconvene at 9 a.m., Tuesday, April 8,
in room SD-192. At that time we will hear testimony from the
Honorable Elias Zerhouni, Director, National Institutes of
Health.
[Whereupon, at 9:51 a.m., Thursday, March 27, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Tuesday,
April 8.]