    [Senate Hearing 114-757]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-757

         NOMINATION OF DR. JOHN KING TO SERVE AS SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
                              LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

    EXAMINING THE NOMINATION OF JOHN B. KING, OF NEW YORK, TO BE SECRETARY
                                  OF EDUCATION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 25, 2016

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     29-727 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2018
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

              COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                      LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman

    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina         BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia              BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
    SUSAN COLLINS, Maine                 AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
    MARK KIRK, Illinois                  SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    TIM SCOTT, South Carolina            TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    PAT ROBERTS, Kansas                  ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana

                   David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director

             Lindsey Ward Seidman, Republican Deputy Staff Director

                      Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director

                  John Righter, Minority Deputy Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________

                                   STATEMENTS

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016

                                                                       Page

                               Committee Members

    Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
      Labor, and Pensions, opening statement.........................     1
    Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington..     4
    Enzi, Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming.......    16
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................    18
    Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia...    19
    Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Massachusetts..................................................    21
    Scott, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina.    23
    Murphy, Hon. Christopher, S., a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Connecticut....................................................    25
    Collins, Hon. Susan, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine......    27
    Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Pennsylvania...................................................    28
    Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas.......    30
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska....    32

                              Guest Representative

    Scott, Hon. Bobby, a U.S. Representative from the State of
      Virginia.......................................................     6

                                    Witness

    King, John B., Jr., Ph.D., Acting Secretary, Department of
      Education, Tacoma Park, MD.....................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.:
        Letter submitted by Senator Alexander........................    42
        Title IX letters submitted by Senator Murray.................    42
        Letters of support...........................................    56
        Response by John B. King, Jr., Ph.D.to questions of:
            Senator Alexander........................................    69
            Senator Enzi.............................................    75
            Senator Murkowski........................................    76
            Senator Scott............................................    79
            Senator Hatch............................................    81
            Senator Cassidy..........................................    82
            Senator Murray...........................................    84
            Senator Sanders..........................................    88
            Senator Franken..........................................    90
            Senator Bennet...........................................    91
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    94
            Senator Warren...........................................    95

                                     (iii)

         NOMINATION OF DR. JOHN KING TO SERVE AS SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
           Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
    room 430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander,
    chairman of the committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Alexander, Murray, Enzi, Isakson,
    Collins, Murkowski, Scott, Roberts, Cassidy, Casey, Franken,
    Bennet, Whitehouse, Murphy, and Warren.

                     Opening Statement of Senator Alexander

        The Chairman. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
    and Pensions will please come to order.
        Our hearing today is on the nomination by the President of
    Dr. John King to serve as the U.S. Secretary of Education.
    Senator Murray and I will have an opening statement, and then
    we'll introduce the nominee. After Dr. King's testimony,
    Senators will each have 5 minutes of questions.
        We especially welcome Bobby Scott from the House of
    Representatives, whose leadership played such a key role in the
    passage of the Every Child Succeeds Act. It would not have
    happened without him. He was forceful and diplomatic and
    oriented toward results, so we admire that and appreciate his
    work on that, and I'll introduce him later to introduce Dr.
    King.
        And we welcome Dr. King's family, who I know are here, and
    I'll let him introduce them at a later time.
        I'm very glad we're having this hearing today. When Senator
    Murray and I and Representative Scott and others were at the
    White House on December 10th for the signing of No Child Left
    Behind by President Obama, I urged the President to send to the
    Senate a nominee to succeed Education Secretary Arne Duncan. I
    did that because this is such an important year for schools.
        We need an education secretary who is confirmed and
    accountable to Congress while we're implementing a law that may
    govern elementary and secondary education for years to come. I
    want to be sure that we're working together to implement it as
    Congress wrote it. So, congratulations on your nomination, Dr.
    King.
        And if you'll permit a personal note, this very month 25
    years ago, I was sitting in the very same position that you're
    sitting today, having been nominated as U.S. Education
    Secretary by President George H.W. Bush. I remember thinking
    that the Senators had deliberately sat me way down there and
    them way up here so I'd be intimidated by that. The hearing
    lasted 4 hours. We won't do that to you today, I don't think.
    My appointment was announced in December, but I wasn't
    confirmed until March 14th.
        What happened to me at the hearing--and my family was
    there, like yours; I can remember it vividly--Senator
    Metzenbaum from Ohio said, ``Well, Governor Alexander, I've
    heard some disturbing things about you.'' And I said, ``Oh?''
    And he said, ``But I'm not going to bring them up here today.''
        [Laughter.]
        And Senator Kassebaum leaned over and says, ``Well, Howard,
    I think you just did.''
        [Laughter.]
        And he probably put a hold on me, and I hung for about 3, 2
    months waiting for that to be lifted. I don't suspect you're
    going to have any of that sort of problem today.
        Senator Dan Coats, currently a Senator, was on this
    committee then, and he said at that hearing 25 years ago many
    of the States are way ahead of the Federal Government in terms
    of opening themselves up to more innovative solutions in
    education. That was true then; it's true today.
        When the President signed into law the Every Student
    Succeeds Act in December, he was signing a law that passed the
    U.S. Senate 85 to 12. Nineteen of the 22 members of this
    committee voted for it. I believe it's fair to say that every
    single member of this committee made some contribution to the
    result. We achieved the result because, as Newsweek said, this
    was a law that everyone wanted fixed, and fixing it was long
    overdue.
        Not only was there a consensus about the need to fix the
    law, there was a consensus about how to fix it, and the
    consensus which we repeated over and over again was this:
    Continue the important measures of the academic progress of
    students, disaggregate the results of tests and report them so
    everyone can know how the school teacher and children are
    doing, and then restore to States, school districts, and
    classroom teachers and parents the responsibility for deciding
    what to do about the tests and about improving student
    achievement.
        This new law is a dramatic change in direction for Federal
    education policy. In short, it reverses the trend toward what,
    in effect, had become a national school board and restores to
    those closest to children the responsibility for their well-
    being and academic success. The Wall Street Journal called the
    new Every Student Succeeds Act, ``the largest devolution of
    Federal control of schools from Washington back to the States
    in a quarter of a century.''
        More importantly, I believe the new law can inaugurate a
    new era of innovation in student achievement by putting the
    responsibility for children back in the hands of those closest
    to them, the parents, the classroom teachers, principals,
    school boards, and States.
        The law is so important that the Nation's Governors gave it
    their first full endorsement of any piece of Federal
    legislation in 20 years. The last time they did that was the
    welfare reform bill in 1996. The law has the support of
    organizations that do not always see eye to eye. In fact,
    almost every education organization that supported the bill is
    already beginning to work together to help to implement it.
        We held a hearing with several of them on Tuesday. Those
    groups have formed a coalition made up of the following: the
    National Governors Association; the School Superintendents
    Association; the National Education Association; the American
    Federation of Teachers; the National Conference of State
    Legislators; the National Association of State Boards of
    Education; the National School Board Association; the
    Association of Elementary School Principals and of Secondary
    School Principals; the National Teachers Association; and it
    also has the support of the Chief State School Officers.
        Any of us who have been around education knows that these
    groups do not always see eye to eye all the time, but they do
    on this bill. You already know this because they've sent you a
    letter in which they said,

              ``Although our organizations do not always agree, we
            are unified in our belief that ESSA,'' or, as Senator
            Franken says, ESSA, ``is an historic opportunity''--
            that's your suggestion, right? For what we call it?
            Right.

    [Laughter.]

              ``ESSA is an historic opportunity to make a world-
            class, 21st century education system, and we are
            dedicated to working together at the national level to
            facilitate partnership among our members and States and
            districts to guarantee the success of this new law.''
            Continuing their letter, ``The new law replaces a top-
            down accountability and testing regime with an
            inclusive system based on collaborative State and local
            innovation. For this vision to become a reality, we
            must work together to closely honor congressional
            intent. ESSA is clear: education decisionmaking now
            rests with States and districts and the Federal role is
            to support and inform those decisions.''

        I will include the letter in our record.
        [The information referred to can be found in additional
    material.]
        The Chairman. The letter accurately reflects the consensus
    forged by these disparate organizations and by the Democrats
    and Republicans in Congress. The consensus ended the practice
    of granting conditional waivers through which the U.S.
    Department of Education has become, in effect, a national
    school board for more than 80,000 schools and 42 States.
    Governors have been forced to go to Washington and play
    ``Mother May I'' in order to put in a plan to evaluate
    teachers, or help a low-performing school, for example. That
    era is over.
        This law ends what had become, in effect, a Federal Common
    Core mandate. It explicitly prohibits Washington from mandating
    or even incentivizing Common Core or any other specific
    academic standards. It ends the ``highly qualified teacher''
    definition and requirements, teacher evaluation mandates,
    Federal school turn-around models, Federal test accountability
    and adequate yearly progress, because it moves decisions about
    whether schools and teachers and students are succeeding or
    failing out of Washington, DC and back to States and
    communities and classroom teachers, where those decisions
    belong.
        This hearing provides Congress with the opportunity to ask
    questions, learn more about your background, and get your
    commitment to work with us if you are confirmed. My colleagues
    and I will have questions about such important issues as should
    parents have the right to opt their children out of federally
    mandated tests, and how will you balance the new law's
    requirement on that important issue with deference to State and
    local decisionmaking; how will you manage the Department's $1
    trillion portfolio of student loans; how do you plan to deal
    with the issues raised by Congressman Chaffetz in the House
    about the security of information technology systems at your
    department; what are your plans for addressing the Office of
    Civil Rights' practice of treating guidance issued without
    notice and comment as binding on our Nation's college campuses
    on the serious issue of campus sexual assault.
        You have a distinguished career. You've been a public
    school student, a teacher, you founded a charter school, served
    as Education Commissioner in New York, a State of nearly 20
    million, with responsibility of more than 7,000 public schools,
    as well as 270 colleges and universities. You were delegated
    the duties of Deputy Secretary of Education by Secretary
    Duncan, and you are also the father of two children. You've
    seen our education system from nearly every angle.
        As you and I have discussed, I believe that if you are
    confirmed we will be able to work together not only to
    implement the new law governing elementary and secondary
    education, but that we can take some bipartisan steps, which we
    have already begun in the committee, to make it easier and less
    expensive for students to go to college, and that we can begin
    to cut through the jungle of red tape that is strangling our
    6,000 institutions of higher education. Many of these steps are
    well underway. They have broad support, and we should finish
    the job.
        Welcome to you and to your family. I look forward to
    hearing from you today.
        Our new Every Student Succeeds Act is an important change
    in direction. It is excellent policy. It should provide a much-
    needed period of stability for Federal policy in schools for
    several years. But we all know that a law is not worth the
    paper it's printed on unless it's implemented the way Congress
    wrote it. That's why I'm glad the President has appointed an
    Education Secretary who can be confirmed and be accountable to
    the U.S. Senate. If you are confirmed, I look forward to
    working with you to help you and our new law succeed for the
    benefit of 50 million children, 3.5 million teachers, and
    100,000 public schools.
        Senator Murray.

                      Opening Statement of Senator Murray

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chairman Alexander.
    Thank you to all of our colleagues for joining us today.
        Dr. King, thank you for being here. I, too, want to
    acknowledge your wife and two daughters for joining us today.
        As we all know, in public service, we cannot do our job
    without the incredible support of our families, and having two
    daughters in public schools I'm sure provides some tremendous
    motivation for you and inspiration for all you do.
        I also want to acknowledge my good friend, Representative
    Bobby Scott, who is the Ranking Member of the House Education
    and Workforce Committee, who has joined us today to introduce
    Dr. King to our committee. And I want to take this opportunity
    personally to thank you for all your great work and leadership
    on education. You've been a true partner throughout your career
    on efforts to improve outcomes for all of our children,
    regardless of where they live or how they learn or how much
    money they make, as well as championing efforts to ensure that
    college is affordable to all Americans. So, Bobby, welcome here
    to our committee as well.
        This is an important time for students of all ages, from
    our very youngest learners all the way to those who are
    pursuing college and career training. In recent years, the
    costs of college have skyrocketed, leaving families and
    students to struggle with high costs and the crushing burden of
    student debt. And there have been recent cases of institutions
    that deceive and mislead students, and of student loan
    servicers making it harder for borrowers to pay back their
    loans.
        When it comes to early learning, we've seen improvements,
    but we have much more to do to expand access to high-quality
    pre-school so more kids can start school on a strong footing.
        And this is a critical moment for K-12 education as schools
    and districts and States transition from the broken No Child
    Left Behind law to our bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act
    that the President did sign into law late last year. I'll talk
    more about that transition a little later.
        But with all of these challenges and opportunities, it is
    important for the Department of Education to have strong
    leadership, and I am confident that Dr. John King is a strong
    nominee to transition from Acting Secretary to taking on the
    position of Secretary of Education.
        Through his personal background he knows firsthand the
    power that education can have in a student's life. He has
    enriched students' lives as a classroom teacher and as a
    principal. He has worked with schools to close the achievement
    gap, and he served as the Commissioner of Education for New
    York State for 4 years.
        Overall, he has spent his career fighting on behalf of
    students so they get the chance to learn and grow and thrive in
    a classroom and beyond. No one can question his passion for our
    Nation's young people.
        This Administration, as we all know, has just a little less
    than a year left in office, but that is still plenty of time to
    make progress in several key areas.
        In higher education, I, along with my Democratic
    colleagues, will continue to focus on ways to make college more
    affordable and reduce the crushing burden of student debt that
    is weighing on so many families today. I would also like to see
    the Department take new steps to protect students who are
    pursuing their degrees, and that includes issuing clear
    guidelines for students like those who attended Corinthian
    College who went to an institution that did engage in
    widespread deceptive practices. These students have the right
    to seek loan forgiveness and get some much-needed relief
    through what's known as defense to repayment.
        I've also been especially concerned by cases where
    servicers have overcharged men and women in the military on
    their student loans while they served on active duty. In August
    Senator Warren, Senator Blumenthal and I requested that the
    Inspector General examine the Department's review of servicers'
    compliance with the Service Members Civil Relief Act, and I am
    anticipating that IG report very soon. I will continue to press
    the Department to fully address cases of service members who
    were over-charged and take corrective steps to make sure it
    never happens again. All of our borrowers should receive the
    highest level of customer service and protection under the law.
        And, of course, the role of Education Secretary has become
    especially important as the Department begins implementing the
    Every Student Succeeds Act. This new law gives States more
    flexibility, but also includes strong Federal guardrails to
    make sure every student has access to a high-quality education.
    I expect the Department to use its full authority under the
    Every Student Succeeds Act to hold our States and schools
    accountable, to help reduce reliance on redundant and
    unnecessary testing, and to expand access to high-quality pre-
    school.
        I look forward to hearing more from Dr. King about his
    vision for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act to help
    every student gain access to a quality education regardless of
    where they live or how they learn or how much money their
    parents make. A good education can be a powerful driving force
    for success in our country, and it can help more families live
    out the American Dream. That's what makes education such a
    vital piece of our work to help our economy grow from the
    middle out, not the top down. And as Secretary of Education, I
    hope Dr. King will be a valuable partner in that work. I look
    forward to working with all of our colleagues on moving this
    nomination forward.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Murray.
        Before I present Dr. King to the committee, I would like to
    call on Representative Bobby Scott, who Senator Murray and I
    both talked about and who played really an indispensable role
    in this new law as the Ranking Member of the Education and
    Workforce Committee in the House of Representatives, and who
    represents Virginia's 3d congressional District.
        Representative Scott, we welcome you, and we know you have
    a busy schedule. So, after you make your remarks, you are
    certainly welcome to stay or to go, whichever fits your
    schedule, and then I will introduce the nominee.

    STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY SCOTT, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF
                                VIRGINIA

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Murray. I want to join in the comments made about the work that
    was done on the Every Student Succeeds Act. The work that was
    done was cooperative and collaborative and constructive, and I
    think we ended up with an excellent bill. You indicated the
    list of people that support it, and it would not have been
    possible without that cooperative effort, and I want to thank
    you and the Ranking Member for that work.
        That couldn't have been done without a cooperative
    committee. So I want to thank all of the committee members.
        I also thank you for the opportunity to introduce Dr. John
    King, an inspirational and tested leader who is before you
    today as President Obama's nominee to serve as U.S. Secretary
    of Education.
        Our Nation continues to make strides in closing achievement
    gaps, improving graduation rates, increasing minority
    attainment in higher education, but there's much more work that
    needs to be done to fulfill our moral and civil rights
    obligation to ensure that every student has the opportunity to
    fulfill his or her academic and lifelong potential.
        There is no one more qualified than Dr. King to lead the
    Department as it endeavors to fulfill that obligation,
    especially as we implement Every Student Succeeds Act. The
    fight for educational equity is a deeply personal and lifelong
    fight for Dr. King. His life is an extraordinary testament of
    the powerful role that education plays in creating opportunity.
    His life's journey, support by New York public school educators
    he credits as role models, is a symbol of what we collectively
    seek for millions of disadvantaged students across the country.
        His belief in both the centrality of educational
    opportunity to the American Dream and a vital necessity of
    second chances for our young people are founded in his
    impressive and improbable journey, overcoming daunting
    challenges early in life, going on to earn not one but four Ivy
    League degrees, empowering young people as an effective
    teacher, school leader, and charter school founder, serving as
    educational commissioner for the State of New York, and now
    sitting before you today nominated by the President of the
    United States of America to serve as the Nation's top education
    official, charged with protecting and promoting educational
    opportunity for all students.
        Acting Secretary King brings a continued commitment to
    advancing excellence and equity for every student, elevating
    the teaching profession, and improving access to higher
    education, college affordability, and completion rates. And
    while it's impossible for me to highlight his long list of
    experience and accomplishments with the limited time I have,
    I'd like to share with you just a few of his accomplishments.
        Before becoming Acting Secretary, Dr. King served at the
    Department as Principal Senior Advisor. In that role he carried
    out duties of Deputy Secretary, overseeing all pre-school
    through 12th grade education policies, programs, and strategic
    initiatives, as well as the operations of the Department.
        Prior to his arrival at the Department, he served as a
    Commissioner of Education for the State of New York, where he
    served as Chief Executive Officer of the State Education
    Department and as President of the University of the State of
    New York. At the time of his appointment, Dr. King was one of
    the Nation's youngest State education leaders and the first
    African American and Puerto Rican to serve as a New York State
    education commissioner.
        Dr. King also brings to his role extensive experience
    leading urban public schools that are closing the achievement
    gap and preparing students to enter, succeed in, and graduate
    from college. Prior to his appointment as Senior Deputy
    Commissioner in the New York State Department of Education, he
    served as Managing Director with Uncommon Schools, a non-profit
    charter management organization that operates some of the
    highest-performing urban public schools in New York, New
    Jersey, and Massachusetts.
        Dr. King earned a Bachelor of Arts in Government from
    Harvard, a Master of Arts in Teaching and Social Studies from
    Columbia, a Juris Doctorate from Yale, and a Doctorate in
    Educational Administrative Practice from Columbia. For his
    leadership on issues in education equity, Dr. King has been
    honored with the Anna Scheele Award from the New York Urban
    League, the Eugene M. Lang Lifetime Achievement Award from the
    I Have A Dream Foundation, from the New York Immigration
    Coalition the Builders of the New New York Award, and the Robin
    Hood Foundation Heroes Award.
        Many of you became familiar with Dr. King during last
    year's successful reauthorization of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act, and no doubt found him and his staff
    to be accessible, responsive, and collaborative. Knowing the
    character and leadership of Dr. King, I know that accessibility
    and collaboration will persist through the remainder of his
    term as he and his staff in the Department work closely with
    this committee and with the House Committee on Education and
    the Workforce, and I could not be more confident that Dr. King
    will effectively lead the Department as the Nation's 10th U.S.
    Secretary of Education.
        Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to introduce Dr. King.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Representative Scott. Thank you
    for being here.
        Dr. King has been well introduced by Representative Scott.
    We welcome him, his wife and his children.
        He is currently the Acting Secretary of Education. Before
    joining the Department, he served as Commissioner of Education
    in New York, the Managing Director of the Uncommon Charter
    Schools in New York, and Co-Founder of Roxbury Preparatory
    Charter School in Massachusetts.
        Dr. King, we now invite you to give 5 minutes of opening
    remarks, and I know that if you would like to introduce your
    family, we would like to meet them. Your written statement will
    be entered into the record in its entirety, and then following
    that we'll have a 5-minute round of questions because we have a
    number of Senators here who would like to talk with you.
        Dr. King.

       STATEMENT OF JOHN B. KING, Jr., Ph.D., ACTING SECRETARY,
                DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, TACOMA PARK, MD

        Mr. King. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman Alexander,
    Ranking Member Murray, and members of the committee, for
    welcoming me here today. I am humbled and honored to appear
    before you as President Obama's nominee for Education
    Secretary. I'm proud to be here today with my wife Melissa and
    my two wonderful daughters Amina and Mireya.
        I am grateful to the President for his faith in me. I am
    appreciative of the committee's hard work and continued focus
    on behalf of our Nation's learners. And I am mindful of how
    remarkable it is that I'm here at all.
        As some of you may know, I believe education is the
    difference between hope and despair, between life and death
    even, because it was for me. I grew up in Brooklyn, the son of
    two lifelong New York City public school educators. Although I
    never had the chance to know them well, my parents' faith in
    education continues to inspire me.
        When I was 8, my mother died of a heart attack. My father
    passed away just 4 years later after suffering through
    undiagnosed Alzheimer's disease that made our home a scary and
    unpredictable place.
        Amidst that trauma and uncertainty, school was my refuge,
    and teachers were my saviors, and it is because there are so
    many young people out there like me that I feel such urgency
    about the work of education.
        Thanks to the efforts of this committee, the Obama
    administration, and our Nation's educators and parents, there
    are many reasons to feel hopeful. Last year we achieved the
    highest graduation rate we've ever had as a country. Since 2008
    we halved the number of dropout factory high schools. Tens of
    thousands of children now have access to high-quality pre-
    school, and millions more children have access to higher
    education. These are meaningful, positive steps; and yet, so
    much work remains.
        For all our progress, students of color, low-income
    students, English learners and students with disabilities still
    lag behind their peers in nearly every important measure of
    school achievement. And in far too many schools we still offer
    them less, less access to the best teachers and the most
    challenging courses, less access to the resources necessary to
    thrive. So we have urgent work to do.
        But I believe we stand well-positioned for that work, in
    part thanks to the Every Student Succeeds Act. The new law
    preserves the critical Federal role to ensure guardrails to
    protect civil rights, but the locus of decisionmaking is
    rightly shifting back to States and districts and away from the
    one-size-fits-all mandates of No Child Left Behind.
        As a former teacher, principal, and State commissioner, I
    know from personal experience that the best ideas come from
    classrooms, not from conference rooms. The new law creates a
    renewed opportunity to focus on equity and new freedom for
    State and local leaders to establish better, more balanced ways
    of assessing student learning. Together, I hope we can harness
    the bipartisan momentum of its passage to transform career and
    technical education and to advance college access,
    affordability, and completion. It won't be easy; the most
    critical work rarely is. But I sit here today ready for the
    challenge and mindful of its tremendous urgency.
        If you'll indulge me, I'll close with a story about my
    father that captures that sense of urgency.
        My father was a teacher in the New York City public
    schools, and he loved to play basketball on the weekends. And 1
    weekend he broke his wrist playing basketball, and so he had to
    have a cast on his wrist. He came in on Monday after the
    weekend and was headed to his classroom, and the principal told
    him you can't go to class, you can't teach your class with a
    cast on. And my father asked why that was, and the principal
    said there was some sort of regulation or rule that he couldn't
    teach with a cast on. My father said, no, no, it's important, I
    want to teach my class, and the principal said, no, absolutely
    not, you can't teach with a cast on.
        So my father walked over to the counter, and if you've been
    in the New York City public schools, older buildings have these
    very high counters, usually in the main office, and my father
    laid the cast down on the counter and brushed the pieces into
    the trash can and put his hand in his suit pocket and said I'm
    going to go teach my class now. And when I was a kid, whenever
    someone in the family said something was too hard or too
    challenging, my father would say, huh, seems like it's going to
    rain soon, I can feel it in my wrist. It was his way of
    reminding us of that story and of his sense of clarity about
    the role of education.
        My father knew that schools saved lives, and though he
    couldn't have possibly imagined it then, I sit here decades
    later as living proof that he was right. Like my parents, like
    the President and First Lady, like all of you, I believe that
    education is at the heart of the promise of equality of
    opportunity for all Americans. If confirmed, it will be my
    great privilege and honor to continue working with you to
    realize that promise in the months ahead.
        Thank you again for your consideration, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of John B. King, Jr., Ph.D.

        Thank you, Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members
    of the committee for welcoming me here today. I have dedicated my
    career to serving the needs of children and their families, so it is
    with great humility and a deep sense of honor that I appear before you
    as President Obama's nominee to continue that work as education
    secretary.
        I am proud to be here today with my wife, Melissa, and our two
    wonderful daughters, Amina and Mireya.
        I am grateful to the President for his faith and confidence in me.
        I am appreciative of the longstanding work and continued focus by
    every member of this committee on the education of our Nation's
    learners--from early childhood through post-secondary success. I'm
    especially thankful to Chairman Alexander and Senator Murray for your
    personal commitment and leadership on education, and for the recent
    effort of the committee to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act. This committee's work on that bill is a reminder to all
    of us that bipartisan compromise is not just still possible; it's
    capable of delivering meaningful legislation and necessary changes. I
    look forward to continuing to work with all of you in that same
    bipartisan spirit.
        And I am mindful of how remarkable it is that I am here at all. As
    some of you may know, I believe education is the difference between
    hope and despair--between life and death, even--because it was for me.
        I grew up in East Flatbush, Brooklyn; the son of John and Adalinda
    King, two lifelong New York City public school educators. My father
    grew up poor in Bedford Stuyvesant, yet by the end of his career he had
    become one of the highest-ranking African American educators in the
    country. My mother came to New York from Puerto Rico as a little girl
    and was raised by a single mother who was a garment worker, yet she
    found a way to become the first person in her family to graduate from
    college.
        Although I never had the chance to know them well, my parents'
    faith in education continues to inspire me.
        When I was 8, my mother had a heart attack and passed away. My
    father died just 4 years later--after suffering through undiagnosed
    Alzheimer's that made our home a scary and unpredictable place.
        Amidst all the trauma and uncertainty, school was my refuge, and
    teachers were my saviors.
        I am here today because of Mr. Osterweil, my teacher at PS 276 in
    Canarsie who required me to read the New York Times every day, and who
    made me feel safe, nurtured, and challenged.
        And I am here because of Celestine Dessasure--Miss D--who turned
    her social studies classroom at Mark Twain Junior High School in Coney
    Island into an actor's studio, and whose lessons proved that rigor and
    joy are not mutually exclusive.
        My New York City public school teachers literally saved my life. If
    not for them, I could not have survived that turbulent period, and I
    certainly wouldn't be sitting before you today.
        The influence they had on me, coupled with the example my parents
    provided, led me to become a teacher myself.
        But there are still so many young people out there like me,
    children whose paths to school have been marked by burdens no young
    person should have to bear. We owe it to those children to make school
    for them what it was for me.
        That's why I feel such urgency about the work of education. That's
    what led me to help found a school and then a school network. And it's
    what drove me in my tenure as the Deputy Commissioner and then
    Commissioner of Education in New York State.
        Roxbury Prep, the first school I co-founded, and one that is filled
    with young people from backgrounds like mine, became one of the
    highest-performing urban middle schools in the commonwealth of
    Massachusetts. The Uncommon Schools network that my colleagues and I
    created now includes nearly 50 high-performing urban schools, and
    impacts the lives of thousands of low-income students every day. And as
    a result of my tenure in Albany, I am proud to say that New York is now
    a leading State in its work to bring together K-12, post-secondary and
    business partners to expand access to high-quality career and technical
    education; in its commitment to create socioeconomically diverse
    schools; and in its work to improve the preparation and certification
    of its teachers, as the State transitions to more rigorous expectations
    for students.
        I've also learned from each successive challenge about how to
    create lasting change. Since leaving Roxbury Prep and Uncommon, I've
    thought a lot about the importance of both holding students to high
    expectations and fostering a safe, welcoming school climate. Too often,
    we have seen a false dichotomy between the belief that schools alone
    can overcome outside forces and the belief that schools are powerless
    in the face of those forces. In my time in New York, I was reminded
    often of how critical it is that policymakers remain in constant
    communication with parents and teachers--the adults who are most
    responsible for shaping the daily experiences of our children. I have
    been working on that here in Washington.
        All of these experiences have only reaffirmed my belief that
    educational equity and excellence must be national civil rights
    priorities.
        Thanks to the work of this committee, the Obama administration, and
    our Nation's educators and parents, there are many reasons to feel
    hopeful.
        Last year, we achieved the highest graduation rate we've ever had
    as a country--82 percent. This progress was driven in no small part by
    significant reductions in the dropout rate among African American,
    Latino, and low-income students. Since 2008, we have halved the number
    of ``dropout factory'' high schools. A million more African American
    and Latino students are in college today than when the President took
    office. Tens of thousands of children now have access to high-quality
    preschool and millions more students have access to higher education.
        These are meaningful, positive steps.
        And yet, there is still much work to be done.
        For all their progress our children of color and low-income
    children still stand too far behind their peers in nearly every
    important measure of school achievement. So do our rural students and
    students with disabilities, our English Learners, Native American
    students, and homeless students.
        And in far too many schools, we still offer them less--less access
    to the best teachers, less access to the most challenging courses, less
    access to art and music, and less access to the resources necessary to
    thrive.
        We need to support teachers and educators as they raise academic
    expectations for all of our students--so that they are prepared to
    compete with their peers in other nations.
        We need to offer students more affordable college choices, and to
    help more of them graduate. The most affluent students are still six
    times more likely to complete college than low-income students, and too
    many Americans are still struggling to pay back their student loan
    debt.
        So we have urgent work to do.
        We are not yet what we ought to be.
        But I believe we stand positioned to move closer to what we ought
    to be, in part thanks to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). With
    ESSA, Congress has reinforced the Federal commitment to holding our
    Nation's schools accountable for the progress of all students. In this
    new era, the locus of decisionmaking around the most appropriate
    supports, interventions, and rewards in our schools is rightly shifting
    back to States and districts--and away from the one-size-fits-all
    mandates of No Child Left Behind. As a former teacher, principal, and
    State commissioner, I know from personal experience that the best ideas
    come from classrooms, not conference rooms.
        The new law provides a renewed opportunity to focus on preparing
    every young person for success in college and future careers, and that
    demographics do not determine destiny--starting with our youngest
    learners.
        It preserves the critical Federal role to ensure guardrails to
    protect civil rights. But it also gives educators and State and local
    leaders the freedom to establish better, more balanced ways of
    assessing student learning, including looking beyond just test scores.
        It maintains the principle that, when groups of students or entire
    schools are falling behind, action will be taken to provide the
    supports necessary to foster progress. And it creates the opportunity
    to reclaim the goal of a well-rounded education for all students: an
    education that not only includes strong numeracy and literacy but
    access to science, social studies, the arts, physical education and
    health, and the opportunity to learn a second or third language.
        The start of a new era also brings with it an opening for a much-
    needed reset in the national dialog. Over the last few years, education
    policy discussions have too often been characterized by more heat than
    light--especially where educators are concerned. Despite the best of
    intentions, teachers and principals, at times, have felt attacked and
    unfairly blamed. All of us--at the local, State, and Federal level--
    have to take responsibility for the climate that exists. And all of us
    must do whatever we can to change it.
        We know--and I know personally, because I lived it--the importance
    of great teachers. That's why one of my highest priorities as education
    secretary would be to lift up the teaching profession, and find more
    ways to celebrate, support, and sustain our Nation's educators.
        In so many ways, this is a unique moment in our Nation's
    educational journey. The passage of ESSA should not be the end of a
    road; it should be the beginning of many.
        Let's harness the bipartisan momentum of last year to make this
    year one of continued progress. Just as No Child Left Behind was
    overdue for a rewrite, so too is the Perkins Act. Let's make 2016 the
    year we transform career and technical education for the 21st century
    by driving innovation and quality.
        Just as we were up for the challenge in pre-K through high school,
    let's work together to advance improvements to the Higher Education
    Act. And let's ensure that every student has the opportunity to obtain
    the post-secondary education needed to gain the knowledge and skills
    that will shape success in today's economy--whether in the form of a 2-
    year or 4-year college degree, or an industry credential and direct
    pathway to a well-paying job.
        Together, we can fortify the Pell program as an engine of
    opportunity. And we can support the innovative ideas of schools around
    the country to serve more students at a lower cost, and ensure that
    students don't just start college but complete it with an affordable,
    high-quality degree. That includes working with you to build on our
    efforts to support students and families who are managing their student
    loan debt.
        None of this will be easy--the most critical work rarely is. But I
    appear before you ready for the challenge, and mindful of the
    tremendous urgency we must bring to the tasks at hand.
        If you'll indulge me, I'll close with a story about my father that
    captures that sense of urgency.
        My father loved basketball, and one weekend, while playing, he
    broke his wrist. When he went to work on Monday, with his wrist in a
    cast, the principal stopped him and said, ``Mr. King, you can't teach
    today.'' The principal said there was a regulation back then about not
    teaching with a cast, and the principal refused to budge.
        So what did my father do? He walked over to the counter and smashed
    the cast into pieces. Then he brushed those pieces into a trash can,
    put his hand in his suit pocket, and went to teach his class.
        My father knew that schools save lives. And though he never could
    have imagined it then, I sit here decades later as living proof that he
    was right. Like my parents; like the President and First Lady; like all
    of you, I believe that education is at the heart of our promise of
    equality of opportunity for all Americans.
        If confirmed, it will be my great privilege and honor to continue
    working with you to realize that promise in the months ahead.
        Thank you again for your consideration. I look forward to your
    questions.

        The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. King, and thank you for the
    story about your father.
        We're going to begin a round of questions now, which we'll
    limit to 5 minutes back and forth for each Senator.
        Let me start with some nuts and bolts. You've been at the
    Department for a while. You know how it works. We're coming to
    a transition point in Federal education policy in a variety of
    ways. When we have a new law, that means that every State will
    need to submit a new plan to you in order to receive the title
    I and title II money. That's about $17.5 billion.
        The law requires that organizations work together--States,
    teachers, ET cetera--and that you work with them. The
    conditional waivers that exist now are repealed on August 1 of
    this year. I would assume that we would hope that new State
    plans would be in place in time for the 2017-2018 school year,
    so I'm thinking that maybe plans would need to be in by mid-
    summer of next year. The plans have to go through a peer
    review.
        Over the weekend I met with the Governors, and the
    Governors and teachers, all those people that I mentioned in my
    testimony, are forming coalitions State by State to work
    together on their plans. So you have a lot of people affected
    here. We've got 100,000 public schools, 50 States, 3.5 million
    teachers, 50 million children.
        And the other thing to say about this that's good, I think,
    is that this is a good law. It has broad support. It lasts 4
    years, but my guess is it may set Federal education policy for
    a longer period of time than that.
        So we've got a new multi-year law. We're going to have new
    plans that won't have to be amended unless there is dramatic
    change. So we could be ushering in not only a new direction but
    a new period of stability in Federal education elementary and
    secondary school policy, which I think teachers and principals
    and school boards would welcome. And because there are so many
    people working together to do this, it may help move--it won't
    entirely do it--move politics to the back burner and education
    to the front burner.
        What can you tell all of these States, teachers, chief
    State school officers about the schedule? When will your
    regulations be final? When do the plans need to be submitted?
    What's the schedule you'll use to implement the new law?
        Mr. King. Thanks for the question, Senator. We believe it's
    very important that the process we follow in implementing the
    Every Student Succeeds Act builds on the notion that
    stakeholder feedback and input is critical. So we have begun
    that process of gathering stakeholder feedback and input. We've
    held two public hearings. We published a notice in the Federal
    Register and received hundreds of comments from over 800
    individuals and organizations. We've held countless meetings
    with stakeholders, civil rights organizations, educators,
    community-based organizations as we gather input about
    implementation of the law.
        We are looking to understand from stakeholders, from
    schools and districts what kinds of guidance and regulations
    they think would be necessary for strong implementation. We
    have begun the process of negotiated rulemaking with respect to
    assessments and supplements to plans, two areas where
    stakeholders asked us to provide more clarity, and we will
    continue to work to review that comment and to----
        The Chairman. If you were still in New York, what would be
    your goal to have a State plan in? What would you be aiming at?
        Mr. King. Yes, we certainly have to have the plans in
    place, as you said, for the 2017-2018 school year. I think we
    want to make sure we have a deliberate process to provide
    guidance and regulations, and I think there's a real eagerness
    on the part of State chiefs to get started. As you indicated,
    many State chiefs are already beginning to consult with
    stakeholders and beginning to frame their plans.
        The Chairman. We had a hearing earlier this week with a
    number of the chief State school officers, Governors, ET
    cetera, and they expressed both points of view, really. They
    wanted to get on with it, but they also want to take the time
    to get it right, which is a nice balance.
        The only other thing I would say is--and I'll have other
    questions as we have time for a second round--we'll be having a
    half-dozen hearings this year on the implementation of the new
    law because, as I said, the law is not worth the paper it's
    printed on unless we implement it the way Congress wrote it,
    and oversight is as important a part of our job as passing the
    law is.
        So my request of you is that if you're confirmed, will you
    be available to me and to Senator Murray and other members of
    the committee and to our staff to promptly answer our questions
    as you go through this important period of time?
        Mr. King. Absolutely. I look forward to collaborating on
    implementation.
        The Chairman. I personally will promise not to bother you
    with a lot of politically inspired, long letters, but what I
    would like to do is if I've got a question, I'd like to get an
    answer, and if we have a disagreement, I'd like to find a way
    to resolve it promptly. I know that there are tens of thousands
    of people around the country who are affected by these plans,
    and they would have the same feeling.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Dr. King, I've been really impressed with this
    Administration's work over the years to protect civil rights,
    including promoting educational opportunities for students of
    color, women and girls, students with disabilities, LGBT
    students, and I look forward to continuing to work with you on
    those issues. But I wanted to raise one specific issue with you
    today, campus sexual assault and violence.
        It's a growing national crisis, and depending on the
    survey, we know that at least 1 in 5 women are being sexually
    assaulted while on our college campuses. That's stunning. One
    in five of our daughters, granddaughters, sisters, loved ones
    are being sexually assaulted while in college. That is, by the
    way, the lowest of the estimates out there, which is really
    appalling and unacceptable.
        I hear over and over again from students, from
    administrators, from survivor groups, schools, and everybody
    about the important work the Office of Civil Rights does to
    enforce title IX. In fact, before this hearing today, I
    received many letters from professors and students and sexual
    assault survivor groups supporting the work of the Office for
    Civil Rights, and I ask unanimous consent to include those
    letters in the record, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. They will be.
        [The information referred to can be found in additional
    material.]
        Senator Murray. The Office for Civil Rights has taken some
    critical actions to make sure that our college campuses do have
    the tools and resources necessary to comply with title IX and
    keep our campuses safe, and I applaud their work. But I wanted
    to ask you, can you talk with us about the importance of having
    safe campuses and your Department's commitment to addressing
    that?
        Mr. King. Absolutely. It is a top priority for the
    President, for the Vice President, for the Department to ensure
    that we do everything possible to protect our students, male
    and female students, from sexual violence and sexual assault.
        In the period before the Administration and in the early
    years of the Administration, we saw both the challenge of
    sexual assault on campuses and genuine lack of clarity on the
    part of higher ed institutions about what they should be doing
    to protect students and what their responsibilities were under
    title IX.
        We issued guidance early in the Administration intended to
    try to address that lack of clarity. That guidance has been
    very helpful to higher ed institutions in creating safer
    environments for their students. We've worked very productively
    with higher ed institutions to adjust their policies to make
    sure that students are safe while protecting due process rights
    as well.
        We certainly want to continue that work. The White House
    Task Force on Sexual Assault has gathered extensive feedback
    and input, and we continue to try to steer institutions toward
    best practices that will help them keep their campuses safe.
        But all of us, I think, as parents and as citizens have to
    worry about the safety of our students. We want them to be able
    to go off to college or to be in a K-12 school and feel safe
    and know that the institution will do everything possible to
    protect their safety.
        Senator Murray. OK. This is something I will continue to
    followup, so I appreciate that.
        I also wanted to ask you about the teacher shortage. I hear
    this all over my State. It's exacerbated in schools that serve
    a high percentage of low-income students, rural areas, in hard-
    to-teach subjects like STEM.
        Why do you think we are facing this teacher shortage?
        Mr. King. We've got two challenges. One is shortages in
    specific States in specific areas or driven by specific
    conditions in States. There are some States where teacher
    compensation is quite low relative to other fields. I think
    that makes it a challenge to recruit folks. There are some
    States that have experienced rapid growth in their population
    of English language learners and are struggling to recruit the
    necessary teachers.
        There are certainly districts and States around the country
    that are struggling with recruiting teachers to rural
    communities, which can be a challenge as rural communities lose
    population.
        But then I think there is a broader challenge, which I
    think is a tone in the conversation around educators over the
    last decade that has at times left teachers and principals
    feeling attacked or blamed for the challenges that we have as a
    society. I think the new law gives us an opportunity for a
    reset on that conversation to broaden how we think about
    educational excellence to make sure that teachers and
    principals are very much a part of how districts and States use
    the new flexibility under Every Student Succeeds Act.
        And I think we have an opportunity to build on the
    bipartisan work on the Every Student Succeeds Act with some of
    the President's budget proposals. The President proposed a $1
    billion investment in making teaching the best job in the
    world, investing in the time for collaboration that teachers so
    desperately want, creating incentives for teachers to go into
    the highest-need communities and to teach in high-need subjects
    like math and science and so forth; ambassador teacher
    preparation and school leader preparation, because we know
    strong preparation helps people arrive better prepared and
    makes it more likely that they will be able to stay.
        I think there's real opportunity to shift the conversation,
    but there's an urgent need to do so.
        Senator Murray. I agree, and I look forward to your
    Department really working to elevate that conversation
    nationally, so thank you very much.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
        Senator Enzi.

                           Statement of Senator Enzi

        Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    for urging the President and our leader to do some rapid
    confirmation so we'd have an actual Secretary of Education in
    place. I know from your background that you realize the
    importance of getting that done because you've been through
    that lengthy waiting time yourself.
        I want to thank Dr. King for the opportunity to visit a
    little bit yesterday. I will have some numbered questions for
    you. I don't ask those in hearings because I found that it puts
    people to sleep. So I'll focus my questions today on cyber
    security at the Department of Education and the important
    protections that we need for the student information.
        In 2015 there was an audit, and the Inspector General
    conducted a cyber-security review in which he was able to
    penetrate one of the Department's networks and move throughout
    the system undetected. The Inspector General concluded,

              ``We determined that the Department's overall
            incident response and reporting program was not
            generally effective because we identified key
            weaknesses in its detection and prevention system
            penetration.''

    So the Department's inability to detect an outside actor as it
    moved throughout the system raises concerns that the Department
    has already been breached and is unaware of the compromise to
    its systems. These systems include 139 million Social Security
    numbers in the Federal Student Aid Program, which is about $1.2
    trillion in Federal assets.
        In the prior year's report the IG reported,

          ``In some instances, although the Department said it has
    completed a recommendation, we continue to find that the
    corrective actions were not implemented, and we had to issue
    modified repeat recommendations because of the exact similar
    conditions continuing to exist.''

        Protecting the privacy and security of the student's
    personal and financial information is one of the greatest
    responsibilities, I think, of the Department, and I do find the
    history of the Department's capability to execute that pretty
    alarming.
        To what level are you concerned about this? And, if
    confirmed, what plans do you have to strengthen the cyber
    security and to improve the incidence response and the
    reporting?
        Mr. King. Cyber security is a top priority for me and the
    senior leadership team at the Department. Since I joined the
    Department in January 2015, I've been focused on trying to
    strengthen our cyber security posture, even to the level of
    having weekly meetings when I was in the role of Deputy, weekly
    meetings with our senior leadership team across the Department
    focused on making rapid progress on cyber security.
        I can tell you some encouraging progress has been made over
    the last year. Last spring and summer, when there was a Federal
    cyber security sprint to evaluate the cyber security posture
    across Federal agencies, it was found that the Education
    Department was only at 11 percent in terms of the percentage of
    our privileged users using two-factor Level 4 authentication,
    that level of security that is recommended for protecting our
    data information when users come onto the system.
        Since then we worked very diligently, amended nearly 60
    contracts, and today I can tell you 95 percent of privileged
    users are using Level 4 two-factor authentication, and we are
    closing in on 100 percent by the end of next month.
        We're making progress in closing items from our FSMA audit
    that were identified. We are working with the Inspector General
    and want to address the concerns that the Inspector General has
    identified.
        We are also working very closely with the Department of
    Homeland Security to leverage their best expertise from across
    the Federal Government.
        This is a top priority. It is fair to say that there is
    more work to do, and we've got to move quickly to strengthen
    our cyber security posture. But the threats that are out there
    are numerous and will continue to grow and evolve, and we've
    got to make sure that we have the strongest possible posture.
        Senator Enzi. I appreciate the steps you've taken, and
    we'll be looking forward to additional ones. I know that in
    that report there were 16 findings of security weaknesses, and
    six were repeat findings from the previous year, and now there
    are 26 recommendations to solve those weaknesses, and 10 of
    them are repeat recommendations.
        So what steps are being taken to address the
    inefficiencies? And, if confirmed, will you commit to working
    with the Inspector General to implement all 26 recommendations?
        Mr. King. I'm very committed to implementing the
    recommendations. I think over time there have been challenges
    both in terms of resources and talent acquisition. I think we
    see this challenge across the Federal Government, trying to
    identify strong cyber security professionals. We recently added
    a new chief security officer to our IT team. I think that will
    be very helpful. He's got military experience, military
    intelligence. I think that will add a lot to our team.
        FTARA I think will be helpful. One of the historical
    challenges in the Department has been separate IT structures
    between the Department and Federal student aid, and FTARA will
    bring those together.
        I think we're well positioned to make progress on all 26.
    We're committed to closing out those items.
        Senator Enzi. Thank you.
        My time has expired. I'll submit some numbered questions.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Enzi.
        Senator Whitehouse.

                        Statement of Senator Whitehouse

        Senator Whitehouse. Dr. King, welcome. I am glad you're
    here, and I intend to support your nomination. But I want to,
    first, behind you, say how well your daughters are doing
    through the tedium of this hearing.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. I'll channel a bit what I hear from my
    teachers in Rhode Island. I worked very, very hard on the
    middle school piece of the ESSA, and on the innovation schools
    piece, with literally years of work with educators to try to
    get those pieces as good as they could be. And in that process
    I spent a lot of time listening and learning, and some of the
    things that I learned are that the classroom teachers don't
    have a lot of faith in the education oversight machinery. They
    very often see it as propagating a jargon cycle where people
    come and offer the latest jargon to them for their classrooms,
    and then after a couple of years, when the jargon gets stale,
    they go off to other conferences and learn new jargon and come
    back. And after you've seen rinse and repeat a few times, it
    begins to look pretty repetitive.
        They have seen sort of Celebrity Chef type folks come
    through who seem to have their eyes more on the approval of
    faraway foundations than on the classrooms in which they serve.
    They see more forms, they see more tests, they see less
    resources, they see less freedom. I think, to use your father's
    story, they see more rules about casts, and I don't know that
    rules about casts served your father or his classroom very
    well.
        I think what they want more than anything else is the
    benefit of the doubt, where teachers and the community support
    local innovation, and to be able to support and implement that
    with the least obstruction and delay.
        So I would hope that as you discharge your duties, you will
    do so with a keen eye for the hazard of unintended
    consequences, which the testing regime is a prime example of; a
    prudent judgment about the tools of particularly Federal
    oversight; with an abiding confidence in the value of local
    innovation and initiative; and with an appreciation that
    sometimes the course of wisdom is to get out of the way.
        I think if you can do that, be there when we need you and
    be out of the way when the schools are trying as hard as they
    can to get it right, I think that will make a very big
    difference in our schools.
        Teachers are fed up, and they're not just fed up with the
    old buildings and the budgets that they have to deal with. I
    think a lot of them are also fed up with an oversight mechanism
    that they don't feel is serving their classroom interests. So I
    urge you to take that to heart, and you'll have our full
    support.
        Mr. King. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I think
    every ounce of feedback gives us some great opportunities to
    foster that local innovation and allow districts and States to
    rethink the definition of educational excellence beyond just
    English and math test score performance, to think about the
    role of science and social studies and art and music, to
    rethink how they approach closing achievement gaps based on
    innovation, and I think we've got an opportunity as well with
    education innovation and research programs within the Every
    Student Succeeds Act to continue to build an evidence base
    around innovations that work with students, locally driven, and
    then to scale those innovations through local decisionmaking.
        I'm very optimistic about the potential. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. We'll be on the same page, then. But as
    you know, I think, from dealing with folks, it's a pretty
    strong feeling out there. They don't have the tools to do the
    job. People are in their hair, and they are so urgent about the
    need to do their job better in the classroom. They need
    resources, not restrictions.
        Mr. King. I think that's right. We have the Teach to Lead
    initiative at the Department, bringing together teacher leaders
    from across the country, and that is exactly the sentiment we
    hear, and people are excited when they have the opportunity to
    work with colleagues to do innovative things in their
    classrooms, in their schools, in their districts to try and
    improve outcomes for students.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Isakson.

                          Statement of Senator Isakson

        Senator Isakson. Thank you, Chairman Alexander, and thank
    you for your conversation yesterday on the phone, Dr. King. I
    appreciate it. It's good to have your family here. Your
    daughters are beautiful.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        Senator Isakson. So is your wife, by the way.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        Senator Isakson. You and I suffered a similar criticism in
    our careers. When you were in New York and Commissioner of
    Education, you caught a lot of hell for having too much
    testing, if I read correctly some of the articles. I'm one of
    the last remaining people who voted for No Child Left Behind in
    the Congress of the United States, and we caught plenty of hell
    for requiring too much testing.
        The current bill that Chairman Alexander and other members
    of the committee brought about in terms of testing allows
    parents to opt out of testing. That opt out provision was in
    there precisely to address the concern that many people had
    about too much testing. The 95 percent participation rate is
    still required in Every Student Succeeds Act, as it was under
    No Child Left Behind. The difference is the State is the
    authority that enforces that requirement, not the Federal
    Government. You have the ability to say you'll withhold title I
    funding, but only the State can see to it that it's withheld,
    and they can have another mechanism to ensure participation.
        Given that we have the opt out provision, which I authored
    because of my experience with too much testing, and given that
    we still have the 95 percent participation rate, how are you as
    the Secretary of Education going to work with the States to
    ensure we have a participation rate that gives us the good
    metrics we need to know without forcing it down the throats of
    parents and educators?
        Mr. King. I appreciate the question. I think it's very
    important that we had in No Child Left Behind and have in Every
    Student Succeeds the expectation for all students to
    participate in the assessments. At the same time, I think we
    have an opportunity with the Every Student Succeeds Act to
    shift the tone, that we want to work with States on this. We've
    asked States that haven't met their participation requirements
    to develop State strategies to try to respond to that.
        I think one thing I learned in New York, and I wish we'd
    done sooner, was we ran a grant program to ask school leaders,
    teachers, in some cases parents to look together at the
    assessments that are given in any given district and ask do we
    need all of these, are these the right ones, do they make
    sense, could we reduce the number, are some of these
    assessments low level and should we replace them with things
    like essays and research projects and science experiments and
    lab reports. That grant program was very successful. That is
    similar to the testing action plan that the President announced
    in the fall. We've given guidance to States and districts on
    how they can use existing funds for those kinds of audits.
        I do think we have to acknowledge that there are places
    around the country over the last decade where there has
    genuinely been too much time spent on testing and too little
    time, as a result, or a loss of time on instruction, and I
    think we have an opportunity to shift that. The President has
    in his budget a proposal to increase funding for assessment
    grants so that States have additional resources that they can
    put toward those kinds of audits where they review assessments
    and get rid of ones that are unnecessary.
        So I'm optimistic that the new law, the thoughtfulness of
    State leaders I'm seeing across the country in looking at how
    they reduce assessments to the minimum necessary to support
    good instruction, I'm optimistic that those things will help us
    get to a better place.
        Senator Isakson. I appreciate your answer. You have a 10-
    month period of tenure, I guess, for sure, through this
    Administration, but that 10 months will include the beginning
    of the upcoming school year, which starts around the country as
    early as the first week in August in Georgia. So you're going
    to be having a lot of situations to have communication with the
    States regarding requirements and regarding the flexibility of
    the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        I hope you will take that opportunity to realize that the
    States went to the Federal Government for relief by asking for
    waivers from No Child Left Behind because we didn't do the
    reauthorizing we should have. Now that we have done a
    reauthorization, now that the States are more engaged in the
    implementation of elementary and secondary education, I hope
    you'll treat this as a partnership between the Federal
    Government and the States, not a dictatorship from the Federal
    Government to the States.
        And thank you for your service.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
        Senator Warren.

                          Statement of Senator Warren

        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Millions of Americans are being crushed by student loan
    debt. More than 90 percent of that debt is either owned or
    guaranteed by the Department of Education through its Federal
    Student Aid Office. In other words, the Department of Education
    runs what amounts to a trillion-dollar bank, with exactly one
    product, student loans, and exactly one obligation, fairly
    serving millions of student loan customers.
        It is clear to me that the Department's bank is in need of
    some serious improvement. Would you agree with that, Dr. King?
        Mr. King. As we discussed, I look forward to working with
    you and the rest of the committee to try to strengthen the
    student loan system. I worry that too many students don't
    understand their options with how to manage the debt that they
    have. I worry that there are institutions that are bad actors,
    where there's a need for more enforcement. We just added a new
    enforcement unit to focus on that. So I'm very committed to
    continuing to work with you and with the committee to
    strengthen our efforts in this.
        Senator Warren. I appreciate that and I'm glad to hear it
    because I want to put in the record just a few of the problems
    about how the Department's student loan bank has been falling
    down on the job.
        First, the Department of Justice found that the student
    loan servicer Navigant, formerly known as Sallie Mae, had been
    cheating the women and men of our military on their student
    loans and fined the company $60 million. But the Department of
    Education's bank took no action. Instead, the Department's bank
    let them off the hook after conducting its own separate and
    deeply misleading review. The bank then rewarded the company
    that cheated our members of the military by renewing another
    $100 million contract.
        Second, the CFPB identified widespread failures in student
    loan servicing. Servicers routinely mistreat borrowers and
    break the rules, but the Department of Education's bank
    consistently renews their contracts. And in 2014, the bank even
    gave these companies a raise.
        Third, over the last decade the Department of Education's
    Inspector General has criticized the bank's failure to police
    debt collectors who casually break consumer protection laws.
    The Department of Education's bank is still paying those same
    debt collectors that break the law.
        Fourth, the student loan bank won't share data about the
    student loan program with anyone, not even the rest of the
    Department of Education. This means that nobody, nobody has any
    insight into how this trillion-dollar bank is being run.
        And fifth, the last one I'll mention here, despite these
    massive and ongoing problems, the Department's bank thinks that
    it is doing such a great job that in 2014 they gave dozens of
    their own senior officers--those are your Department's
    employees--bonuses, and some of those bonuses were as high as
    $75,000.
        So there are five examples, and I understand, Dr. King,
    these problems existed long before you ever set foot in the
    Department of Education. But if you are confirmed as the next
    Secretary of Education, you will be responsible for how the
    Department's trillion-dollar bank runs. Will you commit
    yourself to cleaning up this bank's operation and making sure
    that it works for the students that it is supposed to serve?
        Mr. King. I am deeply committed to ensuring that Federal
    student aid serves students well, serves borrowers well, and
    protects the taxpayer interest.
        Let me tell you four things that I think are promising. One
    is the Department has worked on the gainful employment
    regulations, which I think will help to ensure at the outset
    that institutions provide good information to students and
    ensure that we act when there are bad actors.
        Two, on the servicing issues around service members, we
    have now in place a system where there is automatic
    notification between the Department of Defense and FSA when
    service members go into active duty, and that automatic
    notification then protects service members. We also have tried
    to make whole any service members who did not have the proper
    interest rate prior to that system going into place.
        Third, we have created this new enforcement unit that I
    mentioned. Robert Kay, who has been an enforcement litigator at
    the FTC, has joined us to lead that unit, and we are committed
    to taking action with bad actor institutions.
        And fourth, we will shortly re-compete the servicing
    contract, and as we do that we will integrate into that
    servicing contract many of the suggestions that you have made,
    that other advocates have made regarding how we're going to
    protect students' and borrower interests, and feedback we've
    gotten from higher ed institutions as well that worry about
    their students and their borrowers and want to make sure they
    are well served.
        So I think there are promising indicators, but you are
    right, there's a lot of work to do to ensure that we protect
    our students and borrowers, and we intend to do that.
        Senator Warren. I very much appreciate it. I appreciate the
    steps that you are already taking. I just want to say it is the
    Department of Education's job to stand up for students, not for
    the student loan companies that are making money off these
    loans or these for-profit colleges that want to suck down more
    taxpayer dollars.
        The Department's student loan bank is failing massively at
    this critical task, Dr. King, and the American people need to
    know that if you are confirmed you will make it a priority to
    fix these problems. Thank you.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
        Senator Scott.

                           Statement of Senator Scott

        Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. King, good to see you again. Thank you for coming by
    the office yesterday and spending some quality time on the
    issue of education. Certainly, your friend and my friend, Mo
    Cowan's opinion of you is very high, and thankfully so. It
    certainly has had some influence and impact, though he needs to
    come back from Massachusetts to DC more often.
        [Laughter.]
        A question for you on charter schools. I know that you were
    intimately involved in Roxbury Prep and had a lot of success
    there. When I saw a similar program being replicated through
    the Uncommon Charter Schools, it was very successful. What can
    we expect from you in terms of charter schools, and how will
    your approach be different from the approach of Secretary
    Duncan?
        Mr. King. I appreciate the question. We think charters can
    play a key role in fostering innovation in education and
    providing better outcomes for high-need students. Certainly
    that's what we tried to do at Roxbury Prep and at Uncommon.
        We have two programs that are supporting charters, our
    Charter School Program, which is designed to spur the creation
    of new, high-quality charters, and also strengthen charter
    school authorizing; and we have a program that's focused on
    scaling high-performing charter management organizations. The
    President has proposed increased funding for charter efforts.
        We are very focused on how we grow the number of high-
    performing schools that students can choose, whether it's
    district or charter schools. As we do that, one of the things
    we have to be vigilant about is authorizer quality. As we
    talked briefly about, I do worry that there are places where
    authorizers aren't doing a good enough job. We have to make
    sure that authorizers act when schools aren't delivering on the
    promises of their charter. I think that will help lift the
    sector.
        But as States move forward with the Every Student Succeeds
    Act and think about what interventions they will put in place
    in high-need schools, growing the number of innovative high-
    need schools, whether that's innovative district schools or
    innovative charter schools, should be a part of that
    discussion.
        Senator Scott. One area where we may have to agree to
    disagree is on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship. I know that
    there are some parents and students in the audience who have a
    very passionate position, as I do, on the importance of the
    D.C. Opportunity Scholarship, especially when you look at your
    commitment to equity and excellence and the fact that we have a
    classic example here in Washington, DC of a process and a
    program that has produced numbers and success in a way that's
    inconsistent with other schools.
        I think the graduation rate of those students attending a
    D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program is around 90 percent.
    Other schools in the DC area is around 62 percent, with some
    going as low as 38 percent. The cost per pupil for the D.C.
    Opportunity Scholarship program is somewhere around $9,000 to
    $12,000. For the other schools it's over $18,000. You get a 50
    percent better graduation rate. Eighty-eight percent of those
    students go on to a 2-year or 4-year college experience.
        It seems to me that the Administration and you as Secretary
    should take a second look at that program and look for ways to
    integrate it and to use the carryover money, $35 million, to
    fund more scholarships. Frankly, this is not just my
    perspective. This is a bipartisan perspective. When you look at
    the support of Senators like Republican Senator Ron Johnson, as
    well as Senators Feinstein and Cory Booker, all have the same
    opinion of D.C. Opportunity Scholarship.
        What can we do to move the Administration, and perhaps you
    as the new Secretary, in the direction of using that $35
    million in carryover funds to fund more scholarships? When you
    take into consideration the fact that in the DC area there are
    basically three approaches to education, the DC public schools
    get about $20 million a year. The Opportunity Scholarship
    program is around $20 million a year. So the funds that are
    necessary to continue the scholarships apparently are already
    there.
        What we have an opportunity to do is to take the $35
    million to use for more scholarships so that we see more kids--
    97 percent of these kids are either African American or
    Latino--we see more kids succeeding at high levels, especially
    when you think about the fact that 60 percent of these kids are
    receiving TANF or SNAP benefits, and yet they are out-
    performing their peers throughout the DC area and perhaps
    throughout the country.
        Mr. King. As we talked about, I very much respect your
    position. I think our view is that the number of slots in the
    DC voucher program should be based on annual appropriations. To
    the extent that there are open slots within the annual
    appropriation, those would be filled. We think the carryover
    funds should be maintained to ensure that the currently
    enrolled students, if new appropriations are not made, have the
    opportunity to complete their education in the schools where
    they are now enrolled.
        Again, I respect that we have a difference of opinion on
    that. I think we share an urgency around equity and excellence.
    I do not personally believe that vouchers are a scalable
    solution to the equity and excellence challenge and prefer the
    route of public school choice but respect, certainly respect
    your position on this.
        Senator Scott. I'll just close with this, Mr. Chairman. I
    certainly think that your success on charter schools is
    undeniable, and thank goodness that you've taken that try. It
    has been a successful try. I think when you look at the D.C.
    Opportunity Scholarship and the fact that over a 10-year period
    of time we've seen 6,000 students go across, and 95 or 93
    percent of those kids graduate, that it would be a shame for us
    not to take advantage of a system or a program that is working
    so well, that we have so many kids that would have been denied
    access to higher education now being involved in higher
    education, succeeding in higher education. That changes their
    entire family system. So for us not to take a second look at
    this would be a shame.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Scott.
        Senator Murphy.

                          Statement of Senator Murphy

        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon. Congratulations. I have to pass on to you a
    compliment paid to you by a friend shortly after you were named
    to the interim position. This individual said to me it's
    wonderful that a person like John King could become the
    Secretary of Education. I asked him what he meant by that, and
    he said, you know, it's not just his background, to have
    somebody there who has done everything within the educational
    system, someone who wasn't a creature of Washington but a
    creature of local school districts, but just someone of the
    temperament and the disposition that John has. You have a lot
    of fans out there, not because of the work you've done but just
    because of the person you are, and that has come through in
    every post you've had, a real tribute to you.
        Dr. King, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about one of
    the particular provisions in ESSA that I care most about. I and
    others on this committee--Senator Warren, Senator Murray,
    amongst others--fought very hard for requirements in the new
    elementary and secondary education law that would ensure that
    States must step in with evidence-based interventions for the
    lowest performing schools, the bottom 5 percent of schools,
    dropout factories that failed to graduate a third of their
    students, and schools with consistently under-performing
    subgroups.
        These requirements, they're essential to maintain the core
    purpose of ESEA, originally, as a civil rights law. It's not
    really any good to have a Federal education law if it's not
    also a civil rights law. But it's really going to be up to the
    Department to ensure that States have meaningful definitions of
    things like ``consistently under-performing'' and that States
    and districts are monitoring schools with consistently under-
    performing subgroups.
        So my question is a general one. The law, it does
    appropriately turn over a lot of flexibility to States in the
    design of these accountability systems, but it also includes
    some really important Federal guiderails. So as Secretary, how
    are you going to ensure that States implement accountability
    systems that protect these subgroups of vulnerable students?
        Mr. King. Thanks. I appreciate the question. The civil
    rights legacy of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is
    crucial to preserve and advance, and I think States have an
    opportunity to use their flexibility around interventions to
    increase equity. In order to do that, I think you're exactly
    right, we will need to ensure that there are good guardrails,
    that we're gathering comment and feedback from schools and
    civil rights organizations and community leaders and educators
    to understand how we can, through regulations and guidance,
    support the implementation of interventions that actually move
    us closer to closing the achievement gap.
        I think it's a good thing that the Every Student Succeeds
    Act moves us away from the one-size-fits-all solutions of No
    Child Left Behind. If you've got a school that's struggling
    with a population of English learners, you should be able to
    bring in evidence-based professional development and teaching
    practices and help teachers support those English learners. You
    shouldn't have to go to a one-size-fits-all solution that has
    nothing to do with English language learners because that's in
    a Federal law.
        I think there's an opportunity here for States to have
    smarter interventions and districts to have smarter
    interventions. But it will also be important for the Department
    to be vigilant after that first set of interventions is put in
    place. If they aren't working, if they aren't closing
    achievement gaps, if they aren't raising graduation rates,
    there's going to need to be a demonstrated effort on the part
    of States to intensify those interventions, to act on the
    evidence, and to change strategies.
        So we are going to be very careful in our work to regulate
    on this, to provide guidance on this, and to provide technical
    assistance, and we're going to be guided in that by the
    feedback that we get from stakeholders.
        Senator Murphy. I appreciate your focus on this. I want to
    ask one additional question, following up on Senator Warren's
    questions.
        Another one of these for-profit schools, Marinello School
    of Beauty, went out of business earlier this month, leaving
    about 460 students in my State suddenly with unfinished degrees
    and massive student debt. These are just piling up, the
    headlines, by the month.
        You've got the ability in the Department of Education to
    cutoff aid for schools only when they hit a fairly ridiculous
    trip wire, which is 30 percent of their students effectively
    achieving the status of financial ruin, that they have gotten
    so badly behind on their debt that they are defaulting.
        A lot of the conversation around higher ed reauthorization
    here is whether there's a better way to give you power or give
    you the ability to intercede earlier than that moment when one-
    third of all students graduating from an institution have
    gotten degrees that are so worthless and meaningless that they
    can't pay back their student loans, this concept of shared
    responsibility.
        What do you think about the need to give the Department of
    Education some new ability to intervene a little bit earlier?
        Mr. King. We would love to work with you on that. I do
    think the gainful employment regulations will help with respect
    to some of the institutions. Our new enforcement unit will
    help. But strengthening the accountability within the Higher
    Education Act would be very valuable, including strengthening
    the accountability for accreditors. If you look at what
    happened with Corinthian, Corinthian was accredited throughout.
    So ensuring that accreditors are paying close attention to
    whether or not students are getting what they pay for I think
    is also a critical step we can take in the reauthorization.
        Senator Murphy. As the Chairman and Ranking Member will
    remember, we had the accreditor of Corinthian before us, who
    defended the accreditor's total and complete inaction in the
    wake of Federal Government intervention, which to many of us
    was a little hard to swallow.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
        Senator Collins.

                          Statement of Senator Collins

        Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Dr. King, and congratulations again on your
    nomination.
        ESSA includes some innovation that is an assessment pilot
    program which I co-authored with Senator Sanders, which ought
    to tell you something about the breadth of support that the
    program has.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Collins. This is a pilot program that would allow
    seven States to develop alternative models for assessment. One
    such model could be proficiency based, which Northern New
    England is particularly interested in. And the law allows seven
    States, as I mentioned, to participate in the demonstration
    project.
        What are your plans for implementing this pilot program?
        Mr. King. Thank you for the question, and thank you for
    your leadership on this issue. I think we are still in the
    early stages of gathering feedback and comment from some
    stakeholders in areas where regulations or guidance will be
    helpful. As we work on the innovative assessment pilot, I think
    we have a good example to look toward, as we discussed briefly,
    in New Hampshire. New Hampshire I think is doing very good work
    on building a performance-based assessment system led by
    teachers that then will transition into, they hope, their
    statewide assessment system. So we will certainly look to their
    example and leadership, but we want to make sure that we
    support States as they think about taking advantage of this
    opportunity.
        Senator Collins. Turning to another topic, when I talk to
    school administrators in Maine, they tell me that they're very
    concerned that the maintenance of effort requirements under
    IDEA are producing the unintended effect of hindering the
    ability of school districts to provide the most effective and
    cost-efficient services to children with special needs, and let
    me give you an example that one gave to me.
        A school district in Maine wanted to hire an in-house
    school pathologist--sorry--speech pathologist to provide
    services to children with special needs instead of using a much
    more expensive outside contractor. Unfortunately, they found
    they could not do so because it would be considered reducing
    the maintenance of effort because it would be less expensive.
    Yet clearly, from this school district's perspective, having an
    in-house speech pathologist is far more responsive to the needs
    of these students than contracting out that function.
        A GAO report last October also commented on this lack of
    flexibility and said that it discouraged school districts from
    changing spending decisions even when doing so would benefit
    their special needs children. The limited regulatory exceptions
    for adjusting the maintenance of effort requirement do not
    appear to allow for those kinds of changes.
        As Secretary, would you consider refining the maintenance
    of effort regulations so that if a school district is actually
    trying to produce better outcomes for special needs students,
    they can do so even if it ends up lowering the cost?
        Mr. King. I appreciate that. Certainly, the principle--I
    think we'd agree that the principle of maintenance of effort as
    a way of protecting the services that students with
    disabilities are receiving and ensuring that school districts
    meet those needs is clearly the right principle. I would
    certainly like our team to talk with yours about these specific
    cases and to look at how they evolved.
        As we talked about, I think particularly in some of our
    rural areas around the country, these issues are particularly
    pertinent, and it's particularly challenging. One of the things
    that we tried to do in New York was to leverage shared regional
    service providers to try to ensure that districts were able to
    get the students the services they need in a sustainable way.
    But certainly I want to make sure our teams connect on that and
    talk through that because we certainly want to be in a position
    of supporting districts in serving students with disabilities
    as well as possible.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. My final comment is that I hope
    you will have a listening session in a rural area--we talked
    about that in my office--as opposed to just large urban areas
    like L.A. and DC.
        Mr. King. Yes, absolutely.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
        Senator Casey.

                           Statement of Senator Casey

        Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. King, welcome, and thank you for your testimony and
    your willingness to serve. We appreciate that commitment.
        I want to commend and salute your family as well, because
    when you serve, they serve with you in one way or another. We
    appreciate the commitment your family has made to this high
    level of public service.
        I wanted to start with an issue we discussed and about
    which we have a disagreement, and that's the student loan
    servicing reallocation question, where I have a disagreement
    with the Department and I think it could have an adverse impact
    on borrowers, and we don't agree, but I hope we can continue to
    engage on that and come to a resolution that's satisfactory.
    So, I hope you'll be open to further engagement on that.
        I wanted to start, though, with an issue which we don't
    hear an awful lot about. As you know, it has a very technical
    name, ``significant disproportionality,'' which I guess the
    simplest way to describe it is children of color
    overrepresented in special education, for a whole variety of
    reasons.
        I'm pleased that the Department has released a draft rule
    to address this issue. We know that this is a huge problem
    across the country. Data that I know you're aware of that
    covers about a 12-year timeframe, data gathered by the Office
    of Special Education Programs indicated, among other things,
    that, for example, African American students were 50 percent
    more likely and Hispanic students 40 percent more likely to be
    identified as a student with a learning disability. Similarly,
    African American students were 70 percent more likely, and
    American Indian and Alaska Native children were 120 percent
    more likely, to be identified as a student with an emotional
    disturbance. All of that, of course, results in those students
    being suspended at much higher rates than other students.
        We know that this issue of so-called overrepresentation is
    a widespread problem. We know that in 2013 the GAO found that
    only 2 to 3 percent of districts nationwide were reporting
    over-identifying students of color as special education. So
    that's obviously a failure of our system when only 2 or 3
    percent of districts are tracking this and identifying the
    problem.
        We know that hundreds, literally hundreds of districts
    across the country with these disparities go unidentified. The
    children don't get the help they need and are misidentified
    early on in life and, in essence, among other horrific
    problems, the problem feeds the school-to-prison pipeline.
        So all of that by way of background, every bit of it I
    think you know. Can you walk us through some of the
    recommendations of the GAO report?
        Mr. King. One of the things that the GAO report asked us to
    do is to look at the methodology that States were using to make
    these determinations around disproportionality. So what we've
    done in the proposed rule is suggested that States develop a
    risk ratio methodology that will help them figure out which are
    the districts where there is this disproportionality as a first
    step to a process of then evaluating why that
    disproportionality is happening and then addressing resources
    to intervene.
        One of the things that we've tried to extract about this
    proposed rule is that it's not intended to necessarily reduce
    the number of students identified as having disabilities. It's
    about ensuring that students are getting the right services. In
    some cases it's that students, African American students,
    Latino students, particularly African Americans and Latino male
    students are in some places disproportionally assigned to more
    time outside of the regular classroom even for the same
    disability issue that other students aren't assigned out of the
    classroom, where we see students disproportionately suspended
    from school or assigned to an alternative placement.
        We want to see this as an opportunity to get States and
    districts to take a second look at why that is happening, and
    that's the goal of this rule. We think it's an important step.
    We're certainly eager to get public comment on it to ensure
    that the final rule addresses the public comments.
        Senator Casey. We appreciate that, because I know--I say
    this as a former State auditor general, where we would have
    audit findings and make a long series of recommendations, and
    you wonder if the State agency would be responsive. In this
    case, you're taking a GAO report addressing a serious problem
    and actually putting into place rules to improve it and to help
    our kids. We appreciate your work on this. We appreciate the
    Department's work.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        Senator Casey. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Casey.
        Senator Roberts.

                          Statement of Senator Roberts

        Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. King, welcome to the committee, and congratulations on
    your confirmation. It's good to see your family. I just
    happened to notice that your two daughters--I had two daughters
    about that age some years ago, so I want to thank them for
    their patience, No. 1. No. 2, I happened to observe, like my
    daughters, their countenance. I would urge you sir to get up at
    5 in the morning, so you can get home at 6 in the evening. You
    have no idea how many young men are going to be knocking on
    your door.
        [Laughter.]
        I also have a big stick that I can loan you.
        [Laughter.]
        So come to my office on a courtesy call and I'll give you
    that stick.
        Mr. King. Absolutely.
        Senator Roberts. I know that we have differences on Common
    Core. I don't want to get into that, but it is part of existing
    legislation and law, and I want to be absolutely clear. The
    language says, ``No officer or employee of the Federal
    Government, including the Secretary, shall attempt to
    influence, condition, incentivize, or coerce State adoption of
    the Common Core State standards or any other academic standards
    common to a significant number of States, or assessments tied
    to such standards.''
        I know that we, again, may have differences, but
    nevertheless, will you give us your commitment that you will
    respect the intent, as well as the explicit and binding letter
    of that prohibition?
        Mr. King. Absolutely.
        Senator Roberts. Thank you. That's all I need.
        Mr. King. OK.
        Senator Roberts. You were going to come into my office last
    week, and then it didn't work out. Now I want to let you know
    that I held a roundtable discussion in Kansas at Washington
    University, 12 college presidents, 12 colleges and universities
    and 12 business stakeholders to discuss business education and
    workforce development. We heard from the higher education
    leaders about the impact of Federal programs, policies, and
    regulations. And since the Chairman and Senator Whitehouse and
    Senator Enzi and others, and Senator Collins here just a moment
    ago, mentioned regulations, I want to share this handy chart
    from one of the participants, Johnson County Community College,
    that has the most students of any university and/or college in
    the State of Kansas, even KU, Wichita State.
        Thirty-four topic areas of Federal regulation. They have it
    in bubbles here, and I would hope we could burst the bubbles.
    Taxes, academic programs, environment, admissions, auxiliary
    services, financial aid, disabilities, grants, campus safety,
    international programs, insurance, health care, immigration,
    privacy, athletics, contracts, fundraising, employment,
    housing, retirement, intellectual property, sexual misconduct,
    research, accreditation, unions, wages, information technology,
    program integrity--I'm running out of breath--copyright,
    trademarks, contracts and procurement, diversity, accounting,
    ethics and lobby.
        Here's the deal: every one of these regulations have to be
    adhered to, and with the cost/benefit here where the cost is
    exceeding the benefit. And we have an awful lot of people here
    now that are in charge of these regs and trying to fill these
    regs out, and this is not unique just to this community
    college, but it is the same, I suspect, nationwide, and I know
    in Kansas as well.
        My plea to you is that all of these people have jobs to do.
    You can't hire 34 people to do all of this that have expertise
    in this area to keep up with the paperwork and the regs. Just
    like Sheldon Whitehouse said, he said teachers want to be free
    to teach, and they want to be able to teach with regards to the
    time, as opposed to filling out paperwork.
        So my question to you is can you help us and be a partner
    in this effort? All of us have obligations with this--we know
    that--in the education community. But, my goodness, if you
    total all this up and the money spent and the hours spent, like
    the Chairman has indicated, we have to do a better job. I just
    urge you to be a partner in this effort so we can adhere to
    what we want to accomplish. But, quite frankly, I think a lot
    of this could be done on the local level.
        Now you have 32 seconds to respond.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. King. I am committed to working with you on this issue,
    and I'm committed to working with the committee to try to
    identify places where we can make smart improvements to make
    the system more efficient for higher ed institutions. I will
    say we are making some progress on recommendations that higher
    ed institutions have made in the past.
        For example, one recommendation was around prior use of tax
    information from the prior-prior year as part of the FAFSA
    process. That will be implemented starting next fall, on
    October 1. We have also been asked to move FAFSA data. We've
    done that. FAFSA will be available on October 1.
        So we are making some progress and are certainly willing to
    work with you to identify other places.
        Senator Roberts. I appreciate that.
        My time has expired.
        I'm from Dodge City, KS. Senator Collins underscored the
    need to look at rural areas. We think we have some very fine
    higher institutions of learning, and we have some special
    problems there as well. Please get in touch with my office, and
    we'll look forward to a good visit. Thank you.
        Mr. King. Absolutely.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
        Senator Murray has to leave, so I'm going to ask her to
    make her closing comments. Then we'll go to Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Warren I think has additional questions, so you can be
    first in the second round, and then I will close the hearing.
        Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. I just simply wanted to thank Dr. King for
    being here today. This is such an important time for students
    of all ages. And with all the challenges and opportunities, and
    you've heard them across the board here, it's really important
    that we have strong leadership at the Department of Education.
        Mr. Chairman, I'm really confident that Dr. King is a
    strong nominee to transition from Acting Secretary to taking
    the position of Secretary of Education. I look forward to
    supporting him, and I want to submit for the record statements
    from 18 groups in support of his nomination and thank him very
    much for all he is doing.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        [The information referred to can be found in additional
    material.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
        Senator Murkowski.

                         Statement of Senator Murkowski

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. King, welcome. Congratulations on your nomination. I'm
    sorry that our schedules didn't work so that we could visit.
    Hopefully we'll still have that opportunity to do so at some
    point in time.
        Both my colleague from Maine and my colleague from Kansas
    have mentioned the rural component of education, and as you
    know, coming from a State that's one-fifth the size of the
    country with about 732,000 people, we've got a lot of rural, we
    have a lot of spaces, and we have a lot of very small schools.
        I had an opportunity just last week to take five of my
    Senate colleagues to a place in Southwest Alaska, Bethel, a
    large regional community, primarily Alaska Native. But we went
    further beyond Bethel to the community of Oscarville, 80
    people, 17 kids in the school, two teachers, challenges in
    delivering education in a very rural, very remote area where
    broadband is an issue; quite honestly, basic water and
    sanitation is an issue.
        The question to you here this afternoon is actually pretty
    general in terms of how we address those in very rural
    communities, how we ensure that these children--and your words
    are there are children who stand too far behind their peers,
    and these are rural students, and these are Native American
    students. Again, Alaska really fills that bill.
        You've also indicated as one of your priorities to do more
    to ensure a diverse pipeline of future educators. One of the
    things that we're struggling with in Alaska is how we get more
    Alaska Native children to believe that being a teacher can be a
    noble calling for them.
        Can you give me a little assurance about how you view some
    of these challenges in educating our rural children and Native
    American children, Alaska Natives?
        Mr. King. Absolutely. I was State chief in New York, and
    even though when folks hear New York they think of New York
    City, we had 700 districts spread all throughout the State, and
    many of the districts are small rural districts in the North
    Country, up near the Canadian border or out in Western New
    York, and I spent a lot of time on rural issues, could see how
    districts were struggling with declining enrollment, the
    difficulty of providing art, music, AP classes, finding a
    physics teacher, districts that were struggling to try and
    preserve the sense of community around school in the face of
    declining opportunity.
        I think it's very important that we focus on rural
    education. I'm proud that we have a competitive priority in
    many of our grant programs to focus on rural areas. We have
    about 20 percent of our current innovation grants that are
    focused in rural communities, and we're seeing some very good
    results from many of those projects.
        One of the things I worked on in New York was a virtual AP
    initiative to try and ensure that maybe folks couldn't hire an
    AP teacher but they could share one across a set of districts
    in a region and, through blended learning, make those classes
    available to students.
        So we want to make sure that rural educators are very much
    a part of the conversations at the Federal level, at the State
    level, and at the local level in the implementation of the
    Every Student Succeeds Act. We're trying to get resources and
    opportunity. The President's Connect Ed initiative is really
    focused on trying to improve issues of bandwidth in rural
    communities, and we want to continue that work together with
    the FCC.
        On the issue of Native students, I'm very worried about the
    stagnant performance of Native students. If you look at our
    high school graduation rate, which just reached a record high,
    we saw increases for every subgroup except for Native American
    students, which was flat. I think there's more that we can do
    to support Native communities in trying to infuse Native
    language and Native culture into the school programs to raise
    students' aspirations. We have a Native Youth Community
    Projects program. The President has proposed an increase in
    funding for that. We're seeing some promising results from
    those grantees, and I would love to work together with you to
    do more on Native issues.
        Senator Murkowski. I'd like to do that, and I particularly
    appreciate the fact that you've mentioned the Native languages.
    That's something Senator Franken and I have worked on and have
    included within ESSA.
        Very quickly, this relates to data and privacy of data. I
    think we all understand that we want to be making data-informed
    decisions about effectiveness of programs, but many parents are
    coming to me with very sincere concerns about the privacy of
    the data that is collected, especially given the Department's
    inability to maintain the security of the post-secondary
    student aid data bases.
        What's your message to those parents, and the students and
    legislators, that are concerned about the data collection, and
    thus the privacy associated with it?
        Mr. King. Data privacy, data security are top priorities
    for the Department. As I mentioned earlier, we're doing a lot
    of work to strengthen our cyber security posture so that we can
    continue to keep higher education data in particular but all of
    the personally identifiable information that we have at the
    Department safe and secure.
        States need to be focused on the same thing as do
    districts. The President has made proposals around additional
    data security measures we think we can take together, focus on
    ensuring that students are not subjected to marketing through
    the tools that they may be using in school.
        I think as a country we have to continue to work to make
    sure that we protect data privacy, and oftentimes, as you know,
    parents and teachers may be unaware of how much information is
    being collected by an application that they have downloaded. We
    have to make sure that we put in place strong legal
    protections, but also provide good guidance. We have a FIRPA
    office that tries to give good guidance to districts and States
    around issues of data privacy and data security.
        Senator Murkowski. I know that that's something also that I
    would like to work with you on as well. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Warren.
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
    giving me a chance to have a second round of questions here.
        And I appreciate, Dr. King, that you have a lot that you're
    going to deal with at the Department of Education, but I want
    to raise one more issue before we quit for the day, and that is
    another ongoing problem at the Department of Education, the
    students who were cheated by Corinthian College.
        Before Corinthian College collapsed, this for-profit
    college sucked down billions and billions of dollars in Federal
    student loan aid by roping in students with false and
    misleading information, and then saddling them with debt that
    was just going to be impossible to repay. It was outright
    fraud, and in response the Department made a lot of promises to
    Corinthian's victims.
        Last April, the Department promised to give--and I'm
    quoting here--``give Corinthian students the relief they are
    entitled to under Federal law.'' Two months later, the
    Department announced that it would ``find ways to fast-track
    relief based on legal findings for large groups of students,''
    and that there would be ``no need for students to make any
    individual showing that they were affected by the school's
    fraud.''
        The Department also estimated last summer that about 40,000
    former Corinthian students would be eligible for this so-called
    fast-track relief. Now, that's out of hundreds of thousands of
    total Corinthian students that the Department acknowledged
    could be eligible for the relief. It is now 8 months later and
    just 1,300 of those 40,000 fast-track students have received
    relief, and I want to know what the plan is here to actually
    deliver on the promises the Department has made.
        It seems to me, Dr. King, that the Department is moving
    painfully slow, while students who got cheated are struggling
    under debts that they were conned into taking on. Time is
    running out for these students.
        So what I'd like to know is how do you plan to live up to
    the Department's promises and actually ensure that each and
    every student who was defrauded receives debt relief now, not
    years from now but now?
        Mr. King. I appreciate the question. A few things to know.
    The Special Master, Joe Smith, is working diligently with a
    team, and we're adding capacity to that team to try to respond
    to the existing claims.
        Senator Warren. Can I just stop you right there, though,
    Dr. King?
        Mr. King. Yes.
        Senator Warren. Because this is part of what's bothering
    me. I don't understand why this takes long. This isn't hard,
    what we're trying to do here. Students are waiting, their
    credit is getting worse and worse, the interest is accumulating
    on these loans. The process needs to move faster, and I don't
    get why it doesn't move faster. You know they've been
    defrauded.
        Mr. King. Right. We're trying to make it move faster. I can
    say a promising note is that $115 million has gone to students,
    either through borrowed defense or through closed school
    discharge. We're trying to group claims so that we can respond
    to them as quickly as possible. We are in the process of a
    negotiated rulemaking on new borrowed defense rules going
    forward that will make it easier for the Department to
    efficiently group claims.
        Senator Warren. That's going to be 2017.
        Mr. King. So the challenge has been that the legal
    requirement, as you know, is for a demonstration that there was
    a clear violation of State law. We have students who are in a
    variety of States, and so we are working through those.
        On campuses where we have a clear finding, and this has
    been true I believe in the Heald and Everest cases where we
    have a clear finding at the State level of a State law
    violation, we have been able to group claims or are in the
    process of grouping claims. But you're right, we need to make
    the process move faster, and we intend to.
        Senator Warren. I really want to push on this. We
    potentially have hundreds of thousands of students who have
    been cheated here. You promised fast-track to 40,000. That was
    three-quarters of a year ago nearly, two-thirds of a year ago,
    and we've only gotten about 1,300 people through it.
        I want to remind us that Congress gave the Secretary of
    Education broad authority to cancel the loans of students who
    attend colleges that broke the law. So I hope if you are
    confirmed that you will use that authority to ensure that the
    students get every dime of relief that they deserve without
    making them jump through a bunch of unnecessary hoops. They
    have already been hit hard enough, and this is the time for the
    Department of Education to step up and be on their side.
        Mr. King. Yes. I'm committed to try to protect the
    interests of borrowers and also to do what we can through the
    enforcement unit and gainful employment regulations to make
    sure that we do not have a repeat of Corinthian, that we can
    avoid that.
        Senator Warren. And that is powerfully important.
        Thank you, Dr. King. Thank you very much for your
    willingness to serve, and thanks for sitting through two rounds
    of questions on this stuff. These are important issues. Thank
    you.
        Mr. King. Absolutely.
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes, thanks, Senator Warren.
        Dr. King, I have just a few questions, and then we'll wrap
    up the hearing.
        Senator Roberts asked you questions about academic
    standards, and you gave an answer, so I don't think I need to
    ask that. But there's a pattern in this legislation which is
    pretty unusual, and it comes from the fact that those of us who
    voted for it--in the Senate 85 to 15, and in the House, the
    President signed it--it felt like the Department was
    overreaching.
        So there are some literal specific prohibitions in the law
    about what the Secretary should not do to reemphasize our
    determination that this is an important shift of direction,
    which you've acknowledged in your testimony, to try to restore
    more of the responsibility to those closest to the children.
        One of those is on challenging academic standards. I asked
    Dr. Evers, the Superintendent of Instruction for Wisconsin, on
    Tuesday. I said, do you read the new law to say that if
    Wisconsin wants to have Common Core, which it does, I believe,
    that it may? If it does not want to have Common Core, that it
    may not? That if it wants part of Common Core or more than
    Common Core, it can do that? It simply has to have challenging
    academic standards that are related to the entrance
    requirements for the public institutions. That's the way he
    read that.
        Let me ask you about teacher evaluation. Under the waivers
    that the Department granted to 42 States, the Department took
    the position that if you want a waiver from the provisions of
    No Child Left Behind, and if you didn't get a waiver, in effect
    it meant that almost all of your schools were labeled as
    failing. In order to get a waiver the Department said we'd like
    you to do a few other things, sort of a ``Mother May I''
    process I described. One of those was teacher evaluation.
        I'm a big fan of teacher evaluation. In fact, if the
    National Education Association could have had a grade of lower
    than an F, I would have earned it 30 years ago when Tennessee
    became the first State to pay teachers more for teaching well.
    I actually think that finding fair ways to reward outstanding
    teaching is the Holy Grail of public education.
        But when I came to Washington, I did not think that we
    should be telling States how to evaluate teachers. Yet, to get
    a waiver, there were some very specific definitions about what
    a teacher evaluation system should be. In fact, three States--
    Iowa was one, Washington was another, California was another--
    had their waivers either rejected or revoked because the
    Secretary didn't believe their teacher evaluation system met
    his standards.
        Now, the new law allows but does not require States and
    districts to use funds, mostly title II funds, to support
    teacher and principal evaluations based upon multiple measures,
    but it prohibits the Secretary or any other officer of the
    Federal Government from mandating, directing or controlling any
    aspect of a teacher, principal, or other school leader
    evaluation system or specific measure of educator effectiveness
    or quality.
        To simplify it, do you agree that that means that the
    Secretary of Education does not now need to approve the teacher
    evaluation system in a State?
        Mr. King. Yes, and I think the law is clear that teacher
    evaluation systems are to be designed by States and districts.
        The Chairman. Do you agree, however, that finding fair ways
    to evaluate teachers is immensely important to the future of
    our system of public education and that it would be a good idea
    for the Secretary to look for ways to encourage it and honor
    those who do it well and to make States aware that they could
    use the $2.5 billion or so that's in the title II money for
    that purpose, and that we have the teacher incentive fund,
    which has about $230 million in it, to help local school
    districts who wish to find new ways to do that, to do it?
        Mr. King. Absolutely. I think the teacher and school
    incentive fund creates an opportunity for important local
    innovation and evidence gathering around effective models of
    evaluation. I also think the equity plans that States are
    working on to ensure equitable access to effective teaching is
    going to foster a set of innovations and evidence that States
    can share, and we have an opportunity to lift up best practice.
        The Chairman. One of the things we heard most about was
    testing, and when we started out writing the new law, I
    suggested that maybe we get rid of the 17 Federal test
    requirements because we had such a blowback on the testing. But
    the more I listened and the more we heard from teachers and
    principals and States, the more it became clear to us, those of
    us on the committee, that it wasn't the 17 Federal tests that
    were the problem. It was the State tests. In fact, the 17
    Federal tests--which aren't really Federal tests, they're
    required by the Federal Government but they're State-designed
    tests from years 3 through 12; they probably don't take more
    than 2 hours or so per test over a period of time to be done--
    were important, and those tests needed to be given. We need to
    know the results. They need to be disaggregated so people will
    know what was happening.
        So the solution we came to and the problem we found was
    that it was the Federal test-based accountability system, which
    is fancy language for saying because the Federal Government
    decided what to do about the results of the test and attached
    so many consequences to just those tests, that that was
    incentivizing States to give a lot of tests to prepare for
    those 17 federally required tests.
        So the thrust of this legislation is to say keep the tests,
    report it so we know how the children are doing, but restore to
    States and communities and classroom teachers the decisions for
    what to do about the tests. In other words, the States would
    come up with the accountability system.
        There are some requirements about what the accountability
    system should have in it--State tests, graduation rates, a few
    other things--but it also says the Secretary is prohibited from
    prescribing the weight of any measure or indicator used to
    identify or meaningfully differentiate schools in the
    accountability system.
        Do you intend to follow that provision and the intent
    behind it?
        Mr. King. Certainly as we move forward, we intend to follow
    the letter of the law. I think you're right that we have seen
    over the last 10 years, because of the narrow focus of No Child
    Left Behind on test-based accountability, we have seen a
    proliferation of tests in some places, both at the State level
    and at the district level, and I think the new law gives us an
    opportunity for a reset on that, and for State and local
    conversations about right-sizing the amount of assessment.
        The Chairman. And, if I'm not mistaken, you've already
    issued a guidance to suggest to States what might amount to
    over-testing, but it's not a mandate, it's a suggestion. Am I
    correct about that?
        Mr. King. We have given them guidance on how they can use
    Federal funds at the State and district level to review the
    assessments that are given, figure out if some are unnecessary
    or redundant, and also figure out if some are of low quality
    and should be replaced by more performance-based tests.
        The Chairman. But the spirit is here's how you might do
    that, not how you must do that.
        Mr. King. That's right.
        The Chairman. I applaud that, which is why I bring it up,
    because I think that's the spirit of the law as well as the
    letter of the law. The same with identifying and fixing low-
    performing schools. This was important to a lot of people.
    Senator Murphy mentioned that. It was important to the
    President that there be a provision in the bill, and so it's
    there.
        But what's also there is that the Secretary is prohibited
    from telling States how to fix so-called low-performing
    schools. Beforehand, with the waivers, there were six different
    ways to do that, and I remember putting in the legislation a
    few years ago that a seventh way would be that the State could
    come up with its own version of how to fix a low-performing
    school. Next thing I knew, within about a year, the Department
    had issued a regulation defining how a State could do it, which
    was contrary to the purpose.
        But in the same spirit, do you agree that while it's
    important that States identify schools that are in need of
    improvement and that there are a number of steps to take and
    there are a number of things to do, that in the end the
    Secretary is prohibited from prescribing the specific
    methodology used by States to differentiate or identify
    schools, and any specific school improvement strategy that the
    State or local education agencies establish and implement to
    intervene, support, and improve schools and student outcomes?
        Mr. King. Certainly, as we move forward with State
    flexibility around design of their accountability systems and
    design of their interventions, we'll adhere to the letter of
    the law. We think that State and local flexibility is a good
    thing. Again, I do think it's important that there are
    parameters around an equity focus, and where those
    interventions are not helping to close achievement gaps, we all
    have to remain vigilant that States intensify or change those
    interventions to make sure they get to closing achievement gaps
    for better outcomes.
        The Chairman. There will probably be some gray areas as
    they come up, but we had a spirited debate about that, both in
    the committee and on the floor of the Senate. Senator Murphy,
    for example, offered an amendment that would have had more--
    stricter guardrails I think would be one way to say it, more
    Federal supervision of what the States were doing in a variety
    of areas in the accountability system. That amendment lost. It
    only got 43 votes. It didn't pass. Just as I offered an
    amendment to give States the ability to take all the Federal
    money and let it follow the children to the school of their
    choice, called Scholarships for Kids. That got about 43 votes.
    That didn't pass. So I don't expect you to implement a school
    choice or voucher program because it didn't make it into the
    law, and we hope you will respect the consensus we came to.
        Let me move on and conclude with just a couple of questions
    about higher education. This is really an area where I think,
    as we discussed when you and I visited earlier this week, you
    and the Administration have an opportunity. As you know, my
    attitude toward you or any of the other President's Cabinet
    members in our jurisdiction is that once you're confirmed, I
    want to do my best to create an environment in which you can
    succeed, because if you succeed, then our country and our
    children and our schools succeed.
        That also applies to our colleges and universities, and
    this committee has done a lot of important work in two areas.
    One is making it simpler and easier to apply for student aid
    and to pay back student loans. That's one. And another is to
    cut through the jungle of red tape that interferes with the
    way--to Senator Roberts' point, the way schools, the way our
    6,000 colleges and universities are managed.
        We have lots of bipartisan agreement on that, and one area
    is the so-called FAST Act that Senator Bennet and I and Booker
    and King and Isakson and Burr all support. We want to reduce
    the number of questions on the Federal student aid application
    form. The President thinks that's a good idea and has said so.
    Your Department has already begun to identify some questions
    that are superfluous. We, Senator Bennet and I, wanted to take
    the 108 questions that 20 million families fill out down to 2.
    We may not get to 2, but we'd like to get closer to 2 than to
    108. And then you've already taken steps, as you said, to allow
    the commonsense proposal of students who fill out the form to
    use the tax forms they've already filled out rather than the
    ones they haven't filled out, and to do it at an earlier time.
    That's also a bipartisan proposal here.
        We have bipartisan proposals, and the President has talked
    about this, to streamline student loan repayment options. There
    are nine ways to do that now. Many students don't know how
    generous the repayment provisions are, and if we simplify them,
    we think more will take advantage of that.
        We have bipartisan support for a year-round Pell grant,
    even though we have some disagreement over how to pay for it.
    And in addition to that, we have a report which I like to call
    the Mikulski report, but we'll call it the Kerwin-Zeppos report
    that the Chancellor of Maryland and the Chancellor of
    Vanderbilt put together over the last 3 years with a group of
    higher education officials to identify 59 specific burdensome
    regulations or requirements, a couple of which I've already
    mentioned.
        Chancellor Kerwin and Chancellor Zeppos met with Secretary
    Duncan and talked with him about a dozen of those 59 the
    Department itself could do, and you're already taking steps in
    a couple of cases.
        The four Senators I just mentioned are working--we probably
    have 27 more. We may get up to 35 or 36 that we agree on that
    we could pass which would reduce the onerous paperwork that has
    built up over eight reauthorizations of the Higher Education
    Act.
        So my question is, will you work with us over the next 10
    months, if confirmed, to take those specific proposals from the
    Kerwin-Zeppos Higher Education Report, the jungle of red tape
    report, and if you can implement them, try to implement them?
    And will you work with us on the bipartisan legislation I just
    described on student aid simplification for both the
    application and the repayment, to see if the Department itself
    can do some of that; or, if not, to let us know what sort of
    legislation we need to pass this year so students can take
    advantage of that?
        Mr. King. Yes. I'd like to work with you on both things,
    certainly to try and identify places where the Department can
    reduce burdensome regulations that aren't delivering for
    students. We should do that. And certainly I'd love to work
    together on a bipartisan reauthorization of the Higher
    Education Act.
        The one thing I would add to the list that you shared, and
    I know this is a view that we share, in some way to shift the
    incentives in the higher education sector toward a focus on
    completion. I do worry that we know that many of the students
    who are struggling to pay back their debt are students who
    start but don't finish. They have some courses, they don't have
    a degree, they can't get the good job that would come with a
    degree, and therefore they can't pay back their debt. If we
    could get institutions paying more attention to completion, not
    just enrollment, I think that's another opportunity for
    progress on higher education.
        The Chairman. You're exactly right about that. The default
    rates are especially high for students who don't complete their
    degree, so that's an excellent suggestion. I'll be glad to work
    with you on that. There are other good ideas that we have from
    both sides of the aisle to discourage over-borrowing. There are
    some provisions, and this may be an area where you can take
    executive action that's already authorized that seems to limit
    what colleges are able to do to counsel students to say, well,
    if you go into the theater instead of into biomedical
    engineering, you might have a little harder time getting a job
    and paying it back over a period of time.
        And I would just make the observation, I heard Senator
    Warren's comments on the Corinthian tragic situation for those
    students. My general philosophical attitude is a little
    different. If I buy a car that's a lemon, I sue the car
    company, not the bank. I know that the Federal law does have a
    provision about forgiving loans where there's a fraud. It
    hadn't been used much until recently, and I think it needs to
    be used carefully, because we have, from the taxpayers' point
    of view, $35 or so billion of Pell grants every year to low-
    income students that do not have to be paid back. We make $100
    billion of loans every year to students that we expect to be
    paid back, and we have a very generous provision that says for
    many students in public service that you don't have to pay it
    while you're in those jobs, or you don't have to pay more than
    10 or 15 percent of your disposable income, and if it's not all
    paid back after 20 years it's forgiven.
        I would counsel you to follow the law carefully on those
    claims of fraud that require forgiveness, and I'd like to
    continue discussion with you about any expansion of that
    authority when the time comes.
        Dr. King, those are all the questions I have. There may be
    some questions that members of the committee submit to you. I
    would encourage you to answer them as promptly as you can.
        The hearing record will remain open until March the 1st.
    Members may submit additional information for the record within
    that time if they would like.
        Thanks to everyone, especially Dr. King's family and him,
    for being here today.
        The next meeting of the committee will occur at 10 a.m. on
    Wednesday, March the 9th, to consider the second in a markup of
    bipartisan innovation legislation--that's biomedical innovation
    legislation--and to consider the markup of Dr. King's
    nomination to be the United States Secretary of Education.
        The committee will stand adjourned.
        [Additional material follows.]

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

                     Letter Submitted by Senator Alexander
                                             February 10, 2016.

    John B. King, Jr., Acting Secretary,
    U.S. Department of Education,
    400 Maryland Avenue,
    Washington, DC 20202.

        Dear Acting Secretary King: On behalf of States, school districts,
    educators and parents, we write to express our strong, shared
    commitment to making the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) a law that
    puts students first. We invite you to work with us to ensure that
    communities determine the best methods of educating our Nation's
    children.
        Although our organizations do not always agree, we are unified in
    our belief that ESSA is a historic opportunity to make a world-class
    21st century education system. We are dedicated to working together at
    the national level to facilitate partnership among our members in
    States and districts to guarantee the success of this new law.
        ESSA replaces a top-down accountability and testing regime with an
    inclusive system based on collaborative State and local innovation. For
    this vision to become a reality, we must work together to closely honor
    congressional intent. ESSA is clear: Education decisionmaking now rests
    with States and districts, and the Federal role is to support and
    inform those decisions.
        In the coming months, our coalition--the State and Local ESSA
    Implementation Network--will:

         Work together to ensure a timely, fair transition to ESSA;
         Coordinate ESSA implementation by Governors, State
    superintendents, school boards, State legislators, local
    superintendents, educators and parents;
         Promote State, local and school decisionmaking during
    implementation; and
         Collaborate with a broader group of education stakeholders
    to provide guidance to the Federal Government on key implementation
    issues.

        In ESSA, Congress recognizes States and schools as well-suited to
    provide a high-quality education to every child, regardless of their
    background. We have long prioritized lifting up those students who need
    help the most and our members stand ready to continue this work.
        Our organizations look forward to a cooperative, collaborative and
    productive relationship with you and your staff throughout the
    implementation process.
                Sincerely,

        Scott D. Pattison, Executive Director/CEO National Governors
    Association; William T. Pound, Executive Director, National Conference
    of State Legislatures; Kristen J. Amundson, Executive Director,
    National Association of State Boards of Education; Daniel A. Domenech,
    Executive Director AASA: The School Superintendents Association; JoAnn
    D. Bartoletti, Executive Director, National Association of Secondary
    School Principals; Lily Eskelsen Garcia, President, National Education
    Association; Thomas J. Gentzel, Executive Director, National School
    Boards Association; Gail Connelly, Executive Director National
    Association of Elementary School Principals; Randi Weingarten,
    President, American Federation of Teachers; Laura M. Bay, President,
    National PTA.
                                     ______

                  Title IX Letters Submitted by Senator Murray
                            Faculty Against Rape (FAR),
                                             February 25, 2016.

    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    455 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: We write to
    commend the DOE and OCR for their unflagging commitment to addressing
    the problem of sexual violence on campuses, and to urge the HELP
    committee not to turn the clock back by challenging the Assistant
    Secretary's right to issue much-needed clarification and guidance--
    guidance created in consultation with legal scholars and experts.
        As members of Faculty Against Rape (FAR), a group of more than 300
    faculty and civil rights activists from across the United States, we
    want to share some of what we have learned in our efforts to make
    college campuses a safe place for all. We started FAR in the summer of
    2014 as an ad-hoc volunteer collective whose mission is to get more
    faculty involved in preventing sexual assault and sexual harassment and
    improving response on campus. FAR is also committed to protecting
    faculty who experience retaliation for doing so. Over the past 2 years,
    FAR has provided resources for faculty to learn how to best support
    survivors, tools forzculty who want to get more involved in reform
    efforts, and support for faculty who face retaliation. We have also
    developed curriculum and facilitated workshops for faculty around the
    country on integrating information about campus sexual assault into the
    curriculum, both as syllabi clauses and as key themes. Collectively,
    our members have supported literally hundreds of survivors at campuses
    across the country. Many of them have endured significant retaliation
    from university administrations who want to protect the university
    brand, even at the cost of the safety and well-being of students.
        Our experience has afforded us a unique perspective on key issues
    in understanding the efficacy of the DOE's response to the problem.
    Here are two points we believe the HELP Committee should be aware of:

        1. Higher education is at a watershed moment in understanding the
    problem of faculty sexual predators:

        The problem of serial sexual predators who move from campus to
    campus--of ``open secrets,'' or known problems within a specific
    discipline--has become an issue of increasing concern. Over the past 2-
    3 years, there have been national news exposes about faculty sexual
    predators at Yale University,\1\ the University of Miami,\2\
    Northwestern University,\3\ Berkeley,\4\ UCLA,\5\ Arizona State
    University,\6\ Southern Connecticut State University,\7\ Vanderbilt,\8\
    Columbia University,\9\ and Montana State University,\10\ to name just
    a few.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Cf. Tamar Lewin, ``Seven Allege Harassment by Yale Doctor at
    Clinic,'' New York Times, April 13, 2015; Nick DeSantis, ``Campaign
    Raises Money to Aid Lawsuit Accusing Yale Philosopher of Sexual
    Assault,'' The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 13, 2014.
        \2\ Cf. Tyler Kingkade, ``University Of Miami Sued Over Handling Of
    Colin McGinn Harassment Claims,'' Huffington Post, October 16, 2015.
        \3\ Cf. Rebecca Schuman, ``Title Nein: Northwestern University
    found that a star professor violated the sexual harassment code in his
    treatment of a student. Why is he still teaching?,'' Slate, February
    24, 2014.
        \4\ Cf. Azeen Ghorayshi, ``Famous Berkeley Astronomer Violated
    Sexual Harassment Policies Over Many Years,'' BuzzFeed, October 9,
    2015.
        \5\ Cf. Carla Rivera, ``UCLA Graduate Students' Lawsuit Alleges
    Sexual Harassment,'' Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2015.
        \6\ Cf. Nicholas Palomino Mendoza, ``Students Seek Clarity, Closure
    in Student-Professor Relationship Investigations,'' The State Press,
    May 7, 2014.
        \7\ Cf. Jim Shelton, ``SCSU Protest Centers on Sexual Misconduct
    Claim,'' New Haven Register, September 13, 2013.
        \8\ Cf. Peter Jacobs, ``Former Vanderbilt Grad Student Files $20
    Million Lawsuit Claiming Sexual Harassment by Professor,'' Business
    Insider, July 17, 2014.
        \9\ Cf. Barbara Ross, ``Former Students Sue Columbia University,
    Accuse Professors in Sexual Harassment Suit,'' New York Daily News,
    January 23, 2013.
        \10\ Cf. Gail Schontzler, ``MSU Investigation Finds Professor
    Sexually Harassed Student,'' Bozeman Daily Chronicle, September 3,
    2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although some of these faculty have been sanctioned by the
    university or disciplines they work in, it is often impossible to know
    whether a professor has harassed or assaulted students at other
    universities due to non-disclosure agreements and/or labor laws.
        In other words, in order to deal with the problem of faculty sexual
    predators, universities need external help. We are dealing with a
    problem that is likely to be as widespread as the problem of sexual
    abuse in the Catholic Church. In philosophy alone, for example, there
    have been three significant cases of faculty sexual misconduct reported
    in the media over the past 4 years, and some activists in philosophy
    report that they are aware of as many as 30-40 similar ``open
    secrets,'' that is, faculty who are serial predators.
        It is not only appropriate--but in fact necessary--for the
    Department of Education to be actively involved in regulating the
    response to the problem because: (1) faculty predators can move easily
    across State and national lines, from institution to institution, and
    (2) unlike the Catholic Church, institutions of higher education have
    no governing body, no way of ensuring that a serial predator does not
    simply accept a proverbial ``golden parachute'' or voluntary severance
    agreement with a confidentiality clause that enables a problem-free
    transition to another university.
        For each serial predator, there are multiple--even dozens, in some
    cases--scientists, writers, thinkers who have left the field that they
    love, whose talents have been lost, because of the discrimination they
    have been subject to. Clearly, if our goal as a nation is to provide
    equal access to educational opportunities, to tap the talent of the
    widest and most diverse pool possible, to avoid the brain drain that is
    caused by widespread sexual misconduct in academia, we need to talk
    about the problem--to break the unwritten code of silence implied by
    the norms of collegiality. Higher education needs the Department of
    Education to continue to actively provide guidance, clarification, and
    support. We are a close-knit family, and cannot cleanup our own
    problems without external support.
        To put it even more succinctly and explicitly: with new stories
    about faculty sexual misconduct breaking every month, this is a
    watershed moment. Higher education is on the brink of a crisis similar
    to the sex abuse scandals that rocked the Catholic Church, and the OCR
    and DOE are the only agencies empowered to provide the guidance needed
    to chart a path through the storm. We respectfully urge the HELP
    committee not to undermine Federal oversight at precisely the point at
    which it is most needed.

        2. The Dear Colleague Letters serve as much-needed non-legal
    guidance documents:

        In the past 3 years, faculty who have served as advocates for
    survivors on campus have been subjected to both overt and covert forms
    of retaliation; some were denied tenure, others were prevented from
    teaching courses on these issue, and a few faculty members were pushed
    out through legal agreements. Those who remain involved have
    experienced marginalization. The message of college administrators has
    been clear: faculty have been discouraged from playing an active role
    in addressing the problem. Evidence of retaliation against faculty who
    have demanded accountability has had a chilling effect on junior
    faculty as well as students.
        The 2013 Dear Colleague Letter, which reminds universities of the
    fact that retaliation for engaging in an action protected under title
    IX is itself a violation of title IX, has been an absolutely essential
    tool for faculty, students, and activists on both sides of the debate
    to use as a means of securing the right to free speech.
        The same is true of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, which provided
    important guidance in understanding what constitutes sexual harassment.
    Although the material provided in the guidance was in theory available
    in the 1997 and 2001 document, which included citations to relevant
    case law discussing the types of conduct that might constitute sexual
    harassment, the reality was that the information was more or less
    inaccessible. Similarly, although the preponderance of evidence
    standard described in the 2011 DCL was being used by an estimated 80
    percent of institutions \11\ prior to 2011, and is the standard used
    for all other civil rights laws, there was confusion regarding the
    appropriate standard due to the fact that certain types of sexual
    violence are also not just civil rights violations, but also criminal
    acts. (To arbitrarily require that complainants in title IX cases
    adhere to a higher standard of proof than is required for other civil
    rights laws would be to discriminate against the title IX complainants,
    most of whom are female.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ See, for example, http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/
    8d799cc3bcca596e58e0c2998e6b2ce4.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In other words, the Dear Colleague Letters have been an important
    tool in helping clarify the requirements--and limits--of title IX as it
    was already being interpreted in both case law and practice. They were
    issued at critical junctures, in response to the surge of interest and
    attention to campus sexual assault, and in response to confusion about
    specific and well-established aspects of the law that were buried in
    relatively inaccessible documents. Given current confusion regarding
    issues such as the acceptable range of sanctions for perpetrators, the
    permissibility of sharing information about perpetrators who move from
    campus to campus, and the question of whether faculty accused of sexual
    misconduct should be permitted to continue teaching, it is reasonable
    to think that additional guidance will be warranted in the near future.
        As faculty who have worked tirelessly supporting hundreds of
    student survivors across the country, we have seen firsthand, time and
    again, that the problem of sexual misconduct on college campuses is
    real and serious; and the on-campus systems meant to address it are, by
    in large, broken. In virtue of this experience, we believe the OCR's
    continued ability to offer much needed clarification and guidance is
    not only welcome, but crucial to achieving gender equity in educational
    institutions.
                Sincerely,
                                    Faculty Against Rape (FAR).
                                     ______

                                             February 25, 2016.

    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    455 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: As of today,
    title IX complaints that we filed with the Department of Education's
    Office for Civil Rights against the University of Notre Dame, have been
    under open investigation for 898 days. The reasons that prompted our
    filing complaints necessitated our leaving the university.
        Because we are graduate students, though we transferred mid-stream,
    we still left with degrees--just not the ones we came for. We sometimes
    wonder if there will ever come a day when we can remember our status as
    alumnae with pride rather than nausea. For now, we would like to put
    our time at Notre Dame behind us and focus on finishing our Ph.D.'s,
    but that's easier said than done, especially when one feels justice has
    been at best (and hopefully) delayed, at worst, entirely evaded.
        We say this not to impugn the OCR's handling of our complaints. We
    will wait as long as it takes for the right result, we would rather
    their investigation be thorough than cursory, and we believe they've
    done an admirable job operating with what little resources they have.
    We say it instead to underscore the absurdity of the increasingly
    popular narrative that the OCR is zealously holding institutions
    hostage to guidance of questionable legal status under threat of
    revoking Federal funds.
        Developing a full picture of the realities of title IX enforcement
    would require listening to those who have filed complaints, not merely
    those who have been subject to investigation, nor outside groups with
    political interests at stake. When we filed our complaints, Notre Dame
    was already under a resolution agreement with the OCR--a resolution
    agreement that has been in place since the conclusion of an
    institutional review prompted by the suicide of Lizzy Seeberg; a
    resolution agreement that we are alleging Notre Dame violated,
    repeatedly.
        We don't yet know what the outcome of our complaints will be, but
    we do know that even if the OCR determines our allegations are
    substantiated by the evidence, there is no sanction at their disposal
    that would be a genuinely appropriate consequence given the totality of
    the circumstances. There is no undoing the years we spent anguished yet
    determined. There is no rewinding the years lost toward the completion
    of our educations. There is no giving back now, after 898-plus days of
    waiting, what we were promised when we accepted Notre Dame's offers of
    admission. There is only the best we can hope for: another resolution
    agreement, some measure of validation, some measure of closure, and
    hope that the trouble of dealing with the outcome of this investigation
    would deter them from simply violating the next in turn. Since a group
    of current Notre Dame students have reached out to one of us just this
    academic year for advice because their own experiences have mirrored
    ours, we strongly suspect that hope would be naive.
        That title IX is being used as a weapon by student activists and
    that the OCR is overreaching in its enforcement of the law makes for an
    effective framing for incomplete or misleading stories to go viral, but
    it simply doesn't cohere with reality. What students need are strong
    policies and procedures in place so that their concerns about
    discrimination can be brought forward safely, heard equitably, and
    adjudicated fairly in accordance with standards applicable to other
    civil rights claims--not only in theory, but also in fact. What the
    Department of Education needs is more resources rather than less if we
    are to have any hope of realizing gender equity in education in the
    United States--we are, quite simply, not there yet.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Jane Doe, One.
                                                 Jane Doe, Two.
                                     ______

                                          Know Your IX,
                                             February 25, 2016.

    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    455 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: For too long,
    gender-based violence in our Nation's schools has been swept under the
    rug, impeding victims' access to their civil right to education under
    title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments.\1\ As young people whose
    educations have been imperiled by gender violence in school, we know
    firsthand that the clarifying guidance issued by the Department of
    Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has proved pivotal in
    protecting student survivors' access to educational opportunities.
    Before OCR issued its 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, schools routinely
    allowed hostile environments to persist on campus, instituted
    disciplinary processes that were neither equitable nor fair, and denied
    survivors the resources they needed to continue their educations. We
    write to commend OCR for its steadfast commitment to addressing the
    issue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-
    318  901(a), 86 Stat. 235, 373 (codified at 20 U.S.C.  1681(a)
    (2012)).

        I. Gender-based harassment and violence is pervasive in elementary,
    secondary, and post-secondary schools across the country, jeopardizing
    students' ability to access education.
        One in five women, as well as many men and gender nonconforming
    students, will experience sexual violence during their time in
    college.\2\ This violence often limits, or outright precludes, victims'
    ability to learn: Many survivors go to great lengths to avoid their
    perpetrators on campus, skipping shared classes,\3\ avoiding shared
    spaces, or hiding in their dormitory rooms. Others struggle with post-
    traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, eating disorders,
    anxiety, flashbacks, and nightmares,\4\ even attempting suicide or
    engaging in self-harm.\5\ Without support and accommodation, formerly
    successful students watch their grades drop as they struggle to
    participate in, or even attend, their classes.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See David Cantor, et al., Report On The AAU Campus Climate
    Survey On Sexual Assault And Sexual Misconduct, Westat 13-14 (2015),
    http://ow.ly/XOLl5; see generally B.S. Fisher, L.E. Daigle, & F.T.
    Cullen, Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College
    Women (2010); Christopher P. Krebs et al., The Campus Sexual Assault
    (CSA) Study, NAT'L INST. JUST. 5-3 (2007), https://www.ncjrs.gov/
    pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf; [https://perma.cc/W6MP-X7VE].
        \3\ See Rebecca Marie Loya, Economic Consequences of Sexual
    Violence for Survivors: Implications for Social Policy and Social
    Change 96 (June 2012) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis
    University) (on file with Know Your IX) (``Probably like 95 percent of
    the time, students will skip class for one reason or another. And, I
    mean, the reasons are because the perp's in the class, because the
    perp's friends are in the class, because, sometimes schoolwork just
    gets to be too much, again in the aftermath of the assault. Sometimes,
    they've come out to the professor as a survivor, and the professor
    hasn't . . . been particularly supportive, so they won't go back to the
    class. Sometimes it's because they know that on their way to the class,
    they'll see the perp because of their schedules or whatever. Sometimes
    they might be in different majors with different course studies, but
    they'll have like a 101 class together, so that something will
    intersect, so they'll stop going to the 101 class. So they won't stop
    their studies on their own plane, but they'll stop the ones that
    intersect with the perp.'' (quoting a legal services provider)).
        \4\ Id. at 25-28.
        \5\ See Nat'l Ctr. For Injury Prevention & Control, Ctrs. for
    Disease Control & Prevention, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual
    Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report 1 (2011), http://www.cdc.gov/
    violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf [http://perma.
    cc/FM4N-UPZW]; see also Loya, supra note 3, at 25-28.
        \6\ See Loya, supra note 3, at 94; Cari Simon, On Top of Everything
    Else, Sexual Assault Hurts the Survivors' Grades, Wash. Post: Post
    Everything, (Aug. 6, 2014), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
    posteverything/wp/2014/08/06/after-a-sexual-assault-survivors-gpas-
    plummet-this-is-a-bigger-problem-than-you-think [https://perma.cc/2VXN-
    BE75].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Courts have long recognized that sexual violence threatens
    students' ability to learn and that, under title IX, schools receiving
    Federal funding must take action to address violence and remedy its
    effects.\7\ Unfortunately, as students have made clear time and time
    again, too few schools live up to their legal (and moral) obligations
    to do so.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist. 524 U.S. 274, 292 (1998)
    (tasking the Department of Education with ``administering and enforcing
    Title IX, see 20 U.S.C.  1682'').
        \8\ See U.S. Department of Education Releases List of Higher
    Education Institutions with Open Title IX Sexual Violence
    Investigations, U.S. Dep't Educ., (May 1, 2014), http://perma.cc/LH9D-
    Q8FA; see also Tyler Kingkade, Harvard Forced Sexual Assault Victim to
    Live By Abuser, Lawsuit Claims, Huffington Post (Feb. 17, 2016), http:/
    /huff.to/1oqH9is; W. Bogdanich, A Star Player Accused, and a Flawed
    Rape Investigation, N.Y. Times (Apr. 16, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/
    interactive/2014/04/16/sports/errors-in-inquiry-on-rape-allegations-
    against-fsu-jameis-winston.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As current college students and recent graduates, we have witnessed
    our peers suffer gender violence, only then to be discouraged by campus
    administrators from reporting, denied counseling and academic
    accommodations, and pressured to take time off--or withdraw--from
    school. As a result, victims and their families have incurred steep
    financial costs, some suffering hundreds of thousands of dollars in
    lost tuition, lost scholarships, counseling and medical expenses, or
    accumulated student debt. As one survivor reports:

        I took a year off from classes following the assault and the title
    IX investigation at the school. . . . I was not reimbursed for any
    costs, although we did request partial reimbursement for tuition and
    housing costs. . . . I lost a scholarship when I transferred schools,
    and had to take an entire extra semester of courses at my new
    institution. . . . It has easily cost me and my family an additional
    $100,000 at least.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See Dana Bolger, 125 Yale L.J. Gender Violence Costs: Schools'
    Financial Obligations Under Title IX (forthcoming May 2016) (on file
    with Know Your IX).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Still other survivors--particularly those who lack the resources to
    obtain mental health services or to transfer schools--report
    withdrawing from their classes or universities as a result.\10\ Others
    remain in school, earning poorer grades, and in some cases, facing
    consequent academic probation, suspension, or expulsion. When students
    are forced to drop out of school in the wake of gender violence and
    institutional neglect, they report suffering long-term penalties to
    their earning potential well into the future.\11\ One survivor reports
    that they dropped out of college and, nearly 3 years later, have yet to
    return. They describe the impact:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Id.
        \11\ According to the U.S. Census Bureau, students who leave
    college before graduation can lose up to 30 percent of their future
    earnings as year-round, full-time workers. See generally J.C. Day &
    E.C. Newburger, The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic
    Estimates of Work-Life Earnings, U.S. Census Bureau (2002).

              I lost 2 years of income that I would've been in the job
            market. I was planning to work in politics, earning $30-40,000
            per year before going to get my Ph.D. . . . I have been
            chronically homeless and housing unstable for 2 years now.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ See Bolger, supra note 9.

        A crushing debt burden, coupled with lost earning potential, can
    make it impossible for survivors who leave school to return.
        This intolerable status quo--in which victims of gender violence
    are still unable to access their right to education--demands a strong
    Federal response, one that the Education Department--after decades of
    administrative under-enforcement--has only just begun to take on.

        II. Thanks to the important work of the Office for Civil Rights,
    schools are finally beginning to take seriously their responsibilities
    to students.

        Courts have long affirmed the Department's authority--and
    responsibility--to issue and enforce requirements that effectuate title
    IX's nondiscrimination mandate.\13\ In accordance with this authority,
    the Department published guidance in 1997 and 2001 that underwent
    notice-and-comment. These guidance documents explained that a school is
    liable under title IX if it fails to take ``immediate and appropriate
    corrective action'' for sexually harassing conduct about which it knows
    or should have known and which is ``sufficiently severe, persistent, or
    pervasive to limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit
    from an education program or activity.'' \14\ OCR named several kinds
    of corrective action schools might employ in order to satisfy their
    legal obligations under the statute: place the victim and accused
    student in separate classes, alter housing arrangements, provide
    tutoring, offer reimbursement for counseling, or make tuition
    adjustments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist. 524 U.S. 274, 292
    (1998) (tasking the Department of Education with ``administering and
    enforcing Title IX, see 20 U.S.C.  1682'').
        \14\ Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School
    Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties, 62 Fed. Reg. 12,034,
    12,038-39 (Mar. 13, 1997), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1997-03-13/
    pdf/97-6373.pdf [http://perma.cc/DP2Z-CC43].
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the last 5 years, OCR has helpfully continued its efforts to
    advise schools and students alike of institutions' specific
    responsibilities under title IX to eliminate a hostile environment,
    prevent its recurrence, and remedy its effects. The 2011 Dear Colleague
    Letter, as well as the 2014 ``Questions and Answers,'' echoed OCR's
    earlier guidance,\15\ providing clarification to students on just what
    kinds of services and accommodations they might access in the wake of
    violence, and to schools on the kinds of circumstances in which they
    should take action to remedy violence's impacts. This collection of
    guidance documents, coupled with student activism, has proven widely
    transformative in allowing survivors en masse to learn their rights and
    begin, at long last, to enjoy the educational benefits of the law's
    enforcement. The guidance has similarly provided helpful clarity to
    schools on OCR's construction of the law that it administers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ As the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed in March 2015, under
    the Administrative Procedure Act agencies may issue such guidance
    without notice-and-comment procedures--and frequently do. See generally
    Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. (2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Indeed, in accordance with its duty to administer and enforce the
    law, OCR has opened an unprecedented number of investigations into
    institutions of higher education that have denied students the
    accommodations they need, such as academic accommodations and mental
    health services. OCR has also investigated institutions that have
    placed uniquely onerous and inequitable challenges, like higher
    evidentiary burdens, in the way of rape victims who pursue disciplinary
    charges against their assailants (to which victims of other student
    conduct code violations, like theft and non-sexual physical assault,
    are not subject).\16\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Michelle J. Anderson, The Legacy of the Prompt Complaint
    Requirement, Corroboration Requirement, and Cautionary Instructions on
    Campus Sexual Assault, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 945 (2004).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Displeased with the results of OCR's recent enforcement efforts,
    some have called into question OCR's authority to issue clarifying
    guidance or interpretive rules like those contained in the 2011 Dear
    Colleague Letter. But the law is clear: Just last year in Perez v.
    Mortgage Bankers Association, the Supreme Court confirmed that
    interpretive rules--``issued by an agency to advise the public of the
    agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers''
    \17\--do not require notice and comment.\18\ These are precisely the
    sort of interpretative rules OCR has set out in its recent guidance.
    Further, given that other agencies have issued interpretive rules and
    other guidance of this sort \19\ with relatively little objection, it
    is striking that critics have specially singled out OCR's action on
    this particular issue for searching scrutiny.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995).
        \18\ See generally Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. (2015)
    (``Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment
    procedures to issue an initial interpretive rule, it is also not
    required to use those procedures to amend or repeal that rule''); see
    also Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995).
        \19\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-13-21, Federal
    Rulemaking: Agencies Could Take Additional Steps to Respond to Public
    Comments 8 (2012), http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651052.pdf (``Agencies
    did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)[ . . . ] for
    about 35 percent of major rules and about 44 percent of nonmajor rules
    published during 2003 through 2010.'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        Over four decades since the passage of title IX--during which time
    inequality in education has remained firmly entrenched--we are finally
    beginning to see promising steps toward change. The Education
    Department has courageously led the charge, providing clarity and
    transparency to its construction of the law it is tasked with
    enforcing. It would be deeply inadvisable to condemn the Department's
    work to clarify the law, when schools have abdicated their
    responsibility to ensure educational equity for so long, with such
    devastating consequences for student survivors.
        In sum, without the Federal Government's engaged administration and
    enforcement of title IX, gender violence will, without a doubt,
    continue to cost students their educations and their futures.
        If you have any questions, please contact Dana Bolger, Executive
    Director of Know Your IX, at dana@knowyourIX.org.
                Sincerely,

        Better Sex Talk; Brandeis Students Against Sexual Violence; Bruin
    Consent Coalition, formerly known as ``7000 in Solidarity: A Campaign
    Against Sexual Assault''; Coalition Against Sexual Violence (Columbia
    University); Columbia Law Women's Association; The Feminist Society at
    NYU; Georgetown Take Back the Night; Harvard Law School HALT; Iowa
    Student Power Network; Know Your IX; NYU Law Women; Our Harvard Can Do
    Better; #PaceUEndRape; Rebels Against Sexual Assault (University of
    Mississippi); Sexual Assault Network for Grads; Stand Up! (Brown
    University); Student Association for Gender Equality (Morehead State
    University); Student Government of Iowa State University; Students for
    Sexual Respect at NYU; Title IX at Northwestern; United States Student
    Association; Women for Change (University of Hartford); Womyn's
    Awareness Center (Gustavus Adolphus College); Yale Journal of Law &
    Feminism; Yale Law Students for Reproductive Justice; The 2015-2016
    Board of Yale Law Women; The York College Women's Center.
                                     ______

                                             February 25, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    455 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: I write in my
    individual capacity as a legal scholar and academic to support the U.S.
    Department of Education Office for Civil Rights' enforcement of Title
    IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 in cases involving sexual
    harassment, sexual violence, and bullying. As a law professor and 15-
    year university administrator, I have published, to date, 10 academic
    articles, essays, or book chapters on sexual harassment, sexual
    violence, and bullying in education, especially on college campuses,
    including five in peer-reviewed journals or edited volumes. I have also
    written an amicus brief at the request of a university and State
    attorney general's office in a State supreme court case involving
    sexual violence, served as a Negotiator on the Violence Against Women
    Act (VAWA) Negotiated Rulemaking that amended the Department of
    Education's regulations under the Clery Act, and consulted with the
    White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. My law
    school courses have included legislative and administrative law and a
    course that I am presently teaching entitled ``Sexual Violence & the
    Law.'' My most recent publication on this topic is an essay just
    published in the Yale Law Journal Forum (http://www.yalelaw
    journal.org/forum/for-the-title-ix-civil-rights-movement-
    congratulations-and-cautions).
        Because I have, to my knowledge, conducted a significant majority
    of the published legal research and scholarship on title IX and gender-
    based violence on college campuses, I can specifically confirm the
    accuracy and quality the February 17, 2016 letter sent by Assistant
    Secretary for Civil Rights, Catherine Lhamon, to Senator Lankford (made
    available by The Chronicle of Higher Education at http://chronicle.com/
    items/biz/pdf/DEPT.%20of%20EDUCATION%20RESPONSE%20TO
    %20LANKFORD%20LETTER%202-17-16.pdf). This excellent letter gives a
    clear, research- and precedent-based explanation of the authority of
    Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to issue guidance in the form of Dear
    Colleague Letters and similar guidance documents, one that requires no
    repeat or additional elucidation.
        However, I do want to amplify one part of Asst. Secretary Lhamon's
    letter based not only on black-letter law but also on the realities for
    practitioners and administrators on the ground in our Nation's
    educational institutions. The Asst. Secretary explains that her
    office's guidance documents are designed to ``advise the public of
    [OCR's] construction of the statutes and regulations it administers and
    enforces,'' rather than ``requiring recipients and members of the
    public to discern for themselves solely from the text of the
    regulations what title IX requires as applied to particular facts and
    what actions would result in OCR initiating proceedings to terminate
    Federal financial assistance . . .'' As a professional who has spent
    nearly 20 years as an administrator or in full-time teaching positions
    at four different universities and a major higher education
    professional association, I can say that this guidance is both deeply
    needed and deeply appreciated by those trying to end the epidemic of
    sexual harassment and gender-based violence occurring on our campuses.
        I do not draw this sense of necessity or appreciation for OCR's
    guidance only from my own experience. In addition to the inevitably
    large professional network that one builds during a 20-year career, I
    served in 2014-15 as Associate Vice President for Equity, Inclusion &
    Violence Prevention for NASPA, the Nation's largest association of
    student affairs professionals. With 15,000 members ranging from Vice
    Presidents of Student Affairs to Residence Hall directors, the vast
    majority of NASPA members are likely to be first responders in cases
    involving sexual or other forms of gender-based violence, even graduate
    and undergraduate student members, who are often in live-in, 24-hour
    on-call positions like Resident Assistantships. NASPA hired me in large
    part because it had heard quite clearly from members that they needed a
    lot more training and education to meet their title IX responsibilities
    to protect their students' rights to equal educational opportunity.
    Because the association understood how acute members' needs and desires
    to improve their abilities to respond to this discriminatory violence
    were, NASPA approached me to come on board as its subject matter expert
    on title IX and other such civil rights protections. After I moved on
    to the faculty post I now hold, NASPA made my position permanent and
    hired Jill Dunlap, who also served in 2014 as a Negotiator on the VAWA
    Negotiated Rulemaking.
        In the less than a year that I served as Associate Vice President
    at NASPA, I was constantly reminded of how hungry NASPA members were
    for guidance on how to improve their understanding and skills for
    meeting both their moral and legal obligations regarding this violence.
    I produced a practice brief that was so in demand that members
    exhausted the many boxes of printed copies in less than 24 hours at the
    NASPA annual conference. I was asked to develop a webinar series and to
    keynote, moderate or otherwise lead well-attended presentations on
    campus gender-based violence at numerous NASPA conferences, including
    five major programs to packed audiences in only 3 days at the annual
    conference. During this time, NASPA also worked with a coalition of 18
    other higher education professional associations and victim services
    and advocacy organizations to produce an open letter regarding pending
    State bills on campus sexual violence (http://www.naspa.org/images/
    uploads/main/Joint_omnibus_bill_statement_
    letterhead.pdf). That coalition represented tens of thousands of campus
    professionals, including in student affairs, student conduct, and
    campus police, all working together, with victim services
    organizations, to oppose State legislative interference with title IX's
    mandates.
        While at NASPA, I was in no way surprised by this frenetic activity
    or the acute needs for title IX guidance that it indicated existed
    among higher education professionals. Indeed, prior to joining the
    association's staff, I had seen for several years the numbers of
    questions and requests for guidance coming from administrators and some
    faculty regarding how to improve their response and prevention efforts
    around title IX. Indeed, when OCR released its guidance document
    addressing frequently asked questions around title IX and sexual
    violence (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-
    title-ix.pdf), it was nearly three times the length of the 2011 Dear
    Colleague Letter, showing how much guidance the higher education
    community asked for--even demanded--from OCR.
        In light of these constant requests and sincere needs for guidance,
    OCR should in fact be commended for being so responsive to higher
    education institutions and the professionals who are primarily
    responsible for ensuring that their institutions comply with title IX.
    While not all in the higher education community will agree with the way
    OCR engages in enforcement, whether one agrees with the content of the
    guidance is separate both from OCR's power to engage in enforcement and
    its power to publish guidance that explains how OCR enforces title IX
    so that colleges and universities can plan ahead and avoid being
    investigated in the first place. Asst. Secretary Lhamon's letter
    clearly and abundantly establishes both of these powers.
        In addition, however, Asst. Secretary Lhamon's letter also clearly
    points out the solid legal basis, in notice and comment-based guidance
    documents, for specific points in OCR's 2010 Dear Colleague Letter.
    Similarly, Asst. Secretary Lhamon restates the strong legal
    justification for insisting that schools use a preponderance of the
    evidence to investigate and resolve cases involving civil rights
    violations, including cases involving sexual or similar forms of
    gender-based violence. I have provided several additional reasons for
    why the preponderance standard is the only standard acceptable for such
    cases, as with all cases governed by civil rights laws and standards,
    in the Yale Law Journal Forum essay mentioned earlier in this letter.
        On these points regarding the content of OCR's guidance, it is also
    important to note that, as Asst. Secretary Lhamon makes clear, the
    guidance is descriptive of what OCR is likely to actually do when
    exercising its enforcement power and investigating a complaint. In this
    respect, and like with OCR's many helpful responses to the higher
    education community's requests for guidance on how to handle sexual
    violence or other severe forms of sexual harassment, OCR's guidance has
    done the higher education community a favor, and a favor that has a
    high likelihood of saving educational institutions a lot of money. That
    is, if an institution follows OCR's guidance, it is much more likely to
    avoid what is potentially very expensive liability. My research shows
    consistently that violating a student's title IX rights is quite
    expensive and on average significantly more expensive than disciplining
    a student who has been found responsible for sexually assaulting a
    classmate, even in the very few such cases where a court has found
    evidence of an administrative due process violation.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Note that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, school
    disciplinary proceedings are not governed by rules of criminal due
    process. See generally Nancy Chi Cantalupo, ``Decriminalizing'' Campus
    Institutional Responses to Peer Sexual Violence, 38 J.C. & U.L. 481,
    513-17 (2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I summarized my pre-2012 research on this point for Time magazine
    at http://time.com/99697/campus-sexual-assault-nancy-chi-cantalupo/,
    and subsequent years have only added to the number of publicly
    disclosed title IX settlements in the six-and seven-figures.\2\ Other
    research confirms that violating title IX is getting more expensive for
    schools, not less. For instance, a report by United Educators, a major
    insurer of educational institutions, on claims for campus sexual
    assault cases from 2011-13 shows that schools paid $17 million in costs
    ``defending and resolving sexual assault claims.'' \3\ Of these costs,
    84 percent, or $14.3 million, were spent on ``victim-driven
    litigation.'' \4\ This is in contrast to a similar report by United
    Educators on similar claims filed from 2005-10, where schools paid $36
    million in costs related to such claims, with a little over $10 million
    going to claims by ``accusers.'' \5\ Thus, in a little over half the
    time of the earlier 5-year study, institutions' costs based on claims
    filed by victims alleging title IX and similar violations have
    increased by about 43 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See, e.g., Tatianna Schlossberg, UConn to pay $1.3 Million to
    End Suit on Rape Cases, N.Y. TIMES (July 18, 2014), http://
    www.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/nyregion/uconn-to-pay-1-3-million-to-end-
    suit-on-rape-cases.html_r=0.
        \3\ See United Educators, Confronting Campus Sexual Assault: An
    Examination of Higher Education Claims 14 (2015), http://www.bgsu.edu/
    content/dam/BGSU/human-resources/documents/training/lawroom/
    Sexual_assault_claim_study.pdf.
        \4\ Id.
        \5\ See United Educators, Student Sexual Assault: Weathering the
    Perfect Storm 1-2 (2011), https://www.edurisksolutions.org/templates/
    template-article.aspx?id=379&pageid=136.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In light of these numbers, it is not only a reality, as I have
    detailed above, that higher education professionals have wanted
    guidance from OCR, but also completely logical, rational, and
    reasonable that an institution of higher education would want more, not
    less, guidance about how to protect their students' title IX rights. I
    certainly know that I wanted as much guidance as OCR had time to
    provide, when I was a campus administrator, and I know the many
    excellent colleagues with whom I worked during those years, as well as
    the many more such colleagues I met at NASPA, would agree. Indeed, at
    this moment in time, it would be quite unreasonable for any institution
    of higher education not to want OCR to provide guidance, to read that
    guidance closely when it is issued, and to follow its advice so the
    school can get out ahead of this discrimination problem and have the
    structures and staff in place to handle cases when they inevitably
    arise and do so in a way that protects the rights of all students
    involved. OCR has devoted hundreds of pages of guidance to schools to
    help them with these tasks, and both logic and evidence indicate that
    the higher education profession as a whole appreciates this guidance
    for both liability- and morality-based reasons.
        For all of these legal and practical reasons, I write in support,
    commendation, and thanks to the U.S. Department of Education Office for
    Civil Rights for issuing their guidance documents. I also thank you and
    the other members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
    and Pensions for their attention to these issues.
                Sincerely,
                                           Nancy Chi Cantalupo,
                                            Assistant Professor of Law,
                                                      Barry University
                                       Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law.
                                     ______

                           National Women's Law Center,
                                          Washington, DC 20036,
                                                     February 25, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    525 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Re: In Support of Title IX, the Clery Act & Regulations that Protect
            Students from Sexual Harassment and Gender-Based Violence in
            Educational Programs

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: In advance of
    the confirmation hearing for Education Secretary nominee Dr. John B.
    King, the National Women's Law Center writes to recognize the core
    responsibility of the U.S. Department of Education to enforce our
    Nation's civil rights education laws, including title IX and the Clery
    Act. We support regulations and guidance issued by the Department to
    inform institutions of their obligations under these laws and applaud
    the Department for its enforcement of them to ensure that sexual
    harassment and sexual violence does not interfere with a student's
    right to an educational environment free from sex discrimination.
    Because this work will be key to helping schools create safe spaces for
    all our Nation's students, we write with the following recommendations
    to remind schools of their civil rights obligations.

        I. Enforcement of Title IX and the Clery Act are Necessary to
    Create Safe Schools & Reduce Sexual Harassment, including Sexual
    Violence.

        The Clery Act \1\ is a consumer protection law that requires
    colleges and universities to publicly report campus crime statistics on
    an annual basis so that current and prospective students can evaluate
    the safety of an institution of higher education. Title IX of the
    Education Amendments of 1972 \2\ is a civil rights law that prohibits
    discrimination in federally funded education programs based on sex,
    which includes sexual harassment and violence.\3\ Although both laws
    have different goals, they work in conjunction to promote a school
    climate that is a safe and conducive learning environment for all
    students.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 20 U.S.C.  1092.
        \2\ 20 U.S.C.  1681.
        \3\ Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sexual harassment in schools is a serious problem with devastating
    effects for students. It takes many forms, from ``unwelcome sexual
    advances'' and ``requests for sexual favors'' to ``other verbal,
    nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.'' \4\ In a national
    survey of nearly 2,000 seventh- through 12th-graders conducted in 2011,
    nearly half of all students surveyed reported experiencing some form of
    sexual harassment in the 2010-11 school year.\5\ Unwanted sexual
    comments, jokes, and gestures were the most reported forms of sexual
    harassment, with 33 percent of students saying that they encountered
    this kind of conduct at least once in the 2010-11 school year.\6\
    However, 8 percent of all students also reported being touched in an
    unwelcome way in the previous school year and 7 percent reported having
    someone flash or expose themselves in front of them.\7\ Additionally,
    public schools recorded 600 incidents of rape or attempted rape and
    3,600 incidents of sexual battery not involving rape in 2009-10, the
    most recent year for which data is available.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ U.S. Dep't of Educ., Office For Civil Rights, Revised Sexual
    Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees, Other
    Students, or Third Parties, at 2 (2001), available at http://
    www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.pdf.
        \5\ AM. Ass'n of Univ. Women, Crossing the Line: Sexual Harassment
    at School 2 (2011), available at http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/
    Crossing-the-Line-Sexual-Harassment-at-School.pdf.
        \6\ Id. at 12.
        \7\ Id.
        \8\ Simone Robers et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety:
    2013, at 117 (2014), available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/
    2014042.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The emotional and physical effects of sexual harassment and
    violence can be devastating for students. Victims of such conduct often
    find it difficult to study, reduce participation in school or school
    activities, and/or avoid school altogether.\9\ Sadly, some students
    have even committed suicide in the face of sexual harassment and
    violence. One example is Audrie Pott, a 5-year old who took her own
    life in 2013 after an alleged sexual assault and sexual bullying.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ See AM. Ass'n of Univ. Women, supra note 5 at 3.
        \10\ Christina Sterbenz, Heartbreaking Details Revealed About 15-
    Year-Old Who Killed Herself After Alleged Sexual Assault, Bus. Insider
    (Sept. 20, 2013, 2:30 PM), available at http://www.businessinsider.com/
    details-on-audrie-potts-suicide-2013-9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There have been widespread reports of sexual harassment and
    violence at colleges and universities. According to several reports,
    one in five women and one in 20 men are sexually assaulted in
    college.\11\ And before the Department of Education Office for Civil
    Rights (OCR) issued guidance on title IX and sexual violence,
    universities were not doing enough to address the prevalence of sexual
    assault on campus.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ E.g., Nick Anderson & Scott Clement, 1 in 5 college women say
    they were violated, Wash. Post (June 12, 2015), http://
    www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2015/06/12/1-in-5-women-say-they-were-
    violated/; C.P. Krebs et al., College Women's Experiences with
    Physically Forced, Alcohol- or Other Drug-Enabled, and Drug-Facilitated
    Sexual Assault Before and Since Entering College, 57 J. AM. C. HEALTH
    639 (2009).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For example, in 2014 the University of Connecticut settled a
    lawsuit with five students who claimed the school failed to handle
    their complaints of sexual violence properly.\12\ In 2013, Occidental
    College settled a suit with at least 37 students alleging similar
    claims.\13\ That same year, Yale University refused to expel six
    students it found guilty of ``nonconsensual sex,'' and released a semi-
    annual report on sexual misconduct revealing that the university
    provided light punishments, such as temporary suspensions, for such
    actions.\14\ In 2012, a U.S.C. student reported a rape to her
    university and even played authorities a tape of her rapist admitting
    to the assault, but they dismissed her case for lack of evidence.\15\
    And the Department of Education is still investigating a 2013 complaint
    from Swarthmore students alleging that the college violated the Clery
    Act by failing to report sexual assaults on campus.\16\ Students said
    that resident advisors failed to submit formal reports about their
    assaults and administrators declined to report conduct like
    stalking.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Jake New, Major Sexual Assault Settlement, Inside Higher Ed
    (July 21, 2014), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/07/21/u-
    connecticut-pay-13-million-settle-sexual-assault-lawsuit.
        \13\ Tyler Kingkade, Occidental College Settles Lawsuit with Sexual
    Assault Victims, Huffington Post (Sept. 19, 2013), http://
    www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/occidental-lawsuit-sexual-
    assault_n_3950830.html.
        \14\ Stacy Teicher Khadaroo, Sexual Assault on Campus: Yale Tries
    To Clarify Consent, Christian Sci. Monitor (Sept. 12, 2013), http://
    www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/0912/Sexual-assault-on-campus-
    Yale-tries-to-clarify-consent.
        \15\ Claire Groden, Campus Rape Victims Find a Voice, Time (Aug.
    08, 2013), available at http://nation.time.com/2013/08/08/campus-rape-
    victims-find-a-voice/?iid=tsmodule.
        \16\ Joe Mariani, Title IX changes to affect campus procedures,
    Swarthmore Phoenix (Sept. 24, 2015), http://swarthmorephoenix.com/2015/
    09/24/title-ix-changes-to-affect-campus-procedures/; Max Nesterak,
    Clery Complainants To File Title IX Complaints, Join National Movement
    Against Sexual Assault, Swarthmore Coll. Daily Gazette (Apr. 19, 2013)
    http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2013/04/19/clery-complainants-join-
    national--movement-against-sexual-assault-to-file-title-ix-complaints/.
        \17\ Emma Jacobs, Swarthmore Students File Title IX Complaint over
    Alleged Inaction on Sexual Assault, Newsworks (Apr. 26, 2013), http://
    www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/54084.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because of growing concerns about institutions' failure to
    appropriately address sexual violence cases, student activist groups
    have led national campaigns to educate students about their title IX
    rights.\18\ These groups, which include both survivors of sexual
    violence and allies, are responding to growing reports of sexual
    violence on campuses and sharing what they learned from their
    experiences.\19\ As a result of their advocacy, more survivors have
    come forward and filed complaints with OCR--with the Department
    investigating approximately 130 colleges and 40 school districts for
    title IX violations related to sexual assault, as of July 2015.\20\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ See Know Your IX, http://knowyourix.org/ (last visited Sept.
    26, 2013).
        \19\ About KYIX, Know Your IX (last visited Sept. 26, 2013), http:/
    /knowyourix.org/about-ky9/.
        \20\ Morgan Baskin, Dept. of Ed: UVA fostered ``hostile
    environment'' for sexual assault survivors, USA Today (Sept. 21, 2015),
    http://college.usatoday.com/2015/09/21/dept-of-ed-uva-fostered-hostile-
    environment-for-sexual-assault-survivors/; Tyler Kingkade, 124
    Colleges, 40 School Districts Under Investigation For Handling Of
    Sexual Assault, Huffington Post (July 24, 2015), http://
    www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/schools-investigation-sexual-
    assault_us_55b19b
    43e4b0074ba5a40b77.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The stakes could not be higher for students at all levels of
    education; reports of assaults and schools' failure to address them are
    widespread. Thus, the role of OCR in ensuring that schools prevent and
    address sexual harassment and violence is critical.

        II. OCR's Guidance and Resolution Agreements Are Necessary to Help
    Address the Pervasive Problem of Sexual Harassment and Violence in
    Schools.

        OCR issues guidance documents--including interpretive rules,
    general statements of policy, and rules of agency organization,
    procedure, or practice--to further assist schools in understanding what
    policies and practices will lead OCR to initiate proceedings to
    terminate Federal financial assistance under existing regulations under
    title IX and other civil rights laws. Last year, the Supreme Court
    unanimously confirmed that the Administrative Procedure Act allows
    agencies to issue such guidance without notice-and-comment procedures,
    because such guidance is expressly exempt from these requirements.\21\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015); 5
    U.S.C.  553(b)(3)(A).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OCR's guidance and resolution agreements addressing sexual
    harassment and violence are essential tools that outline schools'
    responsibilities to prevent harassment and help combat this serious
    problem plaguing our Nation's schools. The 2010 Dear Colleague Letter
    on harassment and bullying provided examples of conduct that can
    constitute ``sexual harassment'' in federally funded educational
    programs.\22\ The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual Violence \23\
    emphasized prevention, specific procedures, and remedies that schools
    should use in sexual violence cases, including the preponderance of the
    evidence standard of proof for sexual harassment investigations. In
    2014, the Department also released a Questions and Answers document
    that provided technical assistance to schools regarding their
    obligations under title IX and highlighted proactive approaches schools
    can take to prevent and remedy the prevalence of sexual violence on
    campus.\24\ The 2010 and 2011 Dear Colleague Letters and the 2014
    Questions and Answers document allowed schools to receive guidance in a
    timely fashion and implement policies quickly. And OCR resolution
    letters with individual schools can model holistic approaches for
    ensuring that sexual violence reports are being handled properly by all
    parts of a school system. This is precisely the type of enforcement
    that can prompt reforms to reduce the prevalence of sexual violence in
    educational institutions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Russlyn Ali, Dear Colleague Letter, U.S. Dep't of Educ. Office
    For Civil Rights (Oct. 26, 2010) [hereinafter 2010 Dear Colleague
    Letter], http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-
    201010.pdf.
        \23\ Russlyn Ali, Dear Colleague Letter, U.S. Dep't of Educ. Office
    For Civil Rights (Apr. 4, 2011) [hereinafter 2011 Dear Colleague
    Letter], http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-
    201104.pdf.
        \24\ U.S. Dep't of Educ. Office For Civil Rights, Questions and
    Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence (2014), http://www2.ed.gov/
    about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite the utility of OCR guidance, some suggest that OCR erred in
    not going through the Notice and Comment process before issuing its
    2010 and 2011 Dear Colleague. But there was no requirement that OCR do
    so, as these guidance documents merely provided clarification of OCR's
    2001 Dear Colleague letter \25\ on sexual harassment that was issued
    after the Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of
    Education,\26\ and the 2001 document did go through the Notice and
    Comment process. Requiring notice and comment on similar clarification
    documents would be unnecessary and only create further confusion given
    that the guidance documents clarified existing obligations. In the
    meantime, survivors and victims of discrimination would be deprived of
    their educational rights, and institutions would hide behind
    bureaucracy to delay complying with their obligations under title IX.
    The Department's ability to enforce our Nation's civil rights laws
    should not be obstructed--nor should its ability to offer clarifying
    guidance and technical assistance in a timely manner.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ See U.S. Dep't of Educ., Office For Civil Rights, Revised
    Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Students by School Employees,
    Other Students, or Third Parties (2001) [hereinafter 2001 Title IX
    Guidance], available at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/
    shguide.pdf.
        \26\ 526 U.S. 629 (1999).

        III. Title IX & Clery Should Set the Standard for Disciplinary
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hearings Because Both Laws Require Fairness to Both Parties.

        To appropriately respond to sexual and gender-based violence on
    campus, universities must create and maintain policies that are fair
    for both the complainant/survivor and the respondent/accused. Title
    IX's ban on sex discrimination in education requires that all parties
    be treated fairly in the adjudication process, which means, for
    example, that both complainant and respondent must have the opportunity
    to present their positions to an impartial investigator who employs an
    evidentiary standard that distributes the burden of proof equitably.
        For these reasons, due process provisions that mirror those
    guaranteed to defendants in criminal justice proceedings--such as
    providing respondents exclusive appeal rights or requiring that
    universities apply a higher evidentiary standard than the preponderance
    of the evidence standard--are inappropriate in school sexual misconduct
    proceedings. Implementing such measures would give respondents/the
    accused more procedural protections than complainants/survivors, which
    would undermine title IX's goal to promote equality in educational
    programs.
        Both Title IX and Clery contain a number of baseline standards for
    institutional processes that colleges can increase to fit the needs of
    their campus. For example, in addition to notice and an opportunity to
    be heard, title IX requires that grievance procedures be both prompt
    and equitable, that investigations be adequate, reliable, and impartial
    and that written notice informing both parties of the outcome of the
    investigation be provided.\27\ Title IX also allows schools to provide
    the right to appeal a determination, as long as it provides this right
    equally for both parties.\28\ The same goes for the opportunity to
    present witnesses or other evidence during the investigation or hearing
    process.\29\ The Clery Act also sets forth minimum standards for school
    discipline procedures, including the right to have others present
    during disciplinary proceedings/meetings, the right to an advisor of
    their choice, and a requirement that both parties receive the outcome
    of a proceeding in writing at the same time.\30\ Because Title IX and
    Clery contain procedural protections that promote fundamental fairness
    in college proceedings while ensuring that both complainant and
    respondent have equal protections, these laws--not the criminal justice
    system--should provide the framework for any policies that seek to
    enhance due process rights for survivor/complainants and accused/
    respondents.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ 2001 Title IX Guidance supra note 25, at 19-20.
        \28\ 2011 Dear Colleague Letter supra note 23, at 12.
        \29\ Id. at 11.
        \30\ 20 U.S.C.  1092 (f)(8)(B)(iv).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        The Department of Education's guidance on and enforcement of title
    IX and the Clery Act have been vital in the effort to curb the epidemic
    of sexual harassment and violence in our Nation's schools. This
    critical work must continue if the promise of these laws is to be
    fulfilled. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions,
    please contact Neena Chaudhry at nchaudhry@nwlc.org, Adaku Onyeka-
    Crawford at aocrawford@nwlc.org, or Fatima Goss Graves at
    fgraves@nwlc.org of the National Women's Law Center or 202.588.5180.
                Sincerely,
                                            Fatima Goss Graves,
                                     Senior Vice President for Program.
                                                Neena Chaudhry,
                                Senior Counsel & Director of Education.
                                         Adaku Onyeka-Crawford,
                                                               Counsel.
                                     ______

                               Letters of Support
                 National Center for Special Education
                           in Charter Schools (NCSECS),
                                            New York, NY 10170,
                                                     February 24, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The National
    Center for Special Education in Charter Schools (NCSECS) is dedicated
    to ensuring that students with disabilities have equal access to
    charter schools and that public charter schools are designed and
    operated to enable all students to succeed. We write today to thank you
    for your consideration of President Obama's nomination of Dr. John King
    as the Secretary of Education.
        Dr. King is an excellent choice to serve as the next Secretary. His
    track record leading up to his current position as Acting Secretary
    shows a deep commitment to high standards and his own impatience with
    entrenched systems that do not serve children well. He demonstrated
    these traits as the founder of a high performing charter school in
    Massachusetts, as a leader in a school management organization creating
    strong new charter schools in several States, and most recently, in his
    role as New York's Education Commissioner. Dr. King has demonstrated
    that he sees the public school landscape as a broad one, strengthened
    by strong districts and a thriving charter sector.
        Dr. King has recently met with civil rights and disability
    organizations where he spoke passionately and firmly about the need to
    ensure every student has equal access to a quality education in a high
    quality school. Given the work ahead--to implement The Every Student
    Succeeds Act (ESSA) and its many important provisions that impact all
    public title I schools, including charter schools--we believe it is
    imperative that Dr. King be formally confirmed by the Senate as soon as
    possible.
        NCSECS worked intently with the civil rights community on ESSA and
    has high hopes the updated law will successfully foster students
    achievement and equity. NCSECS is deeply interested in the
    implementation of the new law because charter schools are public
    schools and should be explicitly included in State title I planning.
    Charter schools must also be open and accessible to all students on par
    with traditional public schools. Therefore, Dr. King's nomination will
    help assure States have the appropriate guidance they need to begin the
    transition to implement the ESSA.
        Thank you for the opportunity to recommend Dr. King for this
    important nomination.
                Sincerely,
                                    Lauren Morando Rhim, Ph.D.,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

      National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD),
                                            New York, NY 10013,
                                                     February 18, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    455 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The National
    Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD), which represents the 1 in 5
    individuals with learning and attention issues, writes in support of
    the nomination of John King to Secretary of the U.S. Department of
    Education.
        Dr. King is well qualified to serve as Secretary of the U.S.
    Department of Education as he has been a champion for students
    throughout his career. His experience includes serving as a teacher,
    principal, a charter school founder, and a leader of schools and
    schools systems. As commissioner of education for the State of New
    York, Dr. King oversaw 3.1 million elementary and secondary school
    students and served as president of the University of the State of New
    York. In this role, he deepened collaboration between the State's
    preschool through grade 12 schools and its institutions of higher
    education, strengthening educator preparation. During his tenure, the
    State's ambitious initiatives included investing in high-quality early
    learning; raising standards; supporting educators through professional
    development, access to instructional resources, and innovative career
    ladder models; expanding career and technical education in high-demand
    fields; and increasing opportunities for students in the highest-need
    communities.
        Dr. King first joined the U.S. Department of Education in January
    2015 as Principal Senior Advisor. In that role, Dr. King carried out
    the duties of the Deputy Secretary, overseeing all preschool through
    grade 12 education policies and programs. Dr. King focused on
    increasing equity, improving outcomes for all students, and closing
    persistent achievement gaps. Dr. King's emphasis on improving outcomes
    and his willingness to collaborate indicate his dedication to
    educational equity and excellence for all students. The ongoing work
    that Dr. King has led at the U.S. Department of Education is essential
    and must continue.
        NCLD supports the swift confirmation of John King as Secretary of
    the U.S. Department of Education. We urge you to confirm his
    appointment as soon as possible so that students with learning and
    attention issues continue to be supported in their educational success.
                Sincerely,
                                                 James Wendorf,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                                 Lindsay Jones,
                             Vice President and Chief Advocacy Officer.
                                     ______

     Association of University Centers on Disabilities
                                                (AUCD),
                                       Silver Spring, MD 20910,
                                                     February 22, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the
    Association of University Centers on Disabilities, I write in strong
    support of the nomination of John King for Secretary of the U.S.
    Department of Education.
        AUCD promotes and supports a national network of interdisciplinary
    centers on disabilities. Our members represent every U.S. State and
    territory and include 67 University Centers for Excellence in
    Developmental Disabilities (UCEDDs), 45 Interdisciplinary Leadership
    Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (LEND)
    Programs and 15 Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research
    Centers (DDRCs).
        Having earned a Bachelor of Arts in Government from Harvard
    University, a Master of Arts in the teaching of social studies from
    Columbia University's Teachers College, a J.D. from Yale Law School,
    and a Doctor of Education degree in educational administrative practice
    from Columbia University's Teachers College, Dr. King is well qualified
    to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. Dr. King
    also brings to his own personal experience leading urban public schools
    that are closing the achievement gap and preparing students to enter,
    succeed in, and graduate from college.
        Before becoming Acting Secretary, Dr. King had served since January
    2015 at the Department as Principal Senior Advisor. In that role, Dr.
    King carried out the duties of the Deputy Secretary, overseeing all
    preschool through 12th-grade education policies, programs and strategic
    initiatives, as well as the operations of the Department. Dr. King
    carried out this work with a focus on increasing equity, improving
    educational outcomes for all students, including those with
    developmental and other disabilities, and closing achievement gaps
    through implementation of key administration priorities in areas
    including early learning, rigorous academic standards, accessible
    curricula, universal design for learning, and the inclusion of all
    groups of students in accountability systems to help schools improve
    their outcomes.
        AUCD strongly supports the confirmation of John King as Secretary
    of the U.S. Department of Education and we urge you to confirm his
    appointment as soon as possible so that students with disabilities
    continue to be supported in their educational success.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Andy Imparato,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                                     Chiefs for Change,
                                          Washington, DC 20004,
                                                     February 22, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of
    Chiefs for Change, I am writing in strong support of Dr. John King's
    nomination to serve as Secretary of Education.
        Dr. King joined the Department as Principal Senior Advisor last
    year and has been overseeing all preschool-through-12th-grade education
    policies, programs and strategic initiatives, as well as the operations
    of the Department.
        Prior to his work at the Department, Dr. King served as
    commissioner of education for the State of New York. In that role, he
    served as chief executive officer of the State Education Department and
    as president of the University of the State of New York, overseeing the
    State's elementary and secondary schools (serving 3.1 million
    students), public, independent and proprietary colleges and
    universities, libraries, museums, and numerous other educational
    institutions.
        As commissioner of education, Dr. King pursued ambitious
    educational reforms to increase equity; raise standards for teaching
    and learning; support teachers and school leaders through strong
    professional development, access to rich instructional resources, and
    innovative educator career ladder models; expand career and technical
    education in high-demand fields; and increase educational opportunity
    for students in the highest-need communities.
        As the Department of Education continues work on the implementation
    process for the Every Student Succeeds Act, Chiefs for Change is
    confident that Dr. King's focus on preparing every child for success
    will lead to better educational outcomes, help to close achievement
    gaps among students; and better prepare students for college or a
    career. Importantly, Dr. King brings to this position the unique
    expertise and dedication that comes from a life-long career in
    education, beginning first as a teacher and middle- and high-school
    principal.
        As a nonprofit network of diverse State and district education
    Chiefs dedicated to preparing all students for today's world and
    tomorrow's, Chiefs for Change strongly endorses Dr. King for Secretary
    of Education and looks forward to working with the Department of
    Education to support innovative policies and practices that improve
    outcomes and create educational equity for all students. Please don't
    hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if there is
    anything that Chiefs for Change could do to assist with Dr. King's
    nomination for Secretary of Education.
                Sincerely,
                                               Mike Magee, CEO.
                                     ______

               National Association of State Directors
                   of Special Education, Inc. (NASDSE),
                                          Alexandria, VA 22314,
                                                     February 23, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Senator Alexander and Senator Murray: On behalf of the
    National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE),
    the national nonprofit organization that represents the State directors
    of special education in the States, the District of Columbia, the
    Federal territories, the Freely Associated States and the Department of
    Defense Education Agency, I write to urge the HELP Committee to take
    quick action to confirm John King as the Secretary of Education.
        The Department of Education needs a strong leadership team to
    implement the Every Student Succeeds Act starting now. In particular,
    NASDSE supports John King to be the next Secretary of Education because
    of the leadership and support he gave to meeting the needs of students
    with disabilities while serving in leadership positions in New York
    State.
        While in New York, he ensured that the needs of students with
    disabilities and English Language Learners were specifically considered
    in all State policy development and implementation across the entire
    Department of Education. During his administration, the New York State
    Education Department placed a spotlight on instruction and evidence-
    based school practices that would ensure that every student had access
    to learn and be successful in school. John King met with
    representatives from each of the State's 14 Special Education Parent
    Centers to personally hear the voices and perspectives of parents of
    students with disabilities. He addressed all of the State's special
    education technical assistance providers to provide a vision of high
    expectations for their work. His policy and initiatives around data-
    driven instruction and use of assessments to inform instruction led
    many schools to develop systems of Response to Intervention and
    Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. He also supported
    transition services for students with disabilities, providing more
    access to career and technical education coursework and work-based
    learning opportunities and advancing a credential to recognize a
    student's work-readiness knowledge and skills at the time of graduation
    from high school.
        During John King's administration in New York, the Education
    Department also closely aligned the ESEA and IDEA accountability
    systems, which significantly enhanced the State's school improvement
    work to address the needs of students with disabilities in low
    performing schools. While he was commissioner, access to the general
    education curriculum for students with disabilities took on a renewed
    focus and more schools began to develop standards-based individualized
    education programs (IEPs); the use of research-based specially designed
    instruction increased statewide; and results for students with
    disabilities improved.
        John King has been a voice for all students in the past and NASDSE
    is confident that he will continue to do so as Secretary of Education.
    Therefore, NASDSE is pleased to support his nomination.
                Sincerely,
                                Theron (Bill) East, Jr., Ed.D.,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                                           Teach +Plus,
                                              Boston, MA 02210,
                                                     February 23, 2015.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Senator Murray: Thank you for your
    bipartisan leadership in successfully reauthorizing the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--and for all of your ongoing bipartisan
    work together. We are particularly grateful to both of you and to your
    staff members for including teachers in a meaningful way throughout the
    reauthorization process.
        We are writing to let you know of our strong support for the
    nomination of John King to be U.S. Secretary of Education. As you know,
    Dr. King is deeply committed to equity and collaboration. He is a
    consensus-builder, and we believe that quality will serve him well in
    this role.
        Dr. King has been a champion in promoting teacher leadership, and
    we have appreciated the time he has spent with our teacher leaders.
    After he met with a group of our teachers in Memphis last year, they
    said they were struck by his thoughtfulness, warmth and commitment to
    students. But most of all, they appreciated how much he listened and
    tried to understand their views, even when they were critical of some
    of the Department's policies.
        We hope you and your colleagues will work together to vote this
    nomination out of committee and ensure that Dr. King is successfully
    confirmed by the full U.S. Senate.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                Sincerely,
                                                Celine Coggins,
                                                       Founder and CEO.
                                     ______

                    National Disability Rights Network,
                                     Washington, DC 20002-4243,
                                                     February 24, 2016.

        To Whom It May Concern: It is with great pleasure that the National
    Disability Rights Network (NDRN) enthusiastically supports the
    nomination of Acting Secretary of Education, John B. King Jr, for the
    position of Secretary of Education.
        NDRN is the national membership association for the Protection and
    Advocacy (P&A) and Client Assistance Program (CAP) System, the
    nationwide network of congressionally mandated agencies that advocate
    on behalf of persons with disabilities in every State, the District of
    Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam,
    U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and affiliated
    with the Native American Consortium which includes the Hopi, Navajo and
    Piute Nations in the Four Corners region of the Southwest. For over 30
    years, the P&A/CAP System has worked to protect the human and civil
    rights of individuals with disabilities of any age and in any setting.
    A central part of the work of the P&A/CAP System (nearly 12,000
    individual cases in 2014) has been to advocate for opportunities for
    students with disabilities to receive a quality education with their
    peers. Collectively, the P&A/CAP agencies are the largest provider of
    legally based advocacy services for persons with disabilities in the
    United States.
        Dr. King brings the invaluable experience of having served as a
    teacher, a school administrator, the commissioner of education for the
    State of New York, as Principal Senior Advisor to the Department of
    Education and most recently as Acting Secretary for the Department of
    Education. Dr. King has spoken eloquently about his strong belief in
    the importance of educational opportunity for all students. NDRN fully
    supports this sentiment as educational opportunity is critical (and
    often sadly lacking) for the success of students with disabilities.
    NDRN also had the opportunity to hear Dr. King speak with eloquence on
    the importance of accountability in the education of all students,
    including students with disabilities.
        It is the strong belief of NDRN that, at this critical juncture in
    the progression of education policy in the United States, John B. King,
    Jr. be confirmed as Secretary of Education.
        Please do not hesitate to contact Amanda Lowe, public policy
    analyst, with any questions at Amanda.lowe@ndrn.org.
                Sincerely,
                                                   Curt Decker,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                            National Council of LaRaza,
                                     Washington, DC 20036-4845,
                                                     February 24, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    835 Hart Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Senator Alexander and Senator Murray: On behalf of the
    National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the Nation's largest Hispanic civil
    rights and advocacy organization, I write to express enthusiastic
    support of Dr. John B. King to be the next Secretary of Education.
    During his tenure at the Department of Education and as education
    commissioner of New York, he has shown a deep dedication to raising
    academic standards and advancing equity to give opportunity to all
    children facing the demands of the 21st-century workplace.
        In the coming months, the Department of Education will have a
    daunting task: implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act in a manner
    consistent with the law's civil rights mission. Dr. King has been a
    leader in education since the beginning of his career as a public
    school teacher and is well-suited to oversee ESSA's regulatory process
    to ensure the legislation fulfills its promise to the 13 million Latino
    students and 5 million English learners in American schools.
        In addition, Dr. King's nomination adds much-needed diversity to
    the administration's highest ranks. As a Latino, Dr. King's inclusion
    in the cabinet sends an important signal to the community that Latino
    and English learner children are the future of this country. They will
    have a committed voice in Washington who understands their needs and
    their growing influence in public education.
        We are pleased by reports of plans to move Dr. King's confirmation
    process through the HELP Committee and to the floor as swiftly as
    possible. We look forward to working with your staff to ensure this
    occurs. Please feel free to contact Victoria Benner, Senior Legislative
    Strategist, at (202) 776-1760 or vbenner@nclr.org if you have any
    questions.
                Sincerely,
                                                Eric Rodriguez,
                                                        Vice President.
                                     ______

        Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO),
                                          Washington, DC 20001,
                                                     February 24, 2016.

        Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
    committee: I am writing on behalf of chief State school officers to
    express support for the confirmation of Dr. John King as U.S. Secretary
    of Education.
        Today is a critical time in education. In 2015, Congress
    reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and States now
    stand ready and willing to implement the new Every Student Succeeds Act
    with the additional flexibility and authority it provides States. To be
    successful, States must forge partnerships at the State, local and
    Federal levels. Just as States sought a stable Federal policy on
    education, we also are eager for stability within the U.S. Department
    of Education during this critical time.
        As a former State education chief and classroom teacher, John King
    brings a unique perspective to the Office of the U.S. Secretary of
    Education. As a State chief and Acting Secretary of Education, he has
    demonstrated a commitment to make sure all students have a high-quality
    education. He is a thoughtful educational leader who understands the
    important role chief State school officers play in shaping education
    policy for all kids.
        For these reasons, I urge the U.S. Senate to confirm John King as
    U.S. Secretary of Education. The Council of Chief State School Officers
    looks forward to continuing to work with John King and his staff to
    create helpful guidance and maintain State authority and flexibility
    under the Every Student Succeeds Act in the months to come.
                Sincerely,
                                         Chris Minnich,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                     Council of the Great City Schools,
                                          Washington, DC 20004,
                                                     February 24, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The Council of
    the Great City Schools, the coalition of the Nation's largest central
    city school districts, writes to express strong support for the
    nomination of Dr. John B. King, Jr. as United States Secretary of
    Education. The long overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act in Congress must now be implemented in States
    and school districts throughout the Nation, and Dr. King has the
    experience needed to lead this work at the U.S. Department of
    Education.
        Dr. King began serving in the U.S. Department of Education in
    January 2015, and has been Acting Secretary of Education since the
    beginning of 2016. Most importantly, Dr. King served in a number of
    education positions at the local and State level prior to coming to
    Washington, starting as a high school classroom teacher. His subsequent
    roles in founding and managing local schools provided Acting Secretary
    King with unique experience leading urban public schools that are
    closing achievement gaps and preparing college- and career-ready
    students. In 2011, Dr. King was appointed education commissioner for
    the State of New York, where he oversaw the elementary and secondary
    schools that serve over 3 million students, as well as the public,
    private, and proprietary colleges and universities in the State.
        In his time at the U.S. Department of Education, both before and
    since becoming Acting Secretary, Dr. King has focused on improving
    educational outcomes for all students and closing achievement gaps. His
    priorities for expanding early learning, delivering high-quality
    instruction for poor and minority students, and providing special
    education, English language acquisition, and innovative services in
    schools aligns with the goals outlined by Congress in the new Every
    Student Succeeds Act.
        The Council of the Great City Schools urges the Senate to confirm
    Dr. John B. King, Jr. as U.S. Secretary of Education.
                Sincerely,
                                              Michael Casserly,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                                Human Rights Campaign,
                                          Washington, DC 20036,
                                                     February 24, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the
    Human Rights Campaign's more than one and a half million members and
    supporters nationwide, I write to urge you to support the nomination of
    John B. King, Jr., to be Secretary of Education. As the Nation's
    largest organization working to achieve equal rights for the lesbian,
    gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, HRC believes that Dr.
    King is exceptionally qualified to lead the U.S. Department of
    Education.
        At the Department of Education, Dr. King has emphasized the
    importance of strong enforcement of civil rights protections and
    educational equity. Previously, he served the Department as Principal
    Senior Advisor, carrying out the duties of the Deputy Secretary of
    Education, including overseeing all preschool-through-12th-grade
    education policies, programs, and strategic initiatives. He also
    oversaw the Department's implementation of the My Brother's Keeper
    initiative, a program designed to address the achievement gap among
    boys and young men of color.
        Prior to his tenure at the Department of Education, Dr. King was
    commissioner of education for the State of New York serving the State's
    3.1 million students and overseeing the public university system. Dr.
    King pursued an ambitious agenda that invested in early learning,
    supported teachers' professional development, raised standards for
    students and teachers, and expanded educational opportunities for high
    risk students.
        A lifelong educator, Dr. King understands that the first step
    toward academic success is freedom from discrimination, bullying, and
    harassment, which can lead to lower academic achievement. The
    Department has worked hard to protect students from discrimination,
    sexual assault, violence, bullying, and harassment through strong
    enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the
    Jeanne Clery Act.
        We are confident that Dr. King will continue to be an advocate for
    strong enforcement of students' civil rights, and we urge you to
    swiftly confirm John B. King, Jr., as Secretary of Education. His
    experience, lifelong service in education, and commitment to providing
    every child with a high quality education make him eminently qualified
    to lead the U.S. Department of Education.
                Sincerely,
                                                   David Stacy,
                                           Government Affairs Director.
                                     ______

          The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
                                                Rights,
                                          Washington, DC 20006,
                                                     February 24, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Re: Confirm Acting Secretary John King as U.S. Secretary of Education

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of The
    Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by
    its diverse membership of more than 200 national organizations to
    promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States, we
    write to urge your support for the nomination of Acting Secretary John
    King to be Secretary of Education for the remainder of the Obama
    administration.
        Given the recent enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act, and
    the need for active engagement by the Department of Education in the
    law's implementation, the civil rights community has a deep interest in
    this nomination. The original Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
    1965, which was renamed the Every Student Succeeds Act in its most
    recent reauthorization, sought to raise achievement for low-income and
    otherwise disadvantaged children. That intent has carried through to
    this most recent version of the law and it is critical that the
    Department of Education is in a position--with the leadership of John
    King as Secretary--to ensure that that intent is faithfully
    implemented.
        As a former teacher, and school, district, and State leader, Acting
    Secretary King is well-suited for the role of Secretary and in
    particular, to facilitate the transition from the No Child Left Behind
    Act to the new law. For more than two decades, Acting Secretary King
    has worked on issues affecting underserved communities. He has served
    as commissioner of education for the State of New York, managing
    director of one of the largest school networks in the country, and
    director of curriculum and instruction at a school in Massachusetts. At
    every stop, Acting Secretary King has worked to close the achievement
    gap. While Acting Secretary King's experience is impressive, most
    importantly, we believe Acting Secretary King understands and
    appreciates the importance of working collaboratively with coalitions
    like The Leadership Conference, which will be essential as we focus on
    ensuring ESSA is implemented in a way that provides equity for all
    students.
        We believe Acting Secretary King will serve as an excellent leader
    for the Department as the agency uses its important and vital role to
    implement ESSA. Acting Secretary King is well-positioned to ensure that
    vulnerable students and communities are meaningfully engaged in ESSA
    implementation and that the Office for Civil Rights continues its good
    work to enforce civil rights laws nationwide. Having his leadership for
    the remainder of the Obama administration will be invaluable and we
    urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Acting Secretary King. If you have
    any questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Zirkin at
    zirkin@civilrights.org or Liz King, Director of Education Policy at
    king@civilrights.org. Thank you for your consideration.
                Sincerely,
                                                Wade Henderson,
                                                       President & CEO.
                                                  Nancy Zirkin,
                                              Executive Vice President.
                                     ______

                                           New Leaders,
                                            New York, NY 10010,
                                                     February 24, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: New Leaders is
    pleased to support President Obama's nomination of Dr. John B. King,
    Jr., as the U.S. Secretary of Education.
        New Leaders is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to
    providing all children with a meaningful, high-quality education that
    prepares and inspires them to be successful in college, career, and
    citizenship. We develop transformational school leaders to serve the
    Nation's highest-need communities and advance the policies and
    practices that enable great leaders to build schools where teachers
    thrive and students excel. To date, we have trained more than 2,500
    leaders who are currently serving 450,000 students across the country.
        For the past year, first as Acting Deputy Secretary and most
    recently as Acting Secretary, Dr. King has demonstrated a deep,
    unwavering commitment to our Nation's students, their families, and the
    dedicated teachers and leaders who serve them--particularly in the
    highest-need schools and communities. His unmatched dedication to
    equity, coupled with his experience as a successful teacher, principal,
    and system leader, make him especially well-suited to lead the U.S.
    Department of Education as it supports States, districts, and schools
    to implement new provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A
    former New Leaders board member, Dr. King recognizes that the success
    of any school improvement effort depends on the quality and strength of
    our Nation's school leaders. He is uniquely qualified to oversee the
    Department's support for leaders at the classroom, school, district,
    and State levels so that they may take advantage of the opportunities
    ESSA presents.
        We have utmost confidence in Dr. King's ability to engage diverse
    partners across the education sector to ensure that every student in
    our PK-12 system is prepared for success in college, careers, or
    whatever their next step in life may be. It is our hope that Congress
    will confirm Dr. King in a timely fashion so that he may continue
    providing balanced leadership during this critical period of transition
    for our Nation's schools.
                Sincerely,
                                       Jean Desravines,
                                               Chief Executive Officer.
                                     ______

                       Association for Supervision and
                        Curriculum Development (ASCD),
                                     Alexandria, VA 22311-1714,
                                                     February 25, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: ASCD strongly
    supports the nomination of John King to be the next U.S. Secretary of
    Education and we hope that your committee moves swiftly to confirm his
    appointment.
        As an organization that represents over 125,000 educators at all
    levels of the education profession, we appreciate Dr. King's extensive
    and varied experience as an educational leader and the expertise,
    perspective, and passion he brings to serving the needs of all
    students. We are particularly impressed with his commitment to ensuring
    that each child, in each community is healthy, safe, engaged,
    supported, and challenged.
        Appearing before a congressional panel on the President's fiscal
    year 2017 budget request yesterday, Dr. King emphasized his intent to
    continue to focus on excellence and equity for every student, enhancing
    the teaching profession, and ensuring higher rates of college
    completion. ASCD applauds these goals and Dr. King's focus on
    increasing diversity in the educator workforce. Dr. King's experience
    as a State education leader, principal, and teacher give him a diverse
    perspective that will be especially beneficial in leading the
    Department of Education.
        We commend your leadership in moving this nomination forward,
    especially at this critical time when the Department of Education is
    beginning to develop the regulatory guidance that will govern the Every
    Student Succeeds Act. The prospects for the successful implementation
    of the new law will be enhanced by a Secretary confirmed by the Senate
    rather than one serving in an ``acting'' capacity. Toward that end, we
    urge the committee to approve Dr. King's nomination as soon as
    possible.
                Cordially,
                                                David Griffith,
                               Senior Director of Government Relations.
                                     ______

                                   The Education Trust,
                                          Washington, DC 20005,
                                                     February 25, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of The
    Education Trust, I write to express my enthusiastic support of Dr. John
    B. King, Jr. to be the next Secretary of Education.
        As an educator, Dr. King has important insight into what good
    teaching and good schools look like. He's drawn on that insight in his
    role as commissioner of education in New York, where he worked
    incredibly hard to improve teaching and learning across the State, and
    in his tenure at the U.S. Department of Education, where he's continued
    his efforts to improve outcomes for all young people.
        His compass is always guided by what he believes is right for kids,
    particularly the low-income children and children of color whose very
    futures depend on high-quality education. Like us, he has a driving
    sense of urgency about closing the gaps in opportunity and achievement
    that separate low-income students and students of color from their
    peers.
        The hard work of implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act
    (ESSA) is underway. Under ESSA, the Department of Education has an
    important role to play through enforcement, regulation, and guidance,
    especially when it comes to ensuring that States and localities are
    taking seriously their responsibility to all children. The confirmation
    of Dr. King as Secretary of Education would be a significant step in
    that process.
        We are pleased by reports that the committee will move Dr. King's
    confirmation process expeditiously. We look forward to working with
    your staffs to ensure this occurs. Please feel free to contact Daria
    Hall, Vice President of Government Affairs and Communications, at
    dhall@edtrust.org or 202-293-1217 ext. 349 if you have any questions.
                Sincerely,
                                             Kati Haycock, CEO.
                                     ______

                                          Easter Seals,
                                          Washington, DC 20005,
                                                     February 25, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: Easter Seals
    writes today urging the Senate to confirm John King as Secretary of the
    U.S. Department of Education. As the leading provider of early
    education services to young children with and without disabilities and
    their families, Easter Seals believes strongly that our Nation's
    children deserve leadership at the U.S. Department of Education that
    only comes with a confirmed Secretary.
        Our experience in working with Dr. King during his tenure at the
    Department has demonstrated that he is well qualified to serve as
    Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. His background as a
    student, teacher, principal, charter school founder, and leader of
    schools and schools systems helps him understand the complexity of our
    education system and why student outcomes must always be its highest
    priority.
        Again, Easter Seals urges the Senate to confirm John King as the
    Secretary of Education. Thank you for considering our views.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Katy Beh Neas,
                              Executive Vice President, Public Affairs.
                                     ______

                        The New Teacher Project (TNTP),
                                            Brooklyn, NY 11201,
                                                     February 25, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: Today, the U.S.
    Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions holds its
    first hearing to consider President Obama's nomination of Dr. John B.
    King, Jr. to serve as U.S. Secretary of Education. TNTP strongly
    endorses Dr. King's nomination, and encourages the committee and the
    full Senate to confirm him as soon as reasonably possible.
        TNTP has had the privilege of working with Dr. King since his days
    as a school leader in New York and his term as New York State Education
    Commissioner. From our experiences, we know that Dr. King does not see
    himself as an appointed official navigating politics and policy.
    Instead, he still sees himself as a kid whose life was changed--and
    possibly saved--by great public schools.
        Despite deep personal challenges that could have led him to become
    a bleak educational statistic, Dr. King has epitomized hope through a
    long, accomplished career as a student, an educator, and a leader of
    outstanding public schools that achieved exceptional outcomes for low-
    income students. That hope fuels his unbreakable commitment to all
    students, but especially to those most in need of receiving an
    outstanding education to fulfill their potential.
        Our Nation has precious few education leaders like Dr. King, who
    personally know what so many of our students know: what it's like to go
    to bed hungry, or to feel entirely alone, or to be the only dark-
    skinned face in a sea of white faces. Students across the country
    deserve a Secretary of Education who will wake up each day fighting to
    make sure they get the great education they deserve--the same kind of
    education that changed his own life.
        We hope you and your colleagues will vote Dr. King's nomination out
    of committee and work to ensure that he receives confirmation by the
    full Senate.
        Thank you for your consideration, and for the work you do on behalf
    of America's students.
                Sincerely,
                                               Daniel Weisberg,
                                               Chief Executive Officer.
                                     ______

                                     Teach for America,
                                            New York, NY 10004,
                                                     February 24, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    828 Hart Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    615 Hart Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Senator Alexander and Senator Murray: Teach For America writes
    in support of Acting Secretary John King's confirmation to lead the
    U.S. Department of Education.
        John King is an inspiring leader who has both a personal connection
    to and deep understanding of the power of educators to change lives.
    Having grown up in a low-income neighborhood in Brooklyn, Dr. King's
    academic journey from PS 276 in Canarsie to Harvard University lends
    him a valuable vantage point on the state of American education. With a
    wealth of experience in both teaching in and leading urban public
    schools, we are confident that he will foster collaboration and find
    strength in diverse viewpoints. We are confident that he will put at
    the center the voices of teachers, principals, students, and other
    leaders and advocates working to ensure that every child has the chance
    to reach her full potential.
        As the former commissioner of education in New York State, Dr. King
    understands the value of State and local decisionmaking in education
    and personally brought numerous lasting changes that benefited the
    students of New York. Throughout his tenure, Dr. King demonstrated the
    courage of his convictions, and worked tirelessly to galvanize the
    State around policies that benefited New York's students. As Acting
    Secretary, Dr. King has already shown he is a reliable steward in the
    fight for educational excellence and equity for all students. We look
    forward to continued engagement with the Department under his
    leadership.
        We hope that Congress will move swiftly in confirming Acting
    Secretary John King to be the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
    Education.
                Sincerely,
                                        Elisa Villanueva Beard,
                                               Chief Executive Officer.
                                     ______

                National Down Syndrome Congress (NDSC),
                                             Roswell, GA 30076,
                                                     February 18, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    455 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The National
    Down Syndrome Congress (NDSC), a member-sustained, nonprofit
    organization, which works to promote the interests of people with Down
    syndrome and their families through advocacy, public awareness, and
    information, writes in support of the appointment of Dr. John King as
    Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
        Dr. King has the qualifications to serve as Secretary of the U.S.
    Department of Education. He has experience as a teacher, principal, a
    charter school founder, and a leader of schools and schools systems. In
    his position as commissioner of education for the State of New York,
    Dr. King was responsible for the education of 3.1 million elementary
    and secondary school students. Initiatives under his leadership
    demonstrated a commitment to both students and educators, including
    initiatives to increase opportunities for high-need students. Dr. King
    also served as President of the University of the State of New York
    providing him with experience in higher education.
        In January 2015, Dr. King joined the U.S. Department of Education
    and carried out the duties of the Deputy Secretary. A year later Dr.
    King became Acting Secretary of Education. In his letter to U.S.
    Department of Education staff about goals for 2016, Dr. King recognized
    the progress that has been made for historically underserved students,
    including students with disabilities, but also made a commitment to
    address the persistent achievement gaps. It is critically important to
    continue this focus on equity. NDSC supports the appointment of John
    King as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and urges you to
    confirm his appointment as soon as possible.

                                                David Tolleson,
                                                    Executive Director.

                                        Richelle (Ricki) Sabia,
                                       Senior Education Policy Advisor.
                                     ______

                          National Alliance for Public
                               Charter Schools (NAPCS),
                                          Washington, DC 20005,
                                                     February 19, 2016.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    455 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
    154 Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

        Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the
    National Alliance for Public Charter Schools I am writing to offer
    enthusiastic support for the nomination of Dr. John B. King to serve as
    U.S. Secretary of Education. I urge the Senate to confirm his
    nomination.
        Dr. King has dedicated his career to strengthening educational
    opportunities for all students. His experience ranges from classroom
    teacher to commissioner of the New York State Department of Education.
    Among his vast resume, Dr. King's experience as Managing Director of
    Uncommon Schools, a charter school network whose core values include
    high standards, accountability, curiosity and a college-going culture,
    illustrates his commitment to closing achievement gaps and providing
    high-quality options for all students.
        Further, as the U.S. Department of Education implements the Every
    Student Succeeds Act of 2015, it is critical that the Department have
    strong leadership. I am confident that Dr. King's experience and
    compelling record of commitment to high standards for all students make
    him a great candidate to fulfill the duties of U.S. Secretary of
    Education.
        Thank you for your consideration on this matter. The National
    Alliance looks forward to continued work with Congress and the U.S.
    Department of Education to advance public education for all students.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Nina S. Rees,
                                                     President and CEO.
                                     ______

         Response by John B. King, Jr., Ph.D., to Questions of Senator
      Alexander, Senator Enzi, Senator Murkowski, Senator Scott, Senator
                           Hatch, and Senator Cassidy

                               senator alexander
        Question 1. In the Every Student Succeeds Act, the Secretary is
    prohibited from prescribing the numeric long-term goals or measurements
    of interim progress for academic progress and graduation rates that
    States establish for all students, including timelines for those goals,
    or the progress expected from any subgroups of students in meeting such
    goals. How do you interpret the new law's prohibitions on the Secretary
    from prescribing State goals for student achievement and graduation
    rates? Will you adhere to these prohibitions and congressional intent?
        Answer 1. I understand that the statute does not authorize me to
    prescribe numeric long-term goals or measurements of interim progress
    that a State may establish as part of its statewide accountability
    system for student academic achievement and graduation rates, and the
    Department will adhere to this restriction.

        Question 2. In the ``Every Student Succeeds Act,'' the Secretary
    and political appointees cannot attempt to participate in, or
    influence, the peer-review process. Additionally, the Secretary cannot
    use the approval of the State plan, or revisions or amendments to, or
    approval of a waiver request, to add any requirements that are
    inconsistent with or outside the scope of the law or require a State to
    change its standards. How do you interpret the new law's prohibitions
    on the Secretary from using the State plan or waiver process to add new
    mandates or conditions to the plan? How will you adhere to these
    prohibitions?
        Answer 2. The statute prohibits me and other political appointees
    from participating in, or influencing, the peer review process. I will
    adhere to this prohibition and will ensure that the Department's other
    political appointees do also. The statute makes clear that peer review
    of a State plan is to provide an objective review of State plans and to
    respect State and local judgments, with the goal of supporting State
    and local innovation and providing objective feedback on the quality of
    the State plan. I value this independent review which will provide me
    with advice on whether the State plan meets the statutory requirements
    and therefore warrants my approval.
        In approving a State plan, amendments, or a waiver, I understand
    that I cannot add requirements or conditions that are inconsistent with
    or outside the scope of the law.

        Question 3. ESSA explicitly reflects a bipartisan desire to reduce
    the Federal footprint in America's schools. So can you explain why the
    Administration's 2017 budget requests the creation of 269 new positions
    at the U.S. Department of Education? This would represent an increase
    of 457 positions from 2015, or more than a 10 percent increase in just
    2 years. Can you explain why these positions are necessary, and why the
    Department intends to expand rather than shrink, given congressional
    intent to reduce the size of the Department?
        Answer 3. The Department of Education is the smallest Cabinet
    agency with 4,538 full-time equivalents (FTE), despite the third
    largest discretionary appropriation and the $1 trillion loan portfolio.
    We spend less than 1 percent of the $200 billion we make in grants and
    loans annually on administration. The 457 FTE increase from 2015 to
    2017 is almost all to investigate discrimination complaints and to help
    administer $100 billion in new loans and service an outstanding
    portfolio of over a trillion dollars. The Office for Civil Rights would
    grow by 213 FTE to keep up with the surge in discrimination complaints
    from 6,933 in 2010 to 10,900 in 2016. Without an increase in staff,
    resolution of cases will be delayed. Federal Student Aid staff will
    increase in order for ED to monitor schools and contractors who help
    provide aid to 12 million students each year. While we rely on private
    sector contractors to service the 41 million loan borrowers, we need
    Federal staff to work with the contractors to ensure they are serving
    our customers. Finally, we also need expert staff to manage our cyber
    security efforts and control the privacy of data. That said, we are not
    assigning more staff to ESSA programs.

        Question 4. Since you've been at the Department, you've talked
    repeatedly about the importance of closing racial and economic
    ``achievement gaps.'' That's a good and important use of the bully
    pulpit. How will you also shine a focus on addressing the educational
    needs of middle-class and suburban students?
        Answer 4. I have been very clear that I see no task as more
    critical than advancing educational equity and excellence. The goal is
    not to advance equal access to a mediocre education, it is to ensure
    that every student, regardless of race, class, or zip code has access
    to the truly world-class education they deserve and need in today's
    economy. As the question notes, the ``equity'' piece of that equation
    is fundamental to our ability to live up to our ideals as a nation and
    I will continue to focus on improving outcomes for students most in
    need. Despite significant progress over the past several years,
    students from low-income families and students of color lag behind
    their peers in nearly every important measure of school achievement. So
    do our rural students and students with disabilities, our English
    Learners, Native American students, and homeless students. That must
    change.
        However, we are also pursuing work in a number of areas that inure
    benefits to all students. The President's proposal to expand preschool
    for all would give more children--including middle class children--the
    early start that we know bolsters long-term success. Our Computer
    Science for All initiative aims to empower all students, regardless of
    background, with the computer science and computational thinking skills
    to succeed in today's innovation economy. Through our Testing Action
    Plan, we are working to reduce unnecessary, redundant or poorly
    designed assessments that eat up instructional time without providing
    useful feedback for parents and educators. With the passage of the
    Every Student Succeeds Act, States and districts have an opportunity to
    reclaim the goal of a well-rounded education for all students: an
    education that not only promotes strong numeracy and literacy skills
    but also provides access to science, social studies, the arts, physical
    education and health, and the opportunity to learn a second or third
    language.
        As I have in my time at the Department to date, I will continue to
    pursue policies and celebrate local efforts that support excellence in
    all of these ways.

        Question 5. The past year has seen a great deal of turbulence on
    college campuses. Whatever one makes of the current debates, there has
    been a worrisome inclination to stifle certain voices and kinds of
    speech. What do you think of attempts to silence ``hurtful'' speech or
    dis-invite unpopular campus speakers? Can we expect you to speak
    forthrightly and frequently on the vital role of free speech and
    intellectual diversity in higher education?
        Answer 5. On December 31, then Secretary Arne Duncan and I
    (performing the duties of the Deputy Secretary) issued a Dear Colleague
    Letter to enlist the help of education leaders and administrators to
    help promote mutual respect, tolerance, and diversity on our Nation's
    schools and institutions of higher education and ensure that their
    schools and institutions of higher education ``are learning
    environments in which students are free from discrimination and
    harassment based on their race, religion, or national origin.'' The
    letter is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/
    151231.html.
        The focus in the letter on these protections, while always
    essential, is particularly important amid international and domestic
    events that create an urgent need for safe spaces for students. In the
    letter, we emphasized that ``[t]o be very clear, working to maintain
    safe learning communities does not, and must not, mean chilling free
    expression about the issues of the day--this work is about taking
    thoughtful steps to create space for open and constructive dialog,
    while dealing swiftly with actions that create an unlawful hostile
    environment.'' We indicated that ``protecting free speech means
    protecting the ability of your students, faculty, staff, and members of
    the public to hold and express views that may be at odds with your
    institution's strongly held values. Schools should not ignore the
    dissonance that this creates, but should instead consciously use these
    moments as opportunities for reflection, discussion, and increased
    understanding.''

        Question 6. There is concern that the Department of Education is
    using title IX to strip basic constitutional rights from those accused
    of sexual assault on campus. In a letter that 28 members of the Harvard
    Law School faculty published in late 2014, they wrote that, under
    pressure from the Department of Education, ``Harvard has adopted
    procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack
    the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly
    stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law
    or regulation.'' What is your response to such concerns? If confirmed
    as secretary, what would you do to address them?

        Answer 6. The Department's regulations implementing title IX
    require that educational institutions adopt ``grievance procedures
    providing for prompt and equitable resolution'' of complaints. 34 CFR
    106.8(b). The Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) interprets
    that regulation to require equitable treatment of both complainants and
    those accused. At the current time, OCR has accepted for investigation
    around two dozen complaints filed by accused students claiming they
    were not treated equitably by their schools.
        Under OCR's interpretation of title IX, its implementing
    regulations, and case law as reflected in its guidance documents and
    enforcement actions, both parties must have equal opportunity to
    present relevant witnesses and other evidence and to otherwise
    participate in the process and must be afforded similar and timely
    access to any information that will be used at the hearing.
    Additionally, while OCR does not require schools to permit parties to
    have lawyers at any stage of the proceedings, if a school chooses to
    allow the parties to have their lawyers participate in the proceedings,
    it must do so equally for both parties. This interpretation is based on
    statute and regulation.
        Specifically with regard to Harvard Law School (HLS), I would note
    that the faculty op-ed criticizing the existing HLS sexual violence
    policy was published before the conclusion of OCR's investigation,
    which later concluded that the HLS policy violated title IX and its
    regulations.

        Question 7. The Administration has talked at length about the
    importance of early childhood education. Can you tell us how you will
    work with Congress to assess the benefits of current Federal pre-K
    efforts and reduce unnecessary paperwork or bureaucracy, rather than
    continuing to call for a new Federal pre-K program?
        Answer 7. We appreciate your leadership in helping to authorize,
    and continue, the Preschool Development Grant program as a part of
    ESSA, which began as an opportunity for States to develop or accelerate
    their work to provide high-quality, state-funded preschool to children
    from low- and moderate-income families. We will continue to work
    closely with Congress and other agencies to assess the benefits of
    early childhood education and ensure efficient and high-quality early
    learning programs to meet the need of families, children and States. We
    have invested in research through our Institute of Education Sciences,
    and in partnership with HHS and private sector partners, through the
    National Academies of Science, to identify evidence-based strategies
    that support children's learning and development. In addition, we
    continue to work more collaboratively than ever with our partners at
    the Department of Health and Human Service in jointly administering the
    Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge and Preschool Development
    Grants. We have also established an Interagency Policy Board to
    coordinate and align Federal early learning programs and policies, and
    to avoid redundancy. As the two largest providers of Federal early
    learning services we will continue to work together and with Congress
    to continue identifying best practices in early childhood development
    and help ensure the needs of our youngest children are met efficiently.

        Question 8. I appreciate your willingness to review the Task Force
    on Federal Regulation of Higher Education's report ``Recalibrating
    Regulation of Colleges and Universities.'' The report identifies
    several provisions and regulations that the Department of Education can
    change or modify on its own, without congressional action. Some of
    these provisions include changing the Return to Title IV regulations
    and updates to the financial responsibility standards. Are there
    specific items or initiatives in the report that the Department of
    Education will undertake to enact smarter and less burdensome
    requirements on our 6,000 colleges and universities?
        Answer 8. The Administration has already taken steps that are
    included in the task force report aimed at reducing administrative
    burden at colleges and universities while maintaining the integrity of
    the student financial aid programs. In September, President Obama
    announced that beginning with the 2017-18 award year students and
    families will be able to access and submit the Free Application for
    Federal Student Aid 3 months earlier, beginning October 2016. In
    addition, applicants will submit ``prior-prior'' income information,
    meaning that 2015 income information, already available in October
    through the data retrieval tool, will be used to inform aid decisions
    for the 2017 award year. Both of these changes will streamline the
    student aid process and provide families with an earlier picture of
    their aid eligibility more consistent with the timeline for applying
    for college and it will also significantly reduce the verification
    burden for colleges and universities as called for by the task force.
        In addition, we have taken administrative steps to improve the
    Federal financial aid process. Today, more than 99 percent of FAFSAs
    are submitted online. On average, students complete the online FAFSA in
    approximately 20 minutes, one third of the time it took 7 years ago.
    Moreover, last year over 6 million students and parents used the IRS
    Data Retrieval Tool (DRT), which allows students and parents to access
    and automatically transfer their IRS tax return information into the
    FAFSA. Despite these improvements we agree more can be done to make it
    easier to apply for college. That is why the fiscal year 2017 budget
    called for the elimination of up to 30 questions related to savings,
    investments, and net worth, since these have very little impact in
    determining aid awards, as well as untaxed income and exclusions from
    income data that are not reported to the IRS. When coupled with the
    steps the Administration has taken to simplify and streamline the FAFSA
    process, these policy changes greatly reduce institutional verification
    burden as called for by the task force. We look forward to continuing
    to work with Congress on how best to address these issues.

        Question 9a. In the Inspector General (IG) Fiscal Year 2015 Federal
    Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) Report, the IG conducted
    a cybersecurity vulnerability audit in which it was able to penetrate
    one of the Department's networks and move throughout the system
    undetected. The IG concluded: ``We determined that the Department's
    overall incident response and reporting program was not generally
    effective because we identified key weaknesses in it detection and
    prevention of system penetration.'' The Department's inability to
    detect an outside actor as it moved throughout the system raises
    concerns that the Department has already been breached and is unaware
    of the compromise to it systems. If confirmed, will you commit to
    promptly conducting a full scan of all of the Department's systems to
    determine whether outside actors have infiltrated the system
    undetected? Additionally, will you commit to repeating such scans at
    regular intervals?

        Answer 9a. The Department has taken a number of proactive steps to
    manage cybersecurity risk factors, and regular scanning and testing is
    an important part of those efforts. Among other things, the Department
    has sought technical assistance and information about best practices
    from across the Federal Government, including components of the
    Department of Homeland Security. We are committed to aggressively
    implementing best practices in order to proactively identify and
    remediate any weaknesses in our systems and continually address
    evolving cyber risk factors.

        Question 9b. What steps is the Department taking to improve its
    incident response and reporting program?
        Answer 9b. I have directed my team to further strengthen our
    incident response capabilities in the coming year by reviewing and
    implementing best practices and lessons learned from public and
    commercial experiences with incident response. These steps will improve
    our preparedness and the efficiency and effectiveness of our processes
    in order to be ready to respond, if necessary. For example, the
    Department is implementing new and additional incident response
    capabilities and resources to detect the types of malicious attacks
    identified during the audit through funding included in the fiscal year
    2016 budget. The Department is also taking additional steps to ensure
    and validate that all intrusion detection/prevention systems supporting
    the Department's networks are properly configured and monitored.
    Additionally, we are conducting a review of the EDUCATE and VDC network
    security architectures in order to identify and implement plans to
    rapidly address any gaps.

        Question 10. If confirmed, do you expect schools and universities
    to comply with every word of title IX guidance? Please answer yes or
    no. If no, please explain what is required by the guidance and what is
    not.

        Answer 10. We clearly state in guidance documents when the statute
    or regulations require specific action, and also provide best practices
    which do not require compliance. Guidance, by itself, is non-binding.
    The guidance issued by OCR contains both OCR's interpretations of what
    title IX and its implementing regulations and case law require and some
    non-exclusive ways for schools to meet those requirements.
        The Department does not expect schools and universities to comply
    with every word of the Office for Civil Rights' (OCR's) 2011 Title IX
    Dear Colleague Letter regarding sexual violence, or its 2014 Title IX
    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding sexual violence. For
    example, OCR's 2014 FAQs regarding sexual violence discourages student
    participation in conduct review boards in cases involving allegations
    of sexual violence. But in two recent examples, OCR issued letters
    resolving investigations at two universities (University of Virginia
    and Michigan State University) that described their violation of title
    IX and how they would be resolved; neither letter identified student
    participation as a title IX violation and both institutions continue to
    include students on those boards.

        Question 11. Does the Office for Civil rights require schools and
    universities to use a preponderance of evidence standard when deciding
    whether an allegation of sexual assault occurred?
        Answer 11. Title IX and its implementing regulations include the
    requirement that educational institutions adopt ``grievance procedures
    providing for prompt and equitable resolution'' of complaints, 34 CFR
    106.8(b)--OCR's use of the ``preponderance of the evidence'' standard,
    as explained in its 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, is based on these
    statutory and regulatory requirements, and is based on case law.

        Question 12. If confirmed, Section 8549 of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act requires that you develop procedures to review guidance
    and allow the public to request guidance be modified or rescinded. Have
    you started that process? If not, when will you begin to work on it?
        Answer 12. This is the beginning of an important and long-term
    process and we want to make sure we are supporting States as they
    transition to the new law. For new or revised guidance, the Department
    continues to use its processes for approving guidance documents
    internally, and to use executive office clearance processes for
    obtaining White House clearance. A list of significant guidance
    documents is available http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/significant-
    guidance.html, and will continue to be updated. This list provides the
    date in which the guidance was last issued or revised, and includes
    instructions by which the public can submit comment on any of the
    significant guidance documents. For Department guidance that will need
    to be rescinded as a result of ESSA, the Department will implement the
    processes outlined in the Office of Management and Budget, Executive
    Office of the President ``Agency Good Guidance Practices,'' which
    outlines policies and procedures for the development, issuance, and use
    of significant guidance documents by executive branch departments and
    agencies.

        Question 13. I have concerns when Federal agencies attempt to
    institute new policies and rules under the guise of interpretative
    guidance, and in the Department of Education's case, using Dear
    Colleague letters to set new requirements instead of using the
    rulemaking process. In a recent Dear Colleague Letter (DCL GEN 15-14),
    the Department asserts its intent is to ``reState and clarify the rules
    . . .'' regarding guaranty agencies. However, the existing regulations,
    which have been followed for years by guaranty agencies (and for which
    the Department has conducted audits and oversight), were implemented
    and were never challenged by the Department until now. After the
    issuance of this new six-page Dear Colleague Letter, the Department
    attempted to add this very issue to the current negotiated rulemaking
    process regarding borrower defenses in order to, as stated in the
    corresponding issue paper on the proposed regulation, ``codif[y] the
    explanation of regulations provided in Dear Colleague Letter GEN-15-14
    . . .'' Given that the Department wanted to codify the Dear Colleague
    letter, it appears that DCL GEN 15-14 is not simply restating a long-
    standing rule. While the issue has been removed from the discussion at
    the ongoing negotiated rulemaking, it is still pending in the courts--
    an unfortunate result of the Department not following the proper
    regulatory process.
        Will you retract DCL GEN 15-14 and instead follow the rulemaking
    process? Will you assure this committee that in the future new rules
    and policies will be promulgated through the rulemaking process?
        Answer 13. The Department utilizes Dear Colleague Letters (DCLs) to
    provide clarification to the field on how the Department interprets our
    regulations. We believe this helps institutions keep within the law and
    regulations, and DCLs are often issued in response to questions in the
    field about the implementation of our regulations. The DCL you
    reference was issued by the Department to explain the history of the
    rules governing the imposition of collection costs on borrowers who
    enter into repayment agreements (including a rehabilitation agreement)
    within 60 days of a default. As discussed in that letter and in the
    decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    in Bible v. United Student Aid Funds, the conclusion that a guaranty
    agency cannot charge collection costs to a borrower who enters into a
    repayment agreement within 60 days of default is based on regulations
    issued by the Department in 1992, which were based in part on earlier
    regulations governing tax refund offset procedures issued in 1986. As
    we also noted in the DCL, it is the Department's experience that few
    borrowers enter into a repayment agreement within the initial 60 day
    period. Therefore, the Department's past reviews of guaranty agencies
    did not focus on that particular issue. However, as noted in the letter
    and in the Court's decision, the Department explained the prohibition
    on charging collection costs to these borrowers when the issue arose.
    In light of the claims made by United Student Aid Funds in the Bible
    case (which were ultimately rejected by the court), we offered to make
    our long-standing and established interpretation of the regulations
    even more clear under the negotiated rulemaking process.

        Question 14. As the committee approaches reauthorizing the Higher
    Education Act, an organization has raised concerns over student safety
    abroad. One of their concerns is that students who attend study abroad
    programs and families of these students are unaware of safety hazards,
    such as dangerous landscapes, harsh weather, diseases or crime, in the
    country or region where they plan to travel. Please update the
    committee on the following:

        (1) Steps the Department has taken to disseminate safety
    information about study abroad locations to institutions of higher
    education, students or families; and,
        (2) Efforts the Department has taken to coordinate with the
    Department of State on disseminating information to institutions of
    higher education, students and families about safety concerns in
    foreign countries or about access to Department of State traveler
    resources.
        Answer 14. The Department of Education's International & Foreign
    Language office (IFLE) continues to disseminate information to its
    listserv and through social media about general study abroad safety.
    The IFLE office continues to require all grantee travelers to register
    with the Department of State's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP)
    for up to date information on country-related risks. IFLE has posted a
    page on Travel Abroad Safety and Health on its Web site at: http://
    www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/travel-safety.html and
    referred the public to study abroad safety resources readily available
    online through its social media outlets. The IFLE team is also planning
    a webinar in the spring of 2016 on the subject of study abroad safety.
    IFLE communicates clearly that all Fulbright-Hays participants are
    required to have health insurance that must be valid in the host
    country. The participant's insurance must include emergency evacuation
    coverage. Students who use their title VI funded Foreign Language &
    Area Studies (FLAS) fellowships to study overseas are informed about
    STEP, and IFLE allows students to use the institutional payment portion
    of the fellowship to purchase health insurance.
        The IFLE team coordinates regularly with the Department of State's
    Bureau of Education & Cultural Affairs on issues related to student
    safety abroad. The IFLE team continually assesses the advisability of
    supporting programs in specific nations based on the Department of
    State's safety assessment. The IFLE team also regularly meets with the
    Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board, which jointly oversees Fulbright
    and Fulbright-Hays programs at the Departments of State and Education,
    respectively to discuss a number of issues related to the programs,
    including safety. Upon notification of a high-risk assessment from the
    Department of State, IFLE staff quickly communicates with staff at
    pertinent institutions of higher education as well as with State
    Department posts or Fulbright Commissions in country to ensure an
    adequate response to protect the health and safety of students and
    faculty in that country, including, when necessary, authorizing
    immediate withdrawal and return to the United States.
                                  senator enzi
        Question 1. At a February 2, 2016 hearing before the House
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, you testified about rapid
    improvements in the wake of the Department's negative performance in
    OMB's evaluation of cybersecurity programs. That is good progress, but
    it is just a first step.
        Even if the Department is finally coming into compliance with the
    cybersecurity audits it faces from the IG, the Department must
    recognize that cybersecurity cannot solely be compliance based. The
    Department must have a strong cybersecurity posture that can adapt and
    respond to the evolving threat actors who seek to use its 139 million
    student records for nefarious purposes. What steps will you take to
    adopt a proactive cybersecurity posture?
        Answer 1. I agree that the Department has made meaningful progress
    on cybersecurity in the past year, but the work of addressing
    cybersecurity is never done, and I have made the continued
    strengthening of cybersecurity a top management priority for the next
    year. There are a number of areas I have identified for additional
    improvements and I have directed my team to immediately undertake
    additional actions to address those.
        First, the team is continuing to work aggressively to accelerate
    implementation of two-factor authentication for the remaining
    privileged users in order to achieve 100 percent compliance as
    projected during March 2016. Additional steps include continuing to use
    a focused and disciplined approach to systemically resolving--and
    addressing the root causes behind--any cybersecurity related findings
    from both our 2015 FISMA Audit and the 2015 Financial Statement Audit.
    Beyond those compliance measures, I have also directed the team to take
    additional proactive steps to strengthen the cybersecurity of our
    networks, increase end user cybersecurity awareness, support and expand
    further the cybersecurity capacity of our third party partners at
    guaranty agencies and institutions of higher education, grow our
    incident response capabilities, and continue to build the capacity of
    our internal team through hiring of additional professionals with
    expertise on these issues who can assist us in implementing best
    practices to improve the Department's cybersecurity program.

        Question 2. During your time as Commissioner of Education in New
    York, you faced significant backlash from virtually all parties with
    regard to your effort to facilitate the implementation of inBloom. The
    purpose of inBloom was to amass an extraordinary amount of student data
    with the intent of sharing it with private software developers to
    create personalized educational products. This effort was finally
    stopped by an act of the New York State Legislature.
        What did you learn from that lesson with regard to the sensitivity
    of student data and how it belongs to the students and their parents or
    guardians until their consent is explicitly provided?
        Answer 2. While data can be incredibly transformative and
    empowering, student privacy must be prioritized. Data is critical to
    teachers and it allows them to support students, differentiate
    instruction and make real time decisions to help students to succeed.
    Analyzing and acting upon data in smart ways can transform teaching and
    learning and help students, empower parents and inform school leaders
    in order to enable targeted deployment of scarce resources. Using data
    in a smart way is also an essential to expanding equity--data can help
    teachers identify, understand, and address gaps they might not have
    otherwise recognized.
        While we work to harness the power of data to promote access to an
    excellent education for all, we must also be as diligent about student
    privacy as we are about the need to use student data. States and
    districts must adopt best practices to protect student privacy and
    learn from each other as we all move forward to improve outcomes for
    all students. The Department plays an essential role in protecting the
    personal information of our students by ensuring the proper access to
    and use of student data through its administration and enforcement of
    the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the
    Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). In order to stay ahead of
    the growing number of complex student privacy issues, the Department is
    committing additional resources to our student privacy operations in
    order to enhance our ability to administer and enforce these laws, and
    to promote privacy best practices.
                               senator murkowski
        Question 1. What is your vision for the Department of Education?
        Answer 1. I believe education can be the difference between hope
    and despair--between life and death, even--because it was for me.
    Amidst the trauma and uncertainty in my life after my parents passed
    away, school was a refuge. Teachers saved my life. It was, in large
    part, because of them that I became a teacher myself. But there are too
    many children from backgrounds like mine who deserve the same chance. I
    want school for them to be what it was for me. And I believe every
    American, regardless of background, deserves the world class education
    that it will take to succeed in today's economy.
        I have laid out three priorities for the Department for the
    remainder of the year.
        First, we must support States, districts, and educators in their
    work to advance educational equity and excellence for every child.
    Through implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act, the
    Department will continue to play its critical role in ensuring
    guardrails to protect students' civil rights. At the same time, we will
    support State and local efforts to seize the new opportunity to
    establish better, more balanced ways of assessing student learning and
    to reclaim the goal of a well-rounded education for all students. In
    addition to implementing the new law, the Department will continue to
    use our policy tools and our ``bully pulpit'' to keep the national
    focus on a first-rate education for every child--including supporting
    State and local efforts to expand access to high-quality preschool and
    computer science.
        Second, we must lift up the teaching profession, and find more ways
    to celebrate, support, and sustain our Nation's educators. We all know
    from research and from personal experience the importance of great
    teaching. The start of a new era also brings with it an opening for a
    much-needed reset in the national dialog. Over the last few years,
    education policy discussions have too often been characterized by more
    heat than light--especially where educators are concerned. Despite the
    best of intentions, teachers and principals, at times, have felt
    attacked and unfairly blamed. All of us--at the local, State, and
    Federal level--have to take responsibility for the climate that exists.
    And all of us must do whatever we can to change it.
        Finally, we know that in today's skills-based economy, education
    beyond a high school diploma is more important than ever before. We
    must continue to work together to ensure that every student has the
    opportunity to obtain the post-secondary education needed to gain the
    knowledge to succeed--whether in the form of a 2-year or 4-year college
    degree, or an industry credential and direct pathway to a well-paying
    job. The Department will continue to focus on advancing access,
    affordability, and completion in higher education--including protecting
    students and taxpayers by cracking down on fraud and abuse by bad
    actors and supporting student loan borrowers to manage their loan
    repayment.

        Question 2. Your written testimony was not very specific about how
    you plan to lead the Department to implement the Every Student Succeeds
    Act. What do you feel the role of the Department is in K-12 education
    going forward?
        Answer 2. The passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is a
    major accomplishment and builds on existing efforts to expand
    educational excellence and equity in partnership with States,
    districts, communities, and educators. ESSA presents us with a moment
    of both opportunity and moral responsibility.
        ESSA advances equity by upholding critical protections and
    maintaining dedicated resources for America's most disadvantaged
    students. Importantly, the law maintains expectations that action will
    be taken to improve opportunities for students in schools that
    chronically underperform, that do not improve low graduation rates, and
    that do not ensure progress for all student groups.
        The new law also embodies much of what the Obama administration has
    supported over the last 7 years. For the first time, ESSA enshrines in
    law high, state-chosen learning standards so that all students are
    prepared for college and careers. The law supports local innovation and
    builds on this Administration's historic investments in quality
    preschool. It requires that information on student progress is shared
    through annual, statewide assessments. And it supports State efforts to
    audit and streamline assessments so that all State and local tests are
    high quality and worth taking.
        Importantly, ESSA builds on work already underway to raise
    expectations for students and establish locally tailored systems for
    school improvement in States. The law rightly shifts responsibility for
    developing strategies to support the highest-need students and schools
    to State and local decisionmakers--and away from the one-size-fits-all
    mandates of No Child Left behind. And it creates opportunities for
    States to reclaim the goal of a rigorous, well-rounded education for
    every child. The Department of Education will work to be a good partner
    to States, districts, and educators as they take on this critical work.
        Education is, and should remain, primarily a State and local
    responsibility. ESSA is a big and complex law with new provisions
    related to data reporting, accountability, support systems, programs,
    and authorities. What we plan to do at the Federal level is to support
    States and districts to improve opportunity for students, invest in
    local innovation, research and scale what works, ensure transparency,
    and protect our students' civil rights by providing guardrails to
    ensure educational opportunity for all children. I, and all my
    colleagues at the Department, take these responsibilities very
    seriously.
        Ultimately, we all want quality implementation of the law that
    supports States, districts, and schools in helping every student to
    succeed.
        ESSA implementation will require an incredible amount of work. The
    Department has heard from stakeholders across the country about where
    guidance or technical assistance is most needed. We've sought input on
    areas in need of regulation, received hundreds of comments via our
    notice in the Federal Register, and held public meetings.
        We're still early in the process, but there's urgency in the work.
    To support States, districts, and educators the Department will engage
    in negotiated rulemaking on assessments and the law's requirement that
    Federal funds be used to supplement, not supplant local and State
    investments in education. Sessions will begin in late March and will be
    open to the public.
        As we continue to meet with stakeholders and determine regulations
    and guidance requiring updates, we look forward to a robust discussion
    on the new law.

        Question 3. The Department of Education has been severely
    criticized by the Inspector General for not sufficiently protecting the
    139 million Social Security numbers of Federal student aid borrowers.
    The IG successfully hacked the Department's computer network in a 2015
    audit and concluded that the Department's ability to protect that
    private data is not effective. Please list the actions that you, as
    Acting Secretary, are taking right now to bring the Department's
    cybersecurity grade from a ``D'' to an ``A'' over the next year.
        Answer 3. I take the Department's responsibility for safeguarding
    sensitive data extremely seriously. While I believe that the Department
    has made meaningful progress on cybersecurity in the past year, the
    work of addressing cybersecurity is never done, and I have made clear
    to my team that we must do better, and continue to do better. That is
    why I have made the continued strengthening of cybersecurity a top
    management priority for the next year. There are a number of areas I
    have identified for additional improvements and I have directed my team
    to immediately undertake additional actions to address those,
    including: completing implementation of two factor authentication at
    the single external vendor by the end of March 2016, systematically
    resolving and addressing identified root causes for all cybersecurity
    related audit findings, strengthening the cybersecurity of our
    networks, as well as the networks of our third party partners at
    guaranty agencies and institutions of higher education, increasing end
    user cybersecurity awareness, growing our incident response
    capabilities, and building the capacity of our internal team through
    additional hiring of expert professionals.

        Question 4. The Every Student Succeeds Act includes two provisions
    that I worked on with my colleagues on this committee as well as
    Senator Boxer and others across the Senate. The first is the
    reauthorization of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program,
    which supports afterschool programs. We negotiated a provision within
    the 21stC program to allow certain high-quality extended learning
    programs to use 21stC funds for 21stC activities only, and not for the
    general costs of implementing an extended school day or year program.
    Will you commit that the Department will abide by this statutory
    limitation as you develop regulations and guidance under ESSA and as
    you solicit applications for 21stC funds?
        Answer 4. The Department recognizes the important purpose of the
    21st Century Community Learning Centers program to support before- and
    after-school programs, and we will abide by ESSA's requirements for the
    21st Century program, in accordance with the statute.
        Under ESSA, States may use funding to support 21st Century
    activities that are included as part of an expanded learning program
    that provide students at least 300 additional program hours before,
    during, or after the traditional school day. ESSA provides priorities
    for the use of funds that focus on providing services to students who
    attend schools that are implementing comprehensive support and
    improvement activities, along with several other priorities. These
    funds may not supplant school day requirements.

        Question 5. The second ESSA provision that I would like to ask you
    about is one that Senator Franken and I worked on--the authorization of
    funds from Indian Education National Activities to support Native
    language immersion programs and schools. The purpose of authorizing
    this support is to assist American Indian and Alaska Native communities
    throughout the Nation to revitalize their languages, which are so
    closely tied to their cultures and their children's future. Native
    communities are anxious for these funds to become available. When can
    these communities expect to see the first request for applications for
    these funds? How do you anticipate implementing this provision to
    ensure that schools and programs in all regions of the country, serving
    the maximum variety of languages, are able to benefit from this
    support?
        Answer 5. Over the last 7 years, Indian students and communities
    have made progress in reinvigorating efforts to preserve and restore
    Native languages and culture; increasing tribal capacity to influence
    and control educational decisions for Native students; and raising
    awareness about school climate issues that are unique to Indian
    students and communities. The Native language immersion schools and
    programs provisions are an important continuation of this work.
        The administration has begun and will continue to engage tribal
    communities and other interested stakeholders through the summer of
    2016 in order to establish priorities and ensure timely implementation
    of the new provisions and programs authorized in ESSA. We thank you for
    your leadership on Native language immersion issues and will remain in
    close contact with your office as we consider implementation of this,
    and other provisions, within the new Title VI of ESSA.

        Question 6. The committee's staff have been informed of the ten
    investigations the Department's Office of Inspector General has
    conducted between 2012 and 2015 involving senior officials. In one case
    that occurred in 2012--before you arrived at the Department--a GS-15
    employee sexually harassed three contract employees who were under his
    operational control. While the Department of Justice declined the
    matter for prosecution, the Department of Education suspended the
    employee for 12 days. The Department's Office of Civil Rights works to
    ensure that college students who have been harassed or abused are
    protected under their title IX rights, which includes being protected
    from having to study or live in proximity to their abusers. Are the
    Department's employees afforded the same protection? Was the GS-15
    employee removed from proximity to his victims? If not, will you direct
    that such protections are afforded to all employees in the future?
        Answer 6. In 2011, the Department's Office of the Inspector General
    (OIG) forwarded information to the U.S. Department of Education's
    Office of Management (OM) concerning allegations of sexual harassment
    by an ED employee against three contract employees who were under the
    operational control of the ED employee. Immediately upon notification
    of the allegations, OM removed the ED employee from operational control
    and proximity over the office where the three employees worked. OM
    reviewed the information provided by OIG and concluded that the
    information supported a finding that the ED employee made inappropriate
    comments to the three contract employees. Based on OM's findings and
    conclusion, OM, following ED's disciplinary procedures, issued a 12-day
    suspension for ``inappropriate behavior.'' We take very seriously our
    responsibility to help ensure a safe working environment for our
    employees and contractors.

        Question 7. How will you ensure that local communities and States
    will be empowered in the new regulations pertaining to ESSA?
        Answer 7. Education is, and should remain, primarily a State and
    local responsibility and the Department is committed to supporting
    States and local school districts in that responsibility. Importantly,
    ESSA empowers State and local decisionmakers to develop their own
    strategies for supporting the students and schools most in need based
    on evidence, rather than imposing the one-size-fits all approach of No
    Child Left Behind (NCLB). By providing States and districts with more
    flexibility to innovate and implement locally driven reform, ESSA moves
    beyond NCLB in a way that will drive stronger outcomes for all kids.
        In considering whether to regulate, we are working to identify
    areas in which regulations would clarify the law or ensure effective
    implementation of the law.
        This is a big and complex law, with a lot of new pieces and new
    opportunities for States, districts and their students. As I have
    mentioned, this is the beginning of a long process and we want to make
    sure we are supporting States and districts as they transition from
    NCLB to ESSA. This includes the Department gathering input to determine
    our regulatory plans under the ESSA, so I cannot speak to specific
    regulatory provisions here. However, I can say that we are very pleased
    to have received written and oral comments from hundreds, including
    those representing local school districts and States. Further, during
    our upcoming negotiated rulemaking sessions, we will be seating
    negotiators representing both State and local interests, among other
    constituencies. Additionally, during the rulemaking process, the
    public, including local State and district stakeholders, will have an
    opportunity to comment on specific proposed rules before they are
    final.

        Question 8. In your new role as the Secretary of Education, will
    you still be supportive of Boards of Cooperative Educational Services,
    which provide shared educational programs and services to school
    districts and States, and consider policy decisions that support
    sustaining and even growing their role?
        Answer 8. As Chief State School Officer in NY, I recognized how
    vital Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) can be in
    building local capacity, supporting implementation, sharing promising
    practices, and sustaining the work over time. They were an asset to
    both my team at the State level as well as local districts and
    educators in the communication, execution, and continuous improvement
    of our work. This was particularly true for smaller and mid-size LEAs.
    By leveraging the additional resources, expertise and capacity of the
    BOCES and through collaboration they were able to make notable
    progress.
        Given my personal experience, I respect the right of a State to
    establish entities such as the BOCES to provide shared educational
    services and recognize that they often can help implement Federal
    education programs. It is a State decision, however, whether to
    establish these entities.
                                 senator scott
        Question 1. When we spoke in my office on 2/24/16, you said that
    the Administration would prefer to support DC public schools rather
    than the voucher program. You also said that the Administration is
    holding onto the $35 million in excess carry over funds to preserve
    scholarships for the children currently in the program. You also
    justified this position by saying that the Department must hold onto
    the carryover funds in the case that Congress does not make
    appropriations for DC OSP in future years. As I'm sure you know, the
    SOAR Act ties together funding for all three approaches to DC K-12
    education: DC Public Schools, Charter Schools, and DC OSP. In fact, as
    part of this approach, DC public schools have received more resources
    than DCOSP since 2004. Therefore, under the SOAR Act, if Congress does
    not appropriate funds for the DC OSP, then they do not appropriate
    funds for DC Public Schools either. This being the case, why has the
    Department chosen to withhold administrative funds from the DCOSP, but
    not DC Public Schools or DC Charter Schools?
        Answer 1. The Department is pleased that students in Washington, DC
    are making tremendous progress. High school graduation rates are
    improving, and according to last year's National Assessment of
    Educational Progress (NAEP), fourth grade reading achievement in
    Washington, DC improved more than any other State since the creation of
    the NAEP assessment. In addition, charter schools in Washington, DC are
    producing significant gains in students' learning, especially for
    students from low-income homes. This progress is the result of
    hardworking students, families and educators, and has been supported in
    part by investments from our Department, including through the SOAR
    Act. As you noted, the SOAR Act's programs are tripartite, and these
    funding streams serve different functions. Whereas the awards for
    charter schools support startup costs for new public schools, and
    investments in DCPS largely incentivize excellent educators, under the
    SOAR Act, the DC OSP funds are awarded to a grantee that awards
    scholarships to eligible students seeking to attend private schools.
    The SOAR Act limits the amount of appropriated funds for administrative
    purposes. The Department routinely approves the grantee's request for
    the maximum amount of administrative funds permitted. Also, the
    Department maintains reserves to ensure that scholarships continue for
    students currently enrolled in private schools through the DC OSP with
    minimal disruption to their education.

        Question 2. The SOAR Act provides only 2 simple criteria for
    eligibility for a scholarship: That the student is low income, and that
    she is a DC resident. However, the department is actively blocking
    other categories of students from receiving scholarships. This includes
    students who were previously enrolled in private schools, students
    previously assigned to control groups, and students not using a
    scholarship for 2 years or more. If a student loses access to the
    resources that support their private school education--a common
    scenario--under your rules that student does not qualify for a
    scholarship. Do you have a reason for why the Department is excluding
    these children, and will you commit to returning these eligibility
    requirements according to the standard made clear in the SOAR Act?
        Answer 2. The Department is committed to ensuring that all students
    can earn an excellent education. In implementing the SOAR Act, the
    Department considers the current and future needs of all DC OSP
    scholarship students and families in the context of the statute. All
    applications received by the DC OSP grantee, including applications
    from students who attended private school during the previous year and
    are eligible under the SOAR Act, are reviewed by the grantee to
    determine whether they meet the definition of ``Eligible Student,'' in
    accordance with the law. Furthermore, the SOAR Act prioritizes the
    awarding of scholarships to students who were previously enrolled in a
    public school identified for improvement, corrective action or
    restructuring under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In
    executing the DC OSP lottery, the grantee incorporates these priorities
    while seeking to ensure a fair process for interested families. In
    addition, the SOAR Act requires that the Department ``target resources
    to students and families that lack the financial resources to take
    advantage of available educational options; and . . . provide students
    and families with the widest range of educational options.'' Consistent
    with the past several years, the Department implements these
    requirements by giving priority to students who attended public schools
    in the previous school year over students who attended private school
    in the previous school year. In addition, this year, the grantee may
    award scholarships to students previously enrolled in the control group
    who have a sibling currently receiving a DC OSP scholarship.

        Question 3. The Obama administration has consistently zeroed out
    funding for the DC OSP program in its annual budget request. Why does
    the Administration continue to zero out funding for a program that can
    boast a 90 percent graduation rate?
        Answer 3. The Administration is committed to ensuring that there is
    sufficient funding under the DC OSP to provide for the continuity of
    education for students currently enrolled in the program. Sufficient
    funds to accomplish that goal are retained in the Department's DC OSP
    account, and therefore no new funds are required to accomplish that
    goal.
        The Department has focused its budget authority on ensuring equity
    and excellence across K-12 public schools.

        Question 4. Dr. King, in ESSA, Congress solidified support for
    charter schools by streamlining existing programs providing
    accountability measures, and supporting resources to replicate and
    expand high-quality charter schools. Will you commit to following
    congressional intent, and implementing the charter school provisions of
    ESSA so that we may expand and sustain high-quality charter schools?
        Answer 4. As the founder of a public charter school, and one of the
    top performing middle schools in Massachusetts, I know that charter
    schools can transform the lives of the students they serve. Over the
    last 7 years, the Department has helped to accelerate both the growth
    and the improvement of charter schools throughout the Nation. In fact,
    over 40 percent of public charter schools operating in SY13-14 received
    funding through the Department's Charter Schools Programs (CSP) between
    SY06-07 and SY13-14. We are pleased that as the charter school sector
    has grown, charter school performance also has improved, as validated
    by independent researchers. In the year ahead, the Department will
    continue working closely with our partners under the guidelines of ESSA
    to support the creation, replication and expansion of high-quality
    charter schools.

        Question 5. Could you please clarify how States should treat the 95
    percent testing requirements in light of the opt-out provision in ESSA
    and provide an estimated timeframe for when we can expect the
    Department to issue regulations in that regard? What will be the impact
    on States if they are unable to meet the 95 percent requirements due to
    high levels of parental opt-out?
        Answer 5. ESSA maintained the longstanding ESEA requirement that
    States assess all students in mathematics and reading/language arts
    annually in grades 3-8, and at least once in high school, and in
    science in each of three grade spans. A high-quality annual statewide
    assessment system that includes all students is important so that local
    leaders, educators, and parents can have the information they need to
    help every student succeed and ensure equity by holding all students to
    the same high expectations. The Department is still in the process of
    gathering input on what regulations to promulgate and guidance to
    issue, and at this point I cannot estimate a timeframe by which
    potential regulation or guidance documents would be ready.
        We also recognize and share concerns about the amount of time
    students are spending on standardized testing in some places. That's
    why the President has put in place a Testing Action Plan to improve
    assessment systems and eliminate unnecessary or low-quality
    assessments. The Department has taken significant steps forward in
    implementing that plan and will continue to do so.
                                 senator hatch
        Question 1. I was heartened that Secretary Duncan abandoned trying
    to calculate a ``rating'' for each our 6,000 colleges and universities
    and instead put out the College Scorecard with discreet statistics, so
    students and families can determine which data points are important for
    them.
        But, I was disappointed to learn that the Department kept no
    records of how the student borrowing and repayment calculations were
    made.
        Recently, my staff recently submitted a request with the Department
    asking for technical assistance in order to model the effects of
    Senator Shaheen's and my Student Protection and Success Act, which
    depends on student loan repayment rates. As the College Scorecard
    featured many years of repayment rates, I wished to use the variables
    that were part of the mathematic formula used to calculate these rates
    prominently featured by the Department's new transparency tool.
        However, my staff was informed that the Department did not keep any
    of the calculations or underlying variables used to calculate the
    College Scorecard repayment rates.
        It is highly unusual to publicize findings, especially ones that
    are used to compare institutions, without being able to reproduce your
    calculations or ``show your work'' as they say in mathematics classes.
        Can you explain the Department's reasoning behind this, and ways in
    which the Department may act in a more mathematically valid way in the
    future?
        Answer 1. My staff was pleased to provide your office with the
    information requested last month. After reviewing the initial request,
    we determined that the exact specifications of the request did not
    align with the backup data that were maintained for the Scorecard
    repayment rates. The request for balances at particular points in time
    could not be accomplished without generating concerns about the privacy
    of student-level data. Instead, in order to meet your request, we were
    able to provide a new data run that better matched the nature of the
    request from your office, and that protected the privacy of borrowers
    in the cohorts. As we continue to produce the College Scorecard, we
    will work to refine the calculations, as well as to evaluate ways to
    maintain other pieces of the underlying data.

        Question 2. I've been glad to see the Department move toward a more
    fair, unbiased system of contracting over the past year. To make sure
    this shift is continued, I would like to know what the Department is
    doing to cultivate good student loan serving in the upcoming rebidding
    process for student loan servicing contracts. Do your plans include
    allowing high-quality, smaller NFP servicers to bid. Will the
    Department ensure a fair, efficient and transparent process, with a
    level playing field for participation in that process?
        Answer 2. Student loan servicing is one of the Department's largest
    and most complex responsibilities, affecting nearly 30 million
    borrowers and having a portfolio over $1 trillion. Our first priority
    is ensuring that all student loan borrowers are afforded a high-quality
    customer experience as they work to responsibly manage their student
    loan debt. Accordingly, we have begun to look at future models of loan
    servicing and we are currently in the planning phase of a new student
    loan servicing acquisition; this effort will streamline and simplify
    servicing systems and processes to improve customer service, increase
    efficiency, and enhance the Department's ability to effectively oversee
    and monitor servicing operations.
        NFPs will have an opportunity to participate in the solicitation
    process, both as bidders and as members of teaming arrangements. In
    managing this undertaking we will work to ensure that borrowers receive
    the highest quality of service while protecting the interests of
    taxpayers.

        Question 3. The Department of Education has consistently tried,
    often with underwhelming results, to either incentivize or mandate
    equitable teacher distribution throughout States. As you know TEACH
    Grants and other tools have shown to not be effective at incentivizing
    teacher placement, nor can you require that States achieve equitable
    distribution. How do you plan to streamline the incentive process for
    individual teachers, and how do you plan to help States do the same?
        Answer 3. Ensuring equitable access to excellent educators for all
    students--particularly students from low-income families and students
    of color, continues to be one of ED's key priorities, and we seek to
    use the tools we have to support increased equity. For example, the
    Department recognizes that existing teacher financial assistance
    programs have proved insufficient to incentivize individuals to join
    and remain in the teaching profession. That is why the President's
    fiscal year 2017 budget proposes simplifying existing post-secondary
    assistance available to teachers by consolidating existing programs
    into a single, more generous loan forgiveness program. The new program
    would reward teachers in high-need schools with forgiveness up to
    $10,000, while those who graduated from effective teacher preparation
    programs, as determined by States, would be eligible to receive up to
    $25,000. This new program would also reward job retention by forgiving
    increasing shares of student loan balances over time.
        Another important effort is the new State Plans to Ensure Equitable
    Access to Excellent Educators that all 50 States submitted in 2015. The
    Department approved all plans, and continues to provide technical
    assistance to the States as they implement their plans. In their plans,
    States have proposed such strategies as making improvements to their
    teacher preparation programs to ensure teacher candidates are prepared
    for success in high-need, hard to staff schools; using data from
    shortage predictor models to drive policymaking; providing financial
    compensation for teachers working in hard to staff areas or subjects;
    and improving working conditions in hard to staff schools. The
    Department will continue to provide support as States implement and
    continuously improve their plans to help create incentives for teachers
    and achieve equitable distribution of teachers throughout their State.

        Question 4. Given the Department's own issues with cybersecurity
    and protecting data, how do you plan to ensure that you can provide
    adequate technical assistance to States and localities who are dealing
    with potential student privacy issues? As you know, the Department
    included third party providers as covered school officials in past
    FERPA regulations, without ensuring that these providers have adequate
    contracts in place to prohibit the use of personally identifiable
    student data for non-academic purposes. Please elaborate on how you
    plan to ensure all data is used for the correct purpose?
        The Department provides substantial technical assistance to
    schools, districts, and State education agencies around student
    privacy. Through staff and the Department's Privacy Technical
    Assistance Center we provide training, make site visits, and develop
    resources to help schools recognize and manage emerging privacy issues.
        With regard to contracting, schools and districts have outsourced
    institutional services or functions that can be better or more
    efficiently procured externally. The Department's 2008 amendments to
    the FERPA regulations recognized this longstanding practice, and
    provided guidance to schools and districts to ensure that they comply
    with FERPA when contracting. We issued important guidance in 2014 to
    assist schools when they contract for online educational resources,
    http://ptac.ed.gov/sites/default/files/
    Student%20Privacy%20and%20Online%20Educational%20
    Services%20%28February%202014%29.pdf. In recognition of the importance
    of FERPA compliance and privacy best practices, in 2016 we have
    committed additional resources to our student privacy operations,
    adding an additional 5 FTE so that we can streamline enforcement,
    provide guidance on emerging policy questions, and provide augmented
    technical assistance.
                                senator cassidy
        Question 1. As you know, there is a strong opt-out movement growing
    in the country with many parents refusing to allow their children to
    participate in State assessments. I believe that parents should have
    the right to make decisions about their children's education.
        While the new law does maintain the requirement for annual testing
    and that at least 95 percent of students participate in those tests,
    the law clearly gives the States the power to determine how
    participation rates will factor into their accountability systems and
    what consequences or interventions, no matter how minimal, there will
    be for schools that are not compliant. This is Congress' intent.
        Yet, on December 22, 2015, the Department sent a letter to Chief
    State School Officers reiterating to States the consequences for non-
    compliance with the 95 percent participation rate requirement. The
    letter also makes suggestions on what sanctions States could impose on
    school districts and schools that are non-compliant--the new law
    prohibits the Department from telling States what those consequences
    should be.
        To me, by sending this letter, the Department is coercing States
    into pressuring their school districts and schools to pressure parents
    to take these tests. Parents should have a say over their child's
    education without threat.
        Given the current opt-out movement, how will the Department support
    rather than threaten to punish States?
        Answer 1. We have a responsibility to ensure that States comply
    with their obligations under the law.
        The ESSA continues the longstanding ESEA requirement that States
    assess all students in mathematics and reading/language arts annually
    in grades 3-8, and at least once in high school and in science in each
    of three grade spans. A high-quality annual statewide assessment system
    that includes all students is important so that local leaders,
    educators, and parents can have the information they need to help every
    student succeed and ensure equity by holding all students to the same
    high expectations.
        It is also important to note, however, that in too many schools,
    there is unnecessary testing and not enough clarity of purpose applied
    to the task of assessing students, consuming too much instructional
    time and creating undue stress for educators and students. The
    Department is working to support States and districts in addressing
    this problem by implementing the President's Testing Action Plan, which
    lays out principles for fewer and smarter assessments. We are providing
    financial support for States to develop better, less burdensome tests,
    seeking additional funding to help States review their assessments and
    develop better assessments, and recently issued guidance explaining how
    Federal funds can be used to support this work.

        Question 2. The new law continues the requirement that States
    annually assess all students in all schools in reading/English language
    arts, math, and science. And the law maintains that at least 95 percent
    of students must participate in such assessments. However, I have a
    concern that students with dyslexia who struggle with reading start at
    a disadvantage for the State reading assessments.
        Dyslexia is an unexpected difficulty in reading due to the
    difficulty in getting to the individual sounds of spoken language.
    Research shows that it is the most common learning disability effecting
    1 in 5 people.
        Knowing the prevalence of dyslexia and that a State's reading
    assessment may not be appropriate for dyslexic students, how will the
    Department take this into consideration as they develop their
    regulations?
        Answer 2. Assessments should be fair, including providing fair
    measures of student learning for students with disabilities--including
    students with dyslexia--and English learners. Accessibility features
    and accommodations must level the playing field so tests accurately
    reflect what students really know and can do. The Department is still
    in the process of gathering input on what regulations to promulgate and
    guidance to issue, and unfortunately at this point I cannot comment on
    the details of any potential regulations or guidance. However, I can
    assure you that we continue to listen carefully to advocates for
    students with disabilities of all types, parents, and educators in this
    process.
        Furthermore, using the $1.5 million provided in the fiscal year
    2016 Omnibus the Administration is supporting a new Comprehensive
    Center for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due
    to a disability. The Department is in the process of developing a
    priority to fund this new center and will compete and award the center
    in fiscal year 2016. This new center is only one of several ways in
    which the Department supports States, LEAs, and families of children
    with disabilities, including children with dyslexia. For example, as
    part of Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP's) Results Driven
    Accountability, which shifts the Department's focus from compliance to
    outcomes, OSEP is assisting 36 States with improving results for
    reading or literacy. In addition to $11.9 billion provided under the
    Grants to States program, OSEP has committed resources to assist States
    in improving results through discretionary grant programs under Part D
    of IDEA. Projects awarded under these programs help to improve outcomes
    for children with disabilities, including children with dyslexia,
    through technical assistance, training personnel, professional
    development, and model demonstrations.
        The ESSA provides an opportunity to secure educational equity for
    all students, including students with disabilities. Specifically, the
    new provisions helping to ensure educational opportunity, require
    States to: (1) develop assessments consistent with the principles of
    universal design for learning; (2) develop, disseminate information on,
    and provide for appropriate use of certain accommodations, such as
    interoperability with assistive technology; and (3) describe in the
    State Plan that general and special education teachers, and other
    appropriate staff, make appropriate use of accommodations for students
    with disabilities. These new requirements will help all students with
    disabilities, including those with Dyslexia.
        As the Department provides ongoing guidance and support to States,
    districts, and schools, we stand ready to provide technical assistance
    and support to ensure appropriate accommodations are available for
    students with disabilities. Additionally, our peer review of State
    assessment systems will continue, and it will ensure all students,
    including those with dyslexia, are appropriately assessed.

        Question 3a. As a parent of a dyslexic child, I want to ensure that
    students with dyslexia have the resources they need to succeed. What
    resources are available at the Department to help such students? If
    confirmed as Secretary, what will you do to help provide resources for
    students with dyslexia?
        Answer 3a. In July 2015 the congressional Dyslexia Caucus asked the
    Department to ``Affirm that there is no legal reason why the term
    `dyslexia' should not be used by a State or LEA when referring to the
    identification of and services for a student who does in fact have this
    specific Learning disability.'' In October 2015, the Department both
    issued a Dear Colleague Letter and also did a series of blogs and other
    social media activities to amplify the message that there is no legal
    reason to avoid the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia and
    dysgraphia. The letter and activities were very well-received by the
    dyslexia community.
        Please see the response to your Question 2 for additional ways in
    which the Department provides resources for students with dyslexia.

        Question 3b. In addition, as part of ESSA is a new comprehensive
    center for students at risk of attaining full literacy due to a
    disability, including dyslexia. I look forward to the center's creation
    and hope that the Department awards the center to a highly qualified
    entity with demonstrated ability and experience in the specific
    research on dyslexia and knowledge of the use of evidence-based
    programs that have proven efficacy. If confirmed as Secretary, what
    will you do to ensure the center is implemented as intended?
        Answer 3b. We are in the process of drafting the grant application
    package (Priority) for the new comprehensive center for students at
    risk of attaining full literacy due to a disability, including
    dyslexia. The Priority is being drafted by literacy experts within the
    Department who have a strong research background in dyslexia and
    evidence-based literacy interventions. The Center will be competed
    through the Department's discretionary grant panel review process. The
    applicant with the strongest application will be awarded the grant.
    Literacy experts from the Department who have expertise in evidence-
    based literacy interventions will serve as Project Officers for the new
    Center and will ensure that the Center is an efficient, effective and
    productive national literacy resource.

        Question 4. Dr. King, I know you are a supporter of public charter
    schools. As I mentioned in our meeting, my wife started a charter
    school in Baton Rouge to help students with dyslexia. If confirmed as
    Secretary, how will you continue to support the Charter Schools program
    to ensure it continues to expand so that more charter schools will
    open, and give parents and children a public educational choice?
        Answer 4. As the founder of a charter school, I know that high-
    quality public charter schools can transform the lives of students,
    including students with disabilities. Over the last 7 years, the
    Department has accelerated the growth and improvement of these schools
    with promising results. Furthermore, in urban areas, special education
    students enrolled in high-quality public charter schools experience
    large gains in additional learning in math and reading according to
    independent evaluators. In the months ahead, the Department will work
    closely with the Charter Schools Program (CSP) and our partners in the
    sector to continue scaling and improving high-performing charter
    schools. We are encouraged that ESSA continues investing in high
    performing charter schools, and we will work to maximize the impact of
    these programs.

     Response by John B. King, Jr., Ph.D., to Questions of Senator Murray,
     Senator Sanders, Senator Franken, Senator Bennet, Senator Whitehouse
                               and Senator Warren

                                 senator murray
        Question 1. One issue I've been very focused on is improving the
    Impact Aid Program which provides Federal support for school districts
    serving high populations of military families and children living in
    tribal communities. More than 50 school districts in my home State of
    Washington rely on Impact Aid to provide high quality education to
    their students. I was glad that we were able to include language in the
    Every Student Succeeds Act that will simplify the application process,
    ensure timelier payments to school districts and create a new hold
    harmless which will provide districts funding stability from year to
    year.
        One district in particular--the Central Kitsap School District
    (CKSD)--is the only district in Washington State that currently
    qualifies for Heavy Impact Aid (HIA) funding. Unfortunately, due to an
    unexpected change in the way that the Department of Education accepted
    tax rate calculations, the CKSD was denied HIA funding between 2010 and
    2012 causing them to have to reduce staff and delay critical curriculum
    and facility updates. I was proud to work to include language in the
    Every Student Succeeds Act that makes clear that the alternative tax
    rate calculation used by CKSD is acceptable for determining HIA
    eligibility and provided them some much needed relief for the years in
    which they were deemed ineligible.
        As you work to implement this law, how will you ensure that the
    Impact Aid provisions are implemented in the best way possible so that
    districts like Central Kitsap School District in Washington State and
    others throughout the country get the support they need to provide a
    quality education to their students?
        Answer 1. The Department is appreciative of the hard work of you
    and your staff to make critical changes to the Impact Aid program and
    making permanent a number of the changes you had included in the
    National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Section 7003(b)(2)(F)(ii)
    of the ESEA as amended by the ESSA, which affects school districts that
    did not meet the average tax rate requirements for heavily impacted
    districts for fiscal years 2010-15, took effect upon enactment in mid-
    December 2015. A district such as Central Kitsap School District (CKSD)
    that meets the criteria of the provision is permitted to use its
    State's alternative tax rate methodology to retain eligibility for
    2010-15, and in addition may use the same tax rate methodology when
    applying for heavily impacted eligibility for fiscal years after 2015.
    CKSD had already qualified and received a heavily impacted district
    payment for fiscal year 2015 using the Department's methodology earlier
    in 2015 prior to the passage of ESSA. After passage of the provision,
    the Department worked diligently to implement it quickly with respect
    to CKSD. Notes regarding the permissibility of the alternative
    methodology have already been codified in the Impact Aid payment system
    for the affected and future years, and the $14 million payment
    referenced in ESSA was issued to the district on February 2, 2016.
        Department staff is also diligently working on the other ESSA
    Impact Aid provisions that are effective next year. For example, we
    have already initiated programming changes to the payment system that
    will enable implementation of the new hold harmless provision you
    reference. Over 1,350 school districts affected by Federal activities
    apply for Impact Aid annually. We take our responsibility to each of
    these districts seriously and are working to ensure that all of the
    Impact Aid ESSA provisions will be implemented with the same fidelity
    and accuracy that were executed for this section of the law.

        Question 2. A few weeks ago, I launched a tool to enable students
    and families throughout the country to share their story and struggles
    to afford higher education. In just a matter of weeks, I heard from so
    many borrowers who shared how difficult it is to manage the crushing
    burden of their student debt. One in four student loan borrowers are
    currently in default or struggling to repay their loans.
        Unfortunately, many borrowers have experienced problems getting
    consistent answers and help from their student loan servicers--a
    problem that has been well documented by both the U.S. Treasury and
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Fortunately, your Department and
    these agencies together issued a ``Joint Statement of Principles on
    Student Loan Servicing'' last year to improve student loan servicing
    practices, promote borrower success, and minimize defaults.
        Given that the Department is planning a new competition for Federal
    contracts on student loan servicing this year, how will you ensure that
    the student loan servicing process puts customer service front and
    center, becomes more transparent, and guarantees that servicers are
    held accountable for their business practices and compliance with the
    law?
        Answer 2. Over the past few years, and since the President signed
    the Student Aid Bill of Rights memorandum in March 2015, the Department
    of Education has worked with its partners across the Administration and
    in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to improve service for all
    student loan borrowers, and in particular, for the most vulnerable
    borrowers. The Student Aid Bill of Rights included a number of projects
    and deliverables, some of which have already been completed, some of
    which are in progress, but on track to complete in the coming months,
    and additional objectives designed to improve borrower service through
    the servicing recompete.
        In August, FSA released the recommendations from an interagency
    task force on best practices in performance-based contracting to better
    ensure that servicers help borrowers make affordable monthly payments.
    As directed by the President's Memorandum, the task force reviewed
    input from its members which consisted of the Departments of Education
    and Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Domestic
    Policy Council, last July. The task force also solicited input from a
    wide range of other public and private stakeholders. These
    recommendations will inform the process of recompeting our servicing
    contracts prior to the expiration of the existing contracts in 2019.
        In addition, Education, Treasury and the CFPB continue to work
    together to ensure student loan borrowers are aware of and can have
    affordable monthly payments. For Federal student loans, FSA and its
    servicing contractors have been certifying and enrolling, on average,
    over 5,000 borrowers per day into Income Driven Repayment (IDR) plans
    over the past year. Enrollment in IDR plans has increased more than 50
    percent over the past year and is at an all-time high.
        On October 1, the U.S. Department of Education released a report on
    Strengthening the Student Loan System to Better Protect all Borrowers,
    which outlines a series of statutory, regulatory, and administrative
    recommendations to safeguard student borrowers. The report, developed
    in consultation with the Department of the Treasury and the Consumer
    Financial Protection Bureau, builds on years of work by the
    Administration to help Americans manage their student loan debt and
    protect the most vulnerable borrowers.
        The report includes key recommendations to protect Federal student
    loan borrowers such as: increasing borrower protections in the Federal
    student loan program; updating debt collection and offset; enhancing
    Federal data-sharing to improve the Federal student loan borrower
    experience; and strengthening Federal student loan servicing. The
    report also proposed several steps to protect borrowers of private
    student loans, which do not come with the same consumer protections and
    benefits as Federal loans, including to allow private student loans
    that lack sufficient repayment flexibility to be dischargeable in
    bankruptcy.
        The report also included an update on the development of a multi-
    year recertification process for income-driven repayment plans. As with
    any policy that provides access to taxpayer data, there are costs to
    developing and operating a secure system with appropriate
    authentication and controls, and mechanisms for secure communication
    with third parties. Both Treasury and Education believe that, with
    sufficient funding, an electronic multi-year certification system can
    and should be developed to simplify the repayment process for many
    borrowers in IDR plans.
        In the coming months we expect to continue the work started under
    the Student Aid Bill of Rights and outline a vision for a borrower
    centric ecosystem ensures accurate and helpful service for borrowers
    with Federal student loans.

        Question 3. Under Secretary Duncan's leadership, States have
    invested more than $1 billion dollars in expanding access to high-
    quality preschool. I was proud to continue this work by authorizing
    dedicated funding for early learning for the first time in ESSA.
        How do you intend to continue the push to expand access to high-
    quality preschool and how do you plan to work with HHS to ensure that
    the Preschool Development Grants program is implemented effectively?
        Answer 3. Thank you for your continued partnership and strong
    leadership to ensure that every child has access to high-quality early
    learning programs, including your sponsorship of the Strong Start for
    America's Children Act, which closely resembles the President's
    proposal to extend high-quality preschool to all children from low- and
    moderate-income families. We have made tremendous progress toward
    ensuring that more children gain the benefits of high-quality early
    learning programs so that they come to school ready to learn. Forty-six
    States and the District of Columbia fund preschool; five States provide
    funding for every 4 year old and two States fund 3 year olds as well.
    If confirmed, I intend to work hard to continue to expand high-quality
    preschool for all children.
        I am proud of the progress the Department in partnership with HHS
    has made over the past several years. The Department's relationship
    with HHS around early learning is strong and codified in three MOUs
    that outline how the two agencies administer the Race to the Top-Early
    Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC), which has significantly increased quality
    in early learning programs and placed more at risk children in high
    quality programs in 20 States; and the Interagency Policy Board, which
    the agencies set up in 2010 to coordinate Federal early learning
    programs and the Preschool Development Grants (PDG). In partnership
    with HHS, we have awarded PDG grants to 18 States, in more than 230
    communities, serving over 33,000 children in high-quality preschool
    this year in schools, Head Start programs and public and private child
    care centers.
        Although funding authority in fiscal year 2017 will shift to HHS,
    the two departments will continue working closely together to jointly
    administer the program and will develop a Memorandum of Understanding
    that includes joint staffing of PDG implementation and ensures a smooth
    transition for all grantees. In the President's fiscal year 2017 budget
    request, we propose that $250 million be used to fund the fourth year
    of the 18 States, while using the remaining money to fund State efforts
    to create preschool infrastructure, as called for in ESSA. HHS and ED
    will continue joint administration of the program and together, work
    with grantees to continue expanding high quality preschool for our
    youngest learners.

        Question 4. In Washington State, there has been a growing number of
    individuals and families experiencing homelessness. In fact, in
    November, the mayor of Seattle declared a State of emergency to combat
    homelessness. Many of these families have children who attend public
    schools and face challenges due to their lack of school stability. In
    regards to higher education, students experiencing homelessness face
    unique barriers applying for college, attending, and completing their
    degree.
        Under your leadership, what are some ways the Department will be
    working to help students struggling with homelessness get a quality
    education and easing the pathway for these students who want to pursue
    a higher education?
        Answer 4. Students experiencing homelessness are one of the most
    high-risk and vulnerable student populations we serve. We take our
    obligations to meeting their needs seriously. The programs that we
    administer include requirements to assist homeless students. For
    example we administer the Education for Homeless Children and Youth
    (EHCY) program authorized by the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
    Act, which was significantly enhanced by ESSA amendments. In addition,
    we provide technical assistance to States and school districts, and
    engage in an array of Federal interagency groups to coordinate efforts.
        The $15 million increase proposed for EHCY in the President's
    fiscal year 2017 budget reflects the Administration's commitment to
    help States and LEAs address the 45 percent increase in the number of
    enrolled homeless students reported by States since 2008. The requested
    increase--from $70 to $85 million--would help ensure that States and
    LEAs can provide the services needed to improve educational outcomes
    for homeless children and youth, who face significant barriers to
    success. In addition, the Department allocates McKinney-Vento funding
    annually by formula to States based on the State's proportion of the
    ESEA Title I, Part A Federal allocation the State receives. Generally,
    States must distribute no less than 75 percent of their annual
    McKinney-Vento allocation to local school districts in subgrants, which
    are awarded competitively based on need and the quality of the
    application.
        As you know homeless students have numerous rights under Federal
    law and we work to ensure that every school district in the country has
    a school district liaison who is aware of these rights and ensures
    these obligations are met. We are fortunate to have the National Center
    for Homeless Education (NCHE) serve as the Department's technical
    assistance and information center. NCHE provides research, resources,
    and information enabling communities to better address the educational
    needs of children experiencing homelessness. NCHE also supports SEA
    staff, school district liaisons, educators, and others by providing
    training online, at regional and national conferences, and other
    events. NCHE also has a wealth of technical assistance resources
    available in print or electronic format.
        We are also working to ensure that homeless youth are able to
    obtain a higher education. Last year, Federal Student Aid issued a Dear
    Colleague Letter to clarify institutional and applicants' roles and
    responsibilities related to title IV dependency determinations for
    unaccompanied homeless youth. Additionally, during the annual Federal
    Student Aid conference, FSA hosts a session titled ``Understanding
    Federal Aid Policy and Practice for Unaccompanied Homeless Youth.''
    This session explores the unique needs of the homeless student
    population and offers ways to implement financial aid policies and
    practices on their behalf. The session also provides information about
    the education and human service professionals with whom financial aid
    administrators can collaborate to help these students navigate the
    post-secondary education system.
        Finally, ED staff actively participate in and contribute to
    numerous interagency groups. I am pleased to co-chair the U.S.
    Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). USICH coordinates the
    Federal response to homelessness, working in close partnership with
    other Cabinet Secretaries and other senior leaders across our 19
    Federal member agencies. By organizing and supporting leaders such as
    Governors, Mayors, Continuum of Care leaders, and other local
    officials, we drive action to achieve the goals of Opening Doors, which
    was released in 2010. Opening Doors is the Nation's first-ever
    comprehensive strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness among all
    populations and is a roadmap for Federal agency action.

        Question 5. One issue I am deeply concerned about is discrimination
    against students based on gender identity. I have been pleased to see
    the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights take action
    to investigate individual complaints by transgender students against
    school districts for title IX violations, and pursue resolution in
    those cases. However, I am deeply concerned about the disturbing and
    growing trend of discrimination against transgender students by
    schools, districts, and, most recently, States. For example, in
    February, the Texas University Interscholastic League decided to
    disregard a student's gender identity when determining participation in
    athletics, and the South Dakota legislature passed a law prohibiting
    schools from providing equal treatment to transgender students. These
    actions are in direct conflict with non-discrimination requirements
    under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
        As you work to ensure the promise of equality in title IX is
    fulfilled, how will you address this discrimination against transgender
    students?
        Answer 5. The Department is committed to safe and supportive
    environments for all students, including transgender students. In
    various policy guidance documents addressing sex discrimination under
    title IX, the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has informed
    educational institutions that OCR interprets title IX and its
    regulations to prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity
    and transgender status. The Department of Justice and the Department of
    Education have taken the same position in litigation. As you note, OCR
    has also investigated complaints by individual students, found
    violations when a school has failed to treat students consistent with
    their gender identity, and entered into voluntary resolution agreements
    with school districts to address those violations.
                                senator sanders
        Question 1. Dr. King, I don't think that this will come as news to
    you, but former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and I disagreed on a
    number of issues. While we both held the same belief that every child
    has a right to a high-quality education, we had different beliefs on
    how to achieve this goal. Can you tell me how your tenure as Education
    Secretary will be different than that of Secretary Duncan? What
    specific policies and approaches will set you apart from your
    predecessor? Relatedly, under your tenure which policies or approaches
    will be a continuation with Secretary Duncan's tenure?
        Answer 1. While we have a long way to go in ensuring the promise of
    equity and excellence for all of America's students, we have made
    critical progress over the last 7 years, and thanks to the work of this
    committee, the Obama administration, and our Nation's educators and
    parents, there are many reasons to feel hopeful.
        Last year, we achieved the highest high school graduation rate
    we've ever had as a country--82 percent. This progress was driven in no
    small part by significant reductions in the dropout rate among African-
    American, Latino, and low-income students. Since 2008, we have halved
    the number of ``dropout factory'' high schools. A million more African-
    American and Latino students are in college today than when the
    President took office. Tens of thousands of children now have access to
    high-quality preschool and millions more students have access to higher
    education.
        I am grateful to Secretary Duncan for his unwavering commitment to
    America's students, especially those who have too often been
    underserved. And I hope to continue that unrelenting focus on
    excellence and equity.
        At the same time, the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act
    ushers in a new era in American education--and an opportunity for a
    reset in the national dialog. Over the past decade, our educational
    system has been through a period of enormous change. Change is hard,
    and it often brings with it hard conversations and damaged
    relationships. I intend to seize this new moment in national policy to
    help bring about a reset in a national dialog that has, despite good
    intentions, been too often characterized by more heat than light. All
    of us--at the local, State, and Federal level--have to take
    responsibility for the climate that exists. And all of us must do
    whatever we can to change it.

        Question 2. I do not believe that funding for the essential
    elements of a high-quality education--pre-kindergarten, well-rounded
    course offerings, safe and healthy schools, and more--should be up for
    competition. Rather these essential elements should be guaranteed and
    exist in every school. Can you share your philosophy on formula grants
    and competitive grants for the essential components of a high-quality
    education? Small, rural States like Vermont often do not have the
    resources and capabilities to aggressively pursue competitive funding
    like larger States, putting them at a significant disadvantage. If the
    Department of Education must rely on competitive grants for some
    education programs due to constrained appropriations, what safe guards
    are in place to ensure that small rural States are on an equal footing
    with larger States that have more administrative resources at their
    disposal?
        Answer 2. I appreciate the concern that you raise and believe that
    it is important for the Department to take into account the unique
    needs and characteristics of rural school districts. We are committed
    to ensuring that all of our programs serve rural students well. Over
    the past several years we have worked hard to ensure that our
    competitive reform programs are fair to rural States and communities.
    For example, the Promise Neighborhoods program made implementation
    grants to projects serving rural communities (Indianola Promise
    Community in Mississippi, and the Improving Rural Appalachian Schools
    project in Berea, KY). Additionally, through our Investing in
    Innovation (i3) grant program more than one-fifth--34 out of 156
    awards--are serving rural areas, thanks in part to the use of
    competitive and absolute priorities that help highlight rural
    proposals. i3 projects serving rural areas have received about one-
    quarter (26 percent) of all i3 funding since 2010--$336 million out of
    $1.3 billion.

        Question 3. As Secretary, how do accomplish the goal of serving the
    diverse student body of our Nation--from children in large urban
    centers to those in rural school districts? For small and rural States
    like Vermont, what additional supports will your Department provide?
    Will there be additional technical assistance, competitive grant
    priorities for small or rural States, appropriate flexibility that does
    not compromise Federal guard rails for States in implementing the new
    Elementary and Secondary Education law, aid in implementing the
    assessment pilot in the new law, or other supports?
        Last, what experience and lessons learned from serving a
    geographically and demographically diverse State like New York will you
    bring to your tenure as Secretary?
        Answer 3. We recognize that nearly 60 percent of LEAs and one-third
    of schools are in rural areas, and that 25 percent of all students
    attend rural schools. That makes it really important for the Department
    to take into account the unique needs and characteristics of rural
    schools districts. The Department has taken concrete actions to level
    the playing field for rural communities in grant competitions. Over the
    past 5 years the Department has included priorities for rural
    applicants or rural-serving applicants in approximately 3 dozen
    competitions across 10 programs.
        There are a number of provisions in the ESSA that will help us to
    address the unique need of rural communities. Foremost, we are taking
    our responsibility under section 5005 of the ESSA aimed at increasing
    the involvement and input of rural schools and districts in developing
    policies and regulations for Department of Education programs very
    seriously. As with most aspects of ESSA implementation, we are in the
    early stages of developing our plans for meeting the requirements of
    the new law, including the initial review due to Congress within 18
    months. We will ensure that the final report will include
    recommendations for increasing the role of rural stakeholders in
    Department policies and regulations. Additionally, the Department will
    support rural communities through implementation of programs in ESSA
    such as Title IV, Part A, which provides opportunity for districts and
    schools to use funds under the Supporting the Effective Use of
    Technology section to expand digital learning opportunities in rural,
    remote, and underserved areas. In addition, the Department will execute
    the additional provisions in the ESSA including the required set-asides
    for discretionary grants including: the STEM Master Teacher Corps
    grant; the Education Innovation and Research grant where there is a 25
    percent rural set-aside for rural grantees; and the Promise
    Neighborhoods and Community Schools grant which requires that no less
    than 15 percent of the funds be awarded to entities that propose to
    carry out activities in rural areas.
        As Chief State School Officer in New York, navigating a State with
    over 700 districts, more than 4,500 schools, and a majority minority
    student population, I understood that a one-size-fits-all model from
    Albany did not work. To meet the needs of communities that ranges from
    dense urban to very rural, it was essential to have policies, rules and
    strategies that supported and protected our highest need students while
    still allowing for local flexibility and context, by listening to local
    practitioners, investing in local and scalable promising practices,
    differentiating based on need, and adjusting practices along the way.
    If confirmed, I plan to apply these same principles and respect local
    practice while still protecting the rights of all students.

        Question 4. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which I
    supported, moves away from the one-size-fits-all, test and punish
    approach of the No Child Left Behind law, which simply did not work for
    our communities. Instead of just focusing on test scores, ESSA includes
    multiple measures in evaluating how our students and schools are
    performing. In implementing this law, how will you ensure that test
    scores do not again become an outsized metric in which to judge how our
    students, schools, and teachers are performing?
        Answer 4. The Department has made clear, most recently through its
    implementation of ESEA flexibility and the President's Testing Action
    Plan, that test scores should be just one of multiple measures used by
    statewide accountability systems to assess student, teacher, and school
    performance. And we agree that ESSA provides States with the
    opportunity to take a broader look at the measures that should be
    included in school accountability systems and to consider a rich array
    of data on school performance when differentiating among schools,
    including, for example, English language proficiency for English
    learners, student growth, graduation rates, chronic absenteeism,
    college- and career-ready measures, and school climate. While giving
    States new flexibility to add indicators to their accountability
    systems for identifying low-performing schools, including a new school
    quality and student success indicator that encourages States to
    consider a wide range of academic and non-academic factors, ESSA also
    requires that certain indicators, such as academic achievement,
    graduation rates, and English language proficiency, carry
    ``substantial'' weight individually and ``much greater'' weight in the
    aggregate relative to other measures of school quality and student
    success. The Department believes that States will work hard to find the
    right balance among the multiple indicators required by the new law,
    and plans to provide guidance and technical assistance to States in
    this area as they develop plans for implementing the ESSA.

        Question 5. Today, young people around the country are shouldering
    outrageous amounts of student loan debt that is holding them back on
    almost all fronts--purchasing a home, starting a family, saving for
    retirement, and more. Shockingly, many for-profit schools have made an
    already challenging terrain even more difficult for our most vulnerable
    students by saddling them with debt and no degree, or a degree that is
    not worth the paper it is printed on. I am pleased that the Department
    has announced the creation of the Student Aid Enforcement Unit, and I
    hope it will take aggressive action to protect students from predatory
    and illegal practices.
        Under your watch, what policies will be implemented to ensure more
    students are protected from unscrupulous for-profit schools? I am aware
    that the Department is currently undergoing a negotiated rulemaking to
    determine how best to provide debt relief to students defrauded by for-
    profit schools. The draft rules seem more concerned with limiting the
    ``cost'' of the discharges to the Department than giving students a
    chance to start over, even when our student loan programs are on track
    to make $67 billion in profits over the next decade.
        What will you do as Secretary to help these students and minimize
    the burdens for students to get the needed debt relief they deserve?
        Answer 5. The Department continues its longstanding commitment and
    efforts to ensure that we help reduce the burden faced by student loan
    borrowers and make post-secondary education more affordable and
    accessible to all American families. I will work to ensure that serving
    our student borrowers remains a top priority, and that we are doing all
    we can as an agency to serve and protect students and taxpayers.
        The newly created Student Aid Enforcement Unit, and the interagency
    task force focused on the accountability for poor performing
    institutions, are key mechanisms that the Department has created toward
    this goal, and will be a high priority during my tenure. The Student
    Aid Enforcement Unit will focus on increasing the capacity of the
    Department to respond quickly and efficiently to allegations of illegal
    actions by higher education institutions. The Enforcement Unit will
    include an investigations division that focuses on identifying
    potential misconduct or high-risk activity among higher education
    institutions and protecting Federal funding. The purpose of the task
    force is to provide a means for Federal agencies to share strategies
    and collaborate on the most effective ways to produce complementary
    protections for the public. These include streamlining disclosures,
    developing effective consumer tools, and sharing program expertise to
    identify best practices. I look forward to working with Federal Student
    Aid, our agency partners, and Congress to further this critical work.
        We are also taking steps in other ways, such as implementing our
    Gainful Employment regulations to hold career schools accountable for
    providing quality education and training to students and making sure
    they are not saddling students with high levels of debt that they will
    struggle to repay. In addition, as you note, the Department began a
    negotiated rulemaking process to revise the borrower defense to
    repayment regulations to ensure that the regulations are working both
    for students and for taxpayers. Where students have been harmed by
    fraudulent practices, we are fully committed to making sure they
    receive the relief they are entitled to, and where possible, we will
    recover that money from the schools that created the harm.
                                senator franken
        Question. When I talk to employers around Minnesota, they often
    tell me that they're starving for workers who have a good grasp of
    science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). And this isn't just
    a problem for Minnesota--it's an issue all over the country.
        Nearly all of the top 30 fastest growing jobs nationwide require
    STEM skills. But our kids are lagging behind the rest of the world, and
    part of the problem is that there's a shortage of effective STEM
    teachers. That's why I wrote the STEM Master Teacher Corps Act to
    recruit top-notch STEM educators and keep them in the classroom. This
    program would provide States grants to recruit, recognize, and reward
    expert STEM educators. These networks of innovative STEM educators
    would mentor their peers and participate in professional development--
    while receiving extra pay for their work.
        I'm pleased that there is an optional pot of money in ESSA for
    training STEM teachers that is based on my bill, and ESSA leaves it up
    to the Secretary of Education to award these grants to States. If
    confirmed by the Senate, how do you plan to support STEM educators, and
    will a STEM Master Teacher Corps be included in that effort?
        Answer. STEM education continues to be a key priority for our
    Department, and is incorporated into several initiatives, from early
    learning through college and career. As part of those efforts, a STEM
    Master Teacher Corps can play an important role in bolstering STEM
    equity and excellence. The idea of a STEM Master Teacher Corps
    originated from a recommendation from the President's Council of
    Advisors on Science and Technology and has been a priority of the
    Administration's since the President called for the creation of a
    national STEM Master Teacher Corps that would enlist America's best and
    brightest science and math teachers to improve STEM Education. The
    Department proposed funding to support a STEM Master Teacher Corps in
    multiple budget requests, beginning in 2012 and including most recently
    a $10 million request to continue this work in the 2017 budget. In
    addition, the Department is proposing a number of investments to
    support the training and development of STEM educators.
        For example, the Computer Science for All initiative, a new
    investment proposed in the 2017 budget, would provide $4 billion over 3
    years in mandatory funding and $100 million in discretionary funding to
    ensure access for all students to high-quality instruction in computer
    science, and would include support and training for computer science
    teachers and support staff. Through the Teacher and Principal Pathways
    program, the Department has proposed $125 million to support teacher
    preparation programs and nonprofits partnering with school districts to
    create or expand high-quality pathways into the teaching profession,
    particularly into high-need schools and high-need subjects such as
    STEM. The Department also seeks to use existing resources toward the
    important work of supporting STEM educators; we leveraged $1.2 million
    from the Teacher Incentive Fund's National Activities set aside to
    create the foundations of a robust STEM Master Teacher Corps during the
    current fiscal year. In addition, the Department convened expert
    teacher leaders to build and assemble resources designed for States,
    districts, and educators to advance STEM teaching. Later this summer,
    the Department will publish a Web site that hosts these tools along
    with additional resources to support STEM educators.
                                 senator bennet
        Question 1. The reality of Washington, DC, is divorced from the
    reality of our schools, students and educators. Sometimes what we try
    to do from Washington hurts more than helps, but it doesn't happen out
    of vindictiveness or spite. Washington simply doesn't understand the
    reality of what is happening in schools, especially those that educate
    students living in poverty. How will your experiences as an educator
    and a school leader affect your approach and decisions in this job? How
    will you ensure that the Department of Education is connected to the
    reality in our classrooms?
        Answer 1. As a former teacher, principal, and State commissioner, I
    know from personal experience that the best ideas come from classrooms,
    not conference rooms.
        The Every Student Succeeds Act rightly shifts the locus of
    decisionmaking back to States and districts--and away from the one-
    size-fits-all mandates of No Child Left Behind--even as it preserves
    the critical Federal role in constructing guardrails to protect civil
    rights.
        As the Department of Education undertakes implementation of the new
    law and the rest of our critical work, I recognize that it is hugely
    important for us to remain connected to the hard work that is happening
    on the ground every day. My team and I will continue to do regular
    outreach to stakeholders through engagement at the Department, and
    across the country. In addition, the Department's Teaching Ambassador
    Fellows and Principal Ambassador Fellows have played a critical role in
    anchoring our work here in Washington DC to educators in the field, to
    gain their perspectives and their day-to-day experiences in the
    classroom.
        In my first weeks as Acting Secretary, I launched the ``Opportunity
    Across America'' tour to see what's working on the ground and meet with
    students, teachers, principals, educators, parents, and community
    leaders in five different cities. Since then I have had regular
    opportunities to visit schools around the country, something I will
    continue to do.
        I will continue to draw on both my own personal experience as a
    teacher, school leader, and State commissioner as well as these
    frequent interactions to inform our work in the weeks and months to
    come.

        Question 2. When I was a superintendent, I found the Department of
    Education to be a compliance driven entity that was often unhelpful and
    sometimes even a bureaucratic barrier to the change we were trying to
    make in Denver. That needs to change, and the Department needs to
    become a source of assistance to States, districts, and schools. As
    districts and States begin to implement ESSA, technical assistance,
    best practices, and even partnerships in improvement efforts have never
    been more important. What is your plan to make the Department useful
    for States and districts, to make it more responsive, and to support
    the efforts of States and districts to change and innovate? How will
    you encourage districts and States to take advantage of the
    opportunities in ESSA for change, improvement, and innovation?
        Answer 2. The Department has taken steps to ensure more
    partnership-oriented relationships to support shared goals of improving
    student achievement and closing achievement gaps. For example, through
    the newly created Office of State Support (OSS) within the Office of
    Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), the Department supports
    State-led reform efforts, consistent with current law, across several
    programs. Whereas States used to have to deal with multiple program
    teams in the Department, now each State has dedicated points of contact
    in the OSS who are in regular communication with States, partnering
    with them across Federal programs to support implementation and
    continuous refinement of reform efforts. This approach will continue as
    the Department works to support States in transitioning to and fully
    implementing the provisions of the ESSA. As another example, the Office
    of Special Education Programs (OSEP) uses a Results Driven
    Accountability monitoring and support system that focuses on improving
    student results. States identify measurable results to improve and
    design comprehensive plans to support LEAs in making that improvement.
    OSEP and OSS are collaborating in the implementation of this results-
    driven model. In recent joint visits to States to provide support in
    implementing improvement plans, State staff commented on the
    collaborative approach both within ED and between ED and States.
        The Department has also invested in programs that drive innovation,
    and encourage learning and improvement in the sector through rigorous
    evaluation. For example, the Investing in Innovation (i3) program,
    which has supported several projects in Colorado, offers resources and
    support to entrepreneurial educators to develop and scale their
    approaches. i3 also requires every project to measure their performance
    and outcomes, which will ultimately yield at least 64 Randomized
    Controlled Trial (RCT) evaluations across the first five cohorts of i3
    grantees. These RCTs, which are considered the ``gold standard'' of
    evidence, include valuable lessons for local and State leaders that are
    building innovative models of their own. The Department will continue
    supporting these district and State-led efforts--and disseminate the
    knowledge that they produce--under programs in the Every Student
    Succeeds Act, including the Education Innovation and Research program.

        Question 3. Our education system should be a source of opportunity
    and a path to advancement and social mobility for students across the
    country. But for too many of our children living in poverty, our
    current education system is reinforcing the income inequality in this
    country, rather than creating the opportunity for our kids to succeed
    in life. At its core, ESSA is a civil rights law, focused on improving
    equity across the country and helping ensure our kids in high-poverty
    communities receive a great education. But we still have a long way to
    go to reach a place where a child's zip-code doesn't determine the
    quality of his or her education. What do you see as the biggest
    challenges in addressing educational inequity? What are the most
    important things States and districts can do to improve education
    equity, as they work to implement ESSA?
        Answer 3. Equity in education is a core tenet of the Federal
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and I am pleased that
    Congress has reinforced this principle in the Every Student Succeeds
    Act (ESSA)--equity is the impetus for nearly everything we do at the
    Department. From its inception, ESEA was a civil rights law intended to
    ensure, in the words of President Johnson, that ``full educational
    opportunity'' should be ``our first national goal.'' ESSA honors the
    law's civil rights heritage, and the responsibility to ensure that its
    implementation also honors that heritage rests with each State,
    district, and school--and at the Federal level. One of the biggest
    challenges is recognizing and understanding where and how some students
    may be falling behind or not receiving the same opportunities that
    other students receive. Once these problems are identified, the
    challenge is to address them promptly and effectively so they do not
    hold back multiple cohorts of students. Accordingly, in implementing
    ESSA, State and local leaders must ensure that they have timely and
    accurate information about student performance across their schools and
    disaggregated by subgroup, and they have systems of support and
    intervention to ensure that problems are swiftly addressed. The new law
    makes it clear that States and districts should establish policies and
    programs that target resources to the most disadvantaged and should
    take care to ensure true comparability of resources, both across and
    within districts, that levels the playing field and allows historically
    disadvantaged students, particularly those from low-income families,
    students with disabilities, English learners, and students of color, to
    have access to excellent educators, challenging and enriching course
    offerings and extracurricular activities, and modern and relevant
    instructional materials. The role of the Federal Government in meeting
    these challenges is to provide States the guidance and technical
    assistance they need, while monitoring and enforcing the law's
    requirements.

        Question 4. For many families, the cost of college has become a
    prohibitive barrier to receiving a great education. In Colorado,
    tuition at several public 4 year colleges has increased by more than 30
    percent in just the last 5 years. At the same time, the Federal
    Government has set up barriers through complexity and bureaucracy that
    make it more difficult for kids to apply for aid. We need to address
    these problems and make it easier for our colleges, universities, and
    post-secondary providers to innovate and find new solutions to make
    college more affordable and accessible for our students. As we work to
    re-authorize the Higher Education Act and potentially consider a
    package on higher education this year, what in our current budget
    climate could we include to help drive down the costs of college and to
    encourage greater support for innovation by our high-quality schools?
        Answer 4. Every hard-working student deserves a real opportunity to
    earn an affordable, high-quality degree or credential that leads to
    greater economic security and civic engagement. But too many recent
    college graduates feel the weight of their student loan payments
    holding them back from fulfilling their full potential, and far too
    many prospective college students feel as though they are priced out of
    the education they need to set themselves up for future success. Since
    the beginning of this Administration, President Obama has focused on
    expanding college access, improving college affordability and regaining
    our leadership internationally in college attainment. Our
    Administration has taken strong action to ensure college stays within
    reach of American families, doubling investments in tax and scholarship
    aid by increasing investments in Pell grants and creating the American
    Opportunity Tax Credit, and making student debt more manageable by
    providing loan repayment options that cap payments based on income.
        Building on those efforts, the President's America's College
    Promise proposal would make 2 years of community college free for
    responsible students, effectively reducing the cost of obtaining a
    bachelor's degree to about half. America's College Promise also
    provides grants to 4-year HBCUs and MSIs to provide more new or
    transfer low-income students with up to 2 years at a 4-year college at
    zero or significantly reduced tuition. Further, in addition to seeking
    full funding for the Pell grant maximum award and continuing to index
    the grant to inflation indefinitely in this year's budget request, the
    Administration is making it easier for students to access Federal
    financial aid. In September, President Obama announced significant
    changes in the process for filing FAFSAs starting in the 2017-2018
    award year, allowing students to apply earlier and using ``prior-
    prior'' income information. Both of these changes will streamline the
    student aid process and provide families with an earlier picture of
    their aid eligibility more consistent with the timeline for applying
    for college. For too long, though, America's higher education system
    has lacked a focus on outcomes and value for students and families--the
    degree students truly can't afford is the one they don't complete, or
    that employers don't value. That's why, in this year's Budget Request,
    we proposed a number of completion-focused reforms, including Pell for
    Accelerated Completion and the On-Track Pell Bonus. I look forward to
    working with you and the committee to address these critical issues.
                               senator whitehouse
        Question 1. During the implementation of ESSA how will you work to
    support greater innovation, unshackling schools and teachers, so that
    they have higher degrees of autonomy and can actually act to improve
    academic outcomes?
        Answer 1. We know that the best ideas about education always come
    from educators closest to students--those in schools and districts. We
    encourage States, LEAs and schools to use the flexibility they have
    under the ESSA to design school accountability and support systems that
    work best in their local context while being attentive to the serious
    equity issues that are too often present in our schools. We will
    continue our efforts to support the development, evaluation, and
    scaling of innovative practices through the new Education Innovation
    and Research authority, which is the successor to the Investing in
    Innovation (i3) program and a key means for the Department to balance
    the ESSA's recognition of the need to use both innovation and evidence
    to ensure effective use of taxpayer dollars in improving student
    outcomes. In addition, the Institute for Education Sciences will
    continue its work through the Regional Educational Laboratories and
    other efforts to build our collective knowledge about what works.

        Question 2. In ESSA, I authored several provisions to help keep
    kids who encounter the juvenile justice system stay on track, including
    having States establish procedures around timely transitions, upon
    release, to schools or re-entry programs, and to better facilitate
    transferring academic credits and records between school and juvenile
    justice facilities. Is the Department open to issuing regulatory
    guidance to States on best practices around these issues?
        Answer 2. Students who encounter the juvenile justice systems are
    one of the most high-risk and vulnerable student populations we serve.
    Thank you for all of your work and leadership in helping these students
    stay engaged and on track to graduate college- and career-ready.
        We take our obligations to meeting their needs seriously. The
    Department has issued guidance over the past several years on juvenile
    reentry, from best practices to putting the spotlight on facilities and
    programs around the country with good reentry outcomes. Last summer,
    the Department released a guidance package specifically addressing
    issues facing students in juvenile detention facilities--which included
    clarifying students' rights under the Individuals with Disabilities
    Education Act while they are in correctional facilities. We plan to
    continue issuing technical assistance on this complex and inherently
    inter-agency challenge. These products are available at http://
    www.neglected-delinquent.org/topic-areas/transition.
        In April 2013 the Department issued guidance on juvenile justice
    records transfers through a myth buster which explains what is required
    and permissible under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. In
    addition, at a correctional education symposium we hosted in 2014,
    along with DOJ, ED issued guidance on having well-coordinated
    transition and reentry plans for youth.
        The ESSA is a big and complex law, with a lot of new pieces and new
    opportunities for States, districts and their students. As I have
    mentioned, this is the beginning of a long process, and we want to make
    sure we are supporting States and districts as they transition from
    NCLB to ESSA. We appreciate your attention to this critical issue and
    will continue to listen to and are open to feedback from stakeholders
    on guidance priorities for ESSA.
        In the meantime, the Department continues to strive to improve
    juvenile reentry education outcomes through our monitoring and
    performance management of the ESSA Title I, Part D and IDEA, Part B
    programs as they pertain to juvenile detention and corrections
    programs.

        Question 3. In ESSA I also authored provisions requiring States to
    outline how they will work to better support transitions for students
    from middle school to high school, and better identify and support
    middle schools students who are at-risk of falling off track. Is the
    Department open to issuing regulatory guidance to States on best
    practices on how they can best support middle school students at-risk?
        Answer 3. I agree, the transition from middle to high school is one
    that can be critical to the future success of a student and is an
    important piece for States and districts to consider as they work to
    ensure that all students graduate high school college- and career-
    ready. As a high school teacher, I saw the critical importance of
    middle school and that was what inspired me to start a high-performing
    middle school to ensure students had the foundational skills they
    needed to succeed. Thank you for your leadership and interest in
    supporting middle school students. We will take your recommendations
    under advisement as we continue to engage with and hear from
    stakeholders on the implementation of the ESSA and are working closely
    to support States and districts as they prepare to implement the new
    law.

        Question 4. Question 23 on the FAFSA asks about a student's
    conviction for possessing or selling drugs. Drug convictions are one of
    the only infractions which can cause students to lose financial aid
    eligibility. And more than 300 organizations have called for repealing
    the question and the aid penalty because it is a collateral
    consequence. In 2005, the congressionally created Advisory Committee on
    Student Financial Assistance recommended Congress remove the drug
    question FAFSA, calling it ``irrelevant'' to eligibility. In an effort
    toward both greater fairness and simplification do you support
    eliminating the drug question on the FAFSA?
        Answer 4. As you know, Congress included in the Higher Education
    Act (HEA) a requirement that eligibility for student aid be suspended
    for certain drug-related offenses. I know that many are concerned about
    this policy and the implications it has, not only in terms of the
    barriers it presents to applicants in submitting applications, but also
    in the inequity of imposing a consequence that is effectively targeted
    at lower- and middle-income students who, unlike their wealthier peers,
    are more reliant on Federal student aid in accessing a higher
    education. In addition, I am aware of the questions about whether the
    policy actually helps to deter drug use. As a result of these issues,
    the upcoming reauthorization of the HEA provides a great opportunity to
    the Department to work with Congress in evaluating the efficacy of this
    policy and whether it should be removed from the HEA.

        Question 5. The Department of Education is currently in the midst
    of negotiated rulemaking on borrower defense to repayment. I am
    concerned that the Department's chief concern in this seems to be the
    Federal fiscal impact of forgiving loans and not that students are
    currently on the hook for loans they took out to go to schools that
    were engaged in misrepresentation and fraud. I believe that first and
    foremost the Department needs to focus on is setting up a fair process
    for students who are in debt and who were wronged by their school. In
    this rulemaking process is the Department's primary concern providing
    relief to student borrowers or the Federal fiscal impact of forgiving
    loans? How will you be weighing those two issues in this rulemaking?
        Answer 5. This Administration is committed to ensuring that
    students are protected from unscrupulous institutions that misrepresent
    educational opportunities, and holding institutions accountable for
    actions that violate the law. While many colleges play a critical role
    in helping students succeed in their educational and training pursuits,
    the unfortunate reality is that some of America's colleges are failing
    to provide the education and training promised to advance students'
    careers. Rather than providing students with promised quality
    education, some institutions have only left students with significant
    debt and few job prospects due to the institutions' actions or
    omissions. Not only does this jeopardize the students' future, but also
    puts the taxpayers' investment at risk. For those reasons, last year
    the Department began the negotiated rulemaking process to revise the
    borrower defense to repayment regulations to ensure that the
    regulations are working both for students and for taxpayers. Where
    students have been harmed by fraudulent practices, we are fully
    committed to making sure they receive the relief they are entitled to,
    and where possible, we will recover that money from the schools that
    created the harm to ensure that colleges understand they will be held
    accountable for any wrongdoing.
                                 senator warren
                             student loan servicing
        Question 1. In your nomination hearing, you mentioned servicer
    recompete as an opportunity to improve student loan servicing.
    Regarding the recompete of student loan servicing contracts:

        What is the current timeline for announcing recompete of the Direct
    Loan servicing contracts? Will the new servicer contracts include
    specific servicing standards and borrower protections? If so, please
    describe how the Department will write those standards and protections.
    If so, will the Department publish draft standards and protections for
    public comment? If so, will these standards and protections be stated
    in the publicly available contracts? If so, will borrowers be able to
    enforce the standards?
        Answer 1. The Department is committed to supporting borrowers and
    strengthening student loan servicing is a key priority for the
    Administration. We expect to begin the procurement process this fiscal
    year. New contracts will include specific servicing standards, as well
    as a requirement to comply with all Federal and State consumer
    protection laws. These standards will reflect the President's vision
    for student loan servicing outlined in the Student Aid Bill of Rights
    and include input from an interagency task force that included the
    Department of the Treasury and the Consumer Financial Protection
    Bureau, as well as responses to a Request for Information and
    conversations with borrowers, schools, consumer advocates, loan
    servicers, and other program participants. While procurement law and
    regulations prevent us from publishing specific contract provisions
    prior to the release of the final contract, the Department has greatly
    benefited from the public input received to date. Also, the Department
    plans on providing opportunities for additional public input in the
    coming weeks on ways to further strengthen the student loan borrower
    customer experience. Additionally, a key goal of the Department's
    efforts include ensuring strong borrower protections are available to
    allow borrowers the opportunity to reach out to the Department in cases
    where standards are not met to see their concerns resolved, and will
    have all rights available to them under the law to enforce violations
    of consumer protection laws. We look forward to working with your
    office throughout this process.

        Question 2. If confirmed, will you commit to barring any servicer
    under investigation or any servicer that owes fines from previous
    investigations from competing in the new recompete process? If not, why
    not?
        Answer 2. Under Federal statutes such as the Competition in
    Contracting Act (41 U.S.C. 253), the Department is not allowed to
    exclude specific vendors from submitting a proposal for a solicitation
    issued for a full and open procurement. Consistent with the Federal
    Acquisition Regulations, however, the procurement process includes a
    formal determination of responsibility prior to any award. This
    determination is conducted by the contracting officer and explicitly
    includes an assessment of whether the potential vendor has a
    satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics. If this
    assessment determines that the prospective vendor does not meet
    required standards of integrity and ethics, the vendor would not
    receive an award.

        Question 3. How many full-time employees spend at least 50 percent
    of their time overseeing the department's loan servicers' compliance
    with Federal and State rules and laws?
        Answer 3. There are currently 84 full-time staff whose primary
    responsibility is conducting oversight of private collection agencies
    and servicers. Most of these staff focus on compliance with contractual
    requirements, which include adherence to Federal and State laws.
        Federal Student Aid's Financial Institution Oversight Service
    (FIOS) provides oversight of guaranty agencies, lenders, and servicers
    participating in the Department of Education Federal Family Education
    Loan (FFEL) Program. In addition, FIOS oversight responsibilities
    include reviewing the Department's Title IV Additional Servicers
    (TIVAS) and Not-for-Profit (NFP) Servicers that service Department-held
    student loans and Private Collection Agencies (PCAs) that service
    Department-held defaulted student loans.

        Question 4. In 2015, the Department released repayment rate data
    for institutions. These data represents a huge step forward in exposing
    how our students and borrowers are struggling to repay their debts. A
    2016 report by the Institute for Higher Education Policy \1\ indicated
    substantial variation in repayment rate by student loan servicer.
    Please provide repayment rate data that were included on the college
    scorecard disaggregated by each of the student loan servicers in the
    Direct Loan program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/
    making_sense_of_student_
    loan_outcomes_paper.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer 4. The Department is working hard to make more information
    available to the public about the Federal student loan portfolio. While
    we appreciate the interest in repayment rates disaggregated by student
    loan servicer, those data are not readily available at this time.
    Through the FSA Data Center, however, the Department has released in
    recent years new performance data on the Federal student loan portfolio
    disaggregated by student loan servicer, including the loan status of
    each servicer's portfolio, delinquency rates, as well as repayment plan
    usage for the borrowers in each servicer's portfolio.

        Question 5. More than 6 years ago, the Department of Education's
    Inspector General (IG) found that Navient illegally overcharged the
    Federal Government for subsidies on government guaranteed Federal
    student loans.\2\ In September 2013 the Department of Education issued
    a final determination, agreeing that Sallie Mae had overcharged
    taxpayers, and instructed Sallie Mae to change its billing
    practices.\3\ To date, the Department of Education has still not
    recovered these funds, and according to Navient's public SEC filings,
    the Department has not ordered the immediate return of the funds.
    Instead, the Department of Education has given multiple extensions to
    Navient.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Office of Inspector General, Department of Education, Special
    Allowance Payments to Sallie Mae's Subsidiary, Nellie Mae, for loans
    Funded by Tax-Exempt Obligations, Final Audit Report, August 2009
    https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/auditreports/fy2009/
    a03i0006.pdf.
        \3\ James W. Runcie, Chief Operating Officer, Federal Student Aid,
    Letter to Senator Elizabeth Warren, December 9, 2013.
        \4\ Navient has disclosed to its investors that ``[t]he last date
    to file an appeal in this matter has been extended by ED several times
    and is currently November 12, 2015.'' Navient, Form 10-Q, Quarterly
    Report, October 30, 2015 https://investor.shareholder.com/navi/
    secfiling.cfm?
    filingID=1193125-15-360320&CIK=1593538.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Has Navient fully repaid the $22.3 million in illegal overbillings
    related to the 2009 Inspector General report? Please provide dates and
    amounts of all payments made to date by Navient.
        If Navient has not fully repaid the fines:

        Has the Department of Education assessed, or does it plan to
    assess, interest, fees, or penalties for Navient's lack of timely
    repayment? Has the Department of Education approached the Department of
    Justice about potential actions against Navient under the False Claims
    Act? Does the Department of Education have a detailed timeline for
    Navient to repay the full amount? If so, please provide details on this
    timeline. Please provide all documents sent to and received from Sallie
    Mae and Navient regarding delays in payment or requests for extension,
    including the Final Audit Determination Letter that the Department has
    sent to Navient.
        Answer 5. The Department is committed to recovering funds that were
    overbilled to taxpayers. We cannot provide further details as this is
    an ongoing enforcement matter. A copy of the Final Audit Determination
    letter is attached as Attachment A.

        Question 6. Many student loan borrowers who file Chapter 13
    bankruptcy would like to participate in administrative income-based
    repayment plans (IBR, PAYE, etc.) while they are in bankruptcy.
    However, borrowers in Chapter 13 are typically placed in a forbearance
    status by student loan servicers and are prevented from remaining in
    good status on IBR plans, and from enrolling in such plans, while the
    bankruptcy is pending.
        What steps has the Department taken to address this problem, so
    that borrowers in bankruptcy are not discriminated against based on
    their bankruptcy filing? What is the Department's policy regarding
    participation in repayment plans when a borrower is in a Chapter 13
    case?
        Answer 6. The Department is always looking for ways to better
    assist borrowers in distress, including those who have filed for
    bankruptcy protection.
        Due to financial constraints leading up to a bankruptcy filing, a
    borrower in bankruptcy may not be making payments under the repayment
    plan. Borrowers in bankruptcy are protected by an automatic stay, which
    prevents creditors, including the Federal Government, from making any
    attempts at collection of a debt while the borrower is in bankruptcy.
    Due to the automatic stay, what would otherwise be normal student loan
    servicing activity (i.e., switching repayment plans) may be suspended
    by loan servicers to ensure that no violation of the automatic stay
    occurs.
        The Department has helped borrowers establish alternative repayment
    arrangements in several recent Chapter 13 bankruptcies, where the
    student loan borrowers' Chapter 13 plans contained language that
    provided for a student loan debtor to repay his or her student loan
    debt under one of our income driven repayment plans, rather than have
    the Department receive the allotment that would otherwise be provided
    to the unsecured non-priority creditor class in the bankruptcy.
        The borrowers wanted to pursue this option so that the time period
    in repayment could count toward the maximum time required prior to loan
    forgiveness in those plans. The plans were confirmed, permitting the
    debtor to participate in an income driven repayment plan during the
    Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Department worked with the attorneys in
    those specific cases to ensure that the borrower could repay under
    repayment plans for which the borrower was otherwise eligible and that
    the Department and/or loan servicers were protected from any servicing
    activity that resulted from such accommodation while the automatic stay
    was in place.
                                debt collection
        Question 7. In the hearing, I mentioned problems with abusive debt
    collection practices. How does the Office of Federal Student Aid
    measure and track debt collection success? Is it based only on dollars
    collected? If other measures are used, what are they and how are they
    tracked?
        Answer 7. The Department is deeply committed to ensuring that all
    borrowers in default on a student loan are treated fairly and has taken
    a number of steps to ensure that borrower customer service is at the
    center of measuring PCA performance.
        First, the Administration has put into place new rules that allow
    many defaulted borrowers an opportunity to rehabilitate their loans and
    get into an affordable repayment plan more easily, an important step to
    improve their credit and ensure continued eligibility for Federal
    financial aid for future education pursuits.
        For new private collection agency (PCA) contracts beginning last
    year and under any future awards, the Department has implemented a
    performance evaluation approach called Continuous Performance
    Monitoring and Evaluation (CPME). This methodology drives allocations
    of new accounts to the PCAs, which we believe is the most effective way
    of incentivizing agencies to pursue Department priorities that reflect
    the interest of borrowers. CPME focuses on three factors: borrowers
    resolved, quality of service, and dollars collected.

         Under ``borrowers resolved,'' PCAs will receive equal
    credit for every borrower that resolves their account by, for example,
    paying in full, rehabilitating, consolidating, or being approved for a
    total and permanent disability discharge. We believe this will provide
    a significant incentive for the PCAs to promote the resolution option
    most appropriate for each borrower and keep borrowers from remaining in
    default.
         The ``quality of service'' factor will be based on the
    number of complaints each PCA receives and on quality reviews conducted
    by FSA. FSA will define a minimum acceptable service quality score PCAs
    must meet in order to be eligible for any new placements.

        Question 8. When does the Department intend to stop paying debt
    collectors that are accused of breaking Federal consumer protection
    laws that I referenced in the hearing, including Enterprise Recovery
    Systems, Pioneer Credit Recovery, and West Asset Management? How many
    borrowers? accounts are still with these debt collectors?
        Answer 8. The Department believes that every borrower--including
    those in default--deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. These
    borrowers should also get accurate information from our contractors
    about their options.
        Regarding your specific question, we have already recalled all non-
    paying accounts from these PCAs and will continue to do so on a monthly
    basis for borrowers who stop making payments. The only accounts still
    placed with these PCAs are active accounts from borrowers who are
    making voluntary payments, being garnished, or are under review for a
    disability discharge to avoid any disruption in the borrower's
    resolution efforts, particularly to ensure continuity for borrowers who
    are working toward rehabilitation. FSA plans to recall all remaining
    accounts under these contracts, but to allow all borrowers to have the
    requisite 10 months to complete the terms of a rehabilitation
    agreement.
        Following the Department's findings that these PCAs had violated
    Federal consumer protection laws, each satisfactorily documented that
    it had taken action to put in place stronger controls to address those
    problems. As a result, pursuant to Federal procurement law, those
    entities were then eligible to continue competing for Department
    contracts. The Department also has put in place increased monitoring of
    PCAs.

        Question 9. Some recent default rehabilitation agreements state
    that the Department of Education will charge collection fees that have
    been previously waived if a borrower re-defaults after a successful
    rehabilitation.
        Is this the Department's policy? If so, how do the Department and
    its collectors separate fees that were previously waived from any new
    fees? Does the Department track data on borrowers who re-default? If
    so, how is this data tracked and is it public? If so, what are the
    variables the Department studies regarding causes of re-default? If the
    Department does not currently track or study this information, does it
    have future plans to do so?
        Answer 9. While default rehabilitation agreements include a
    provision that allows the Department to charge previously waived fees,
    in practice the Department does not pursue additional collection fees
    from borrowers who have re-defaulted after a successful rehabilitation.
        The Department believes that tracking the success of borrowers
    enrolled in rehabilitation is critical. We are in the process of
    analyzing preliminary numbers on borrowers who re-default and we intend
    to make data on re-defaults public in the future.

        Question 10a. How many full-time employees spend at least 50
    percent of their time overseeing the Department's private debt
    collectors' compliance with Federal and State rules and laws?
        Answer 10a. There are currently 84 full-time staff whose primary
    responsibility is conducting oversight of private collection agencies
    and servicers. Most of these staff focus on compliance with contractual
    requirements, which include adherence to Federal and State laws.

        Question 10b. Please provide a copy of the Department's Private
    Collection Agency handbook/manual.
        Answer 10b. The Department has not made the manual public based on
    the advice of the Office of the General Counsel and the Inspector
    General's Office. However, we would be pleased to provide your office
    with an opportunity to review the manual at your convenience and can
    make staff available to help answer any questions that arise from that
    review. I will instruct the Department's Office of Legislation and
    Congressional Affairs to reach out to your office to make arrangements
    for such a review upon submission of this response.

        Question 11. During the hearing, you said that you are ``deeply
    committed to ensuring that Federal Student Aid serves students well,
    serves borrowers well, and protects the taxpayer interest.'' I share
    this commitment, but in order to achieve this, FSA's staff must be able
    to hold its contractors--particularly student loan servicers and debt
    collectors--more accountable. The problems I've identified are about
    FSA's employees consistently prioritizing the interests of its
    contractors over the interests of taxpayers and students. And one of my
    concerns in this area is that there seems to be a number of FSA staff
    that have left the government and gone to work for student loan
    servicers or contractors--presenting the appearance of a revolving
    door. As Acting Secretary, you currently oversee FSA and its staff;
        Please provide a copy of your policies for employees who are
    leaving or considering leaving government service and are considering
    jobs with student loan servicers, contractors, or other entities that
    have business before FSA. Are there requirements that employees
    disclose contact or job offers from these firms? Are there requirements
    for employees to recuse themselves from work affecting these firms? Are
    there post-employment restrictions on these employees if they take jobs
    with contractors or student loan servicers? Similarly, provide a copy
    of your policies for employees who are moving from FSA contractors or
    student loan servicers into ED employment. Are there disclosure or
    recusal requirements? Please provide a list of FSA employees who have
    previously worked at an FSA contractor or a company owned by an FSA
    contractor. Please provide a list of former FSA employees who currently
    work at an FSA contractor or a company owned by an FSA contractor.
        Answer 11. Every agency, including the Department of Education,
    must ensure that the public is fully confident that the agency's
    actions are in the best interest of the public and are not--or even
    appear to be--influenced by the so-called ``revolving door.''
        Attached as Attachments B and C are the guidance documents shared
    with employees specific to seeking employment, including post-
    employment rules. These documents are distributed by the Department's
    Ethics Division. As you will see from the documents, the April 15, 2014
    document provides guidance on specific laws and regulations that govern
    employment matters. The second document provides employees information
    in a conversational tone to help ensure the technical aspects of the
    laws and regulations are understood. Both documents make clear that
    there are certain restrictions on Federal employees, particularly those
    that have been involved in procurement activities.
        The Department makes clear that all new employees are subject to
    the Standards of Ethical Conduct and other ethics laws. Among other
    things, new employees are required to disqualify themselves from
    participating in particular matters involving specific parties in which
    their former employer is, or represents, a party for 1 year. In
    addition, under the Standards of Ethical Conduct and the criminal
    conflict of interest statute at 18 U.S.C.  208, employees must be
    recused from any particular matter that will have a direct and
    predictable effect on an entity with which they are seeking employment.
        Per the Procurement Integrity Act (41 U.S.C.  2101-2107), the law
    imposes job-search restrictions on Federal employees who have been
    involved in agency procurements. This means an employee who is
    participating personally and substantially in procurement for a
    contract in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold and is
    contacted by a bidder regarding non-Federal employment or is seeking
    employment with a bidder must report the contact, in writing, to his or
    her supervisor and the Designated Agency Ethics Official. Additionally,
    the employee must either reject the offer of non-Federal employment or
    disqualify himself or herself from further personal and substantial
    participation in the procurement until authorization to resume
    participation is granted in accordance with the conflict of interest
    rules (18 U.S.C.  208) on the grounds that the offeror is no longer a
    bidder or all discussions with the offeror regarding possible non-
    Federal employment have terminated without an agreement for employment.
        Additionally, Section 17 of the STOCK Act requires employees who
    file public financial disclosure reports to notify the Designated
    Agency Ethics Official within three business days of commencing post-
    government employment negotiations or entering into an agreement for
    post-government employment.
        The Department's hiring process has resulted in hiring staff from
    current or former vendors. We believe this has been of benefit to the
    Department as there are limited opportunities for individuals to become
    familiar with the student loan process. The Department has a thorough
    vetting process to ensure the skills and requirements of the vacant
    position meet the needs necessary for the advertised position. We
    immediately provide new hires with information as to the legal
    restrictions with respect to their interactions with their former
    employers. We do not keep a list of current or former employees that
    once worked for a contractor. However, other than the legal
    restrictions surrounding employee conduct with former employers
    (oftentimes known as the ``cooling off'' period), there are no
    restrictions in the government's hiring protocol with regards to
    applicants that once were employed by a current or former contractor.
        The Department does not require employees to provide post-
    governmental employment information, nor do we track the employment
    activities of our staff once they leave the agency. Therefore, I am
    unable to provide a list of former staff that now work for a contractor
    or a company owned by an FSA contractor.
        I share your desire to ensure that the Department meets the highest
    standards of ethics and integrity, and I appreciate feedback on ways
    that the public can remain confident in the Department's work.
                         student loan debt relief scams
        Question 12. Shortly after you became the Acting Secretary, the
    Department issued cease and desist letters to a number of student loan
    ``debt relief'' companies.\5\ Have these companies abided by the
    Department's request? In cases where the companies have not, how does
    the Department plan to respond?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ http://blog.ed.gov/2016/01/dont-be-fooled-you-never-have-to-
    pay-for-student-loan-help/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer 12. Both companies that were sent cease and desist letters
    on January 28, 2016 no longer include the seal of the U.S. Department
    of Education on their Web sites. If companies do not comply with our
    cease and desist letters, we will work internally and with our partners
    at the Department of Justice to determine the most appropriate
    response.
                            student loan complaints
        Question 13. In April 2015, Senators Reed, Durbin, Brown, and I
    sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, with copies to
    the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection
    Bureau (CFPB), asking the Administration to examine the feasibility of
    using the existing student loan complaint system at the CFPB for
    Federal student loans. Since that time, the Department of Education has
    announced plans to develop its own complaint system.
        What considerations were given to leveraging the CFPB's system?
    What have been the costs of developing the proposed system, and what
    does the Department estimate the costs will be going forward? When will
    the system be fully operational? How will the Department's system
    interact with the CFPB complaint system? Will the Department share all
    applicable completed complaints it receives with Consumer Sentinel? If
    not, why not? Will the complaint system be public and searchable? If
    not, why not? Will the Department ask borrowers who submit complaints
    whether they are satisfied with the outcomes? If not, why not?
        Answer 13. The Enterprise Complaint System is being developed in
    response to the directive in the President's Student Aid Bill of
    Rights, published on March 10, 2015, for the Department to ``Create a
    Responsive Student Feedback System'' to ``give students and borrowers a
    simple and straightforward way to file complaints about Federal student
    loan lenders, servicers, collections agencies, and institutions of
    higher education.'' The Student Aid Bill of Rights notes that, as a
    result of such a system, ``[s]tudents and borrowers will be able to
    ensure that their complaints will be directed to the right party for
    timely resolution, and the Department of Education will be able to more
    quickly respond to issues and strengthen its effort to protect the
    integrity of the student financial aid programs.''
        In developing the Complaint System, the Department has consulted
    with other entities including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
    and others in its consideration of the design of a new system to
    leverage the knowledge and experience of other systems currently in
    use.
        The Department expects total development costs to be approximately
    $7.4 million across fiscal years 2015 and 2016. The Department has
    estimated annualized ongoing costs, including operations and
    maintenance, software licenses, and contractor customer service
    support, to be approximately $2.5 million per year. In accordance with
    the President's Student Aid Bill of Rights, the Enterprise Complaint
    System will be implemented by July 1, 2016.
        Interactions between the Enterprise Complaint System and the CFPB
    complaint system are governed by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
    between the CFPB and the Department regarding Federal Student Aid (FSA)
    Ombudsman data. Cases that are determined to be related to the scope of
    the CFPB complaint system and not the Department, e.g., cases related
    to private student loans, will be forwarded to the CFPB for resolution
    through a process that is seamless to the customer. The customer will
    be informed when this occurs.
        The Department will continue to share all applicable completed
    complaints it receives with Consumer Sentinel, in accordance with
    existing processes and data-sharing agreements. The information and
    data gathered through the complaint system will also be used to aid in
    compliance reviews and improve servicer oversight.
        Although the Department recognizes the value that a searchable
    public database can provide to customers, this functionality is not
    planned for initial implementation. However, the Department is
    exploring ways to develop this capability for a future release, and
    does plan to provide reports to the public. For example, the Department
    will release an annual report on complaint data beginning in October
    2016, and is exploring the possibility of releasing standardized
    complaint data at more frequent intervals on the FSA Data Center in
    addition to improvements to the usability of the data presented, as
    well as periodic reports on significant or timely issues.
        The Department will ask borrowers who submit complaints whether
    they are satisfied with the outcomes. For technical reasons, this
    capability will not be available by July 1, 2016, but is expected to be
    included as an enhancement soon afterwards.
               borrower defense, other discharges, and corinthian
        Question 14. My last question at the hearing was about borrower
    defense to repayment and Corinthian. You said that you are committed to
    protect the interests of borrowers and taxpayers, yet the Department
    still has not established and published a policy for proactively
    identifying and reaching out to borrowers who are eligible for
    discharges. Besides borrower defense rulemaking, when will the
    Department create and make publicly available its policies for
    identifying and reaching out to borrowers who are currently eligible
    for discharges (not borrowers who might be eligible after a new rule is
    written in 2017)?
        Answer 14. Our goal is to ensure that every student who is eligible
    for relief--either because they were defrauded by their college or
    because their school closed down--receives every penny of the debt
    relief they are entitled to in an efficient manner. For students who
    may be implicated by our findings of wrongdoing by schools, we have
    engaged in multiple rounds of e-mail or postal mail outreach to notify
    borrowers that they may be eligible for relief. For example, last month
    we sent out nearly 50,000 followup e-mails to Heald borrowers that
    included links to the form that borrowers could fill out to seek
    relief. We tested different subject lines to see which would create the
    highest e-mail open rate. Preliminary data about the open rates for
    these e-mail outreach campaigns show they are performing relatively
    well.
        However, we still are not satisfied with the response and plan to
    begin another round of postal mail outreach, which will include a copy
    of the attestation form for Heald students and a return envelope.

        Question 15. Please provide the guidance that the Department
    currently gives student loan servicers regarding borrower defense
    discharges, closed school discharges, and other student loan
    discharges.
        Answer 15. The goal of the Department's direction to student loan
    servicers regarding discharges is aimed at ensuring borrowers
    understand the options available to them to obtain relief on the loans
    eligible for discharge. We would be pleased to further discuss our
    guidance to the student loan servicers in a meeting with you or your
    staff.

        Question 16. Is the Education Department advising the Treasury
    Department not to garnish wages or offset Federal payments for students
    attending schools where the Department of Education has an open
    investigation into potential misconduct?
        Answer 16. No. The Treasury Department administers the Federal
    offset program, and we would direct any questions related to program
    operations to that Department.

        Question 17. The Treasury Department is conducting a debt
    collection pilot program in coordination with the Department of
    Education to examine if debt collection should be brought in-house
    rather than managed by private contractors. Is the Department of
    Education working with Treasury to ensure that no students eligible for
    relief under borrower defense to repayment have their wages garnished
    through this joint debt collection pilot program?
        Answer 17. The Department of Education and the Treasury Department
    have discussed Treasury's debt collection pilot. Although we have not
    specifically discussed whether students eligible for relief under
    borrower defense to repayment should have their wages garnished, we are
    in regular contact about the debt collection pilot, and I will be sure
    to keep your views in mind as we continue through this process.

        Question 18. Federal Student Aid has provided information on its
    Web site suggesting that former Corinthian Colleges students seeking to
    assert a defense to repayment on their loans should submit
    ``transcripts and registration documents indicating your specific
    program of study and dates of enrollment.'' However, in June 2015, a
    lawyer representing Corinthian warned that the records of former
    students might soon be abandoned. What is the Department of Education
    doing to ensure that former students of the now defunct Corinthian
    Colleges--or future schools that go out of business--can actually track
    down copies of the documentation the Department requests?
        Answer 18. Prior to a closure, institutions are required to make
    accommodations for the storage and maintenance of student records and
    for communicating information about the location of academic
    transcripts and records once the location has been determined.
    Additionally, closed institutions are required to provide State
    licensing agencies with information regarding the location of those
    student records.
        In the case of Corinthian and other institutions that have recently
    closed, the Department worked closely with the requisite State
    licensing agencies to ensure information regarding the location of
    student records was widely available but, ultimately, the storage and
    maintenance of student records rests with the State licensing agencies.
        When Corinthian closed, the school directed students who needed
    transcripts to their State authorizing agencies. This reflects the
    important role States have in authorizing institutions to operate
    within their borders, as well as in protecting consumers. The
    Department looks forward to a continued partnership with State
    authorizing agencies for such situations.
                       college accountability/for-profits
        Question 19. Many of us have expressed concern that the Department
    of Education failed to shut off the spigot of Federal aid to Corinthian
    when it should have despite overwhelming evidence that it was cheating
    its students. There are currently dozens of State and Federal
    investigations and lawsuits into other predatory schools like
    Corinthian. I commend the Department for setting up its new enforcement
    unit to better address these types of problems, but my understanding is
    that the enforcement unit will report to Federal Student Aid.
        Why does this unit, which will include borrower defense, report to
    FSA, whose mission is to maximize collections for the student loan
    program? Would you be open to having this enforcement unit report
    directly to you?
        Answer 19. The Department has a track record of taking aggressive
    action against bad-acting schools when it has evidence; several such
    actions have been taken quite recently. In the most recent case of
    Corinthian Colleges, the FSA's efforts resulted in findings of
    misrepresentation by the colleges that led to progressive sanctions and
    eventual closure. Still, FSA and other Federal agencies, including the
    Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Securities and Exchange
    Commission, have highlighted the need to build FSA's institutional
    enforcement capacity significantly, which led to the creation of the
    Enforcement Unit.
        The Department decided to organize the new enforcement unit in
    Federal Student Aid for several reasons. First, many cases that the
    Enforcement Unit could investigate include issues that are found via
    the routine institutional review processes conducted by FSA's Program
    Compliance unit. Placing the Enforcement Unit within FSA will foster
    close coordination and collaboration between these units, enhancing
    information flows that are often critical to conducting effective
    investigations. Second, as the Enforcement Unit is built out, Federal
    Student Aid, as a Performance Based Organization, has more flexible
    hiring authorities, thus enhancing our ability to put in place a strong
    leadership team and staff. Third, the Enforcement Unit will be an
    independent part of Federal Student Aid and Robert Kaye, the head of
    the Enforcement Unit, will report directly to the Chief Operating
    Officer of FSA under the overall management of Under Secretary Ted
    Mitchell. I am confident that our leadership team throughout the
    Department understands and will implement my vision for a strong,
    rigorous and effective compliance and enforcement regime that will
    better protect students.

        Question 20. The Department of Education has the authority under
    the Higher Education Act to claw back the compensation of executives of
    colleges and universities should that school be found to not be
    financially responsible under the general standards and provisions in
    668.171. If confirmed, will you be willing to use this authority?
        Can you please provide all the instances in the last 5 years where
    the Department has exercised this authority, including details on each
    individual subject to a claw back and how much compensation was
    collected in each instance?
        Answer 20. In certain limited situations, ED has the authority to
    require financial guarantees from or the assumption of liability by
    owners, board members and executives of an institution with regard to
    liabilities to/financial losses of the United States, student
    assistance recipients or other program participants. 20 U.S.C.
    1099c(e). We have not used this authority in the last 5 fiscal years;
    the HEA limits the imposition of these types of consequences only to
    certain, narrowly defined, cases. We'd be pleased to talk with you or
    your staff about other possible authority in this area.

        Question 21. The Department currently has other tools to hold
    predatory schools more accountable. Currently, when an institution's
    cohort default rate exceeds 30 percent, the institution must create a
    task force and develop a default management plan.
        Please provide a list of all institutions that have developed a
    default management plan and the outcomes of such plans on default
    rates. What have been the features of successful default management
    plans?
        Answer 21. We are continuing to collect these data, and will
    supplement these responses as soon as possible.

        Question 22a. Colleges are subject to a number of rules that
    require judgment by you as the Secretary of Education. For each of the
    following authorities, please list each instance in which Department
    has used that authority in enforcement actions.
        Rules that prohibit an institution from making ``any statement that
    has the likelihood or tendency to deceive'' students ``about the nature
    of its educational program, its financial charges, or the employability
    of its graduates.'' (34 CFR 668.71)
        Answer 22a. The spreadsheet attached as Attachment D reflects
    administrative actions taken in the last 5 fiscal years that were based
    on non-compliance with 34 CFR  668.71 concerning misrepresentations as
    outlined in the regulations and as further defined in  668.72-668.74
    regarding the nature of educational programs, nature of financial
    charges, and employability of graduates.

        Question 22b. Rules that require an institution to provide
    ``adequate'' counseling to students regarding students' ``rights and
    responsibilities . . . with respect to enrollment at the institution.''
    (34 CFR 668.16)
        Answer 22b. This request specifically refers to paragraph (h)(3) of
    the administrative capability standards under 34 CFR  668.16. We did
    not have any adverse actions in the last 5 fiscal years that were based
    upon this specific ground.

        Question 22c. Rules that require an institution to ``act with the
    competency and integrity necessary to qualify as a fiduciary'' on
    behalf of taxpayers, ``in accordance with the highest standard of care
    and diligence.'' (34 CFR 668.82)
        Answer 22c. While all enforcement actions inherently result from a
    failure to meet the fiduciary standard of conduct, the adverse actions
    in the spreadsheet attached as Attachment E specifically reference the
    fiduciary standard of conduct set forth in 34 CFR  668.82.

        Question 22d. Rules that require an institution to administer
    Federal aid ``with adequate checks and balances in its system of
    internal controls.'' (34 CFR 668.16)
        Answer 22d. This request regarding adverse actions is based upon
    the administrative capability standards outlined in 34 CFR
    668.16(c)(1), which requires that institutions administer Federal aid
    with adequate checks and balances in its system of internal controls.
    The spreadsheet attached as Attachment F specifically outlines adverse
    actions in the last 5 fiscal years that were based on that particular
    ground.

        Question 22e. Rules that prohibit an institution from receiving
    Federal aid if ``any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding''
    reveals ``evidence of significant problems that affect . . . the
    institution's ability to administer'' Federal aid. (34 CFR 668.16)
        Answer 22e. The administrative capability standards at 34 CFR
    668.16(j) has two sections. The information requested related to 34 CFR
     668.16(j)(2). We did not have any adverse actions in the last 5
    fiscal years that were based on this specific ground.

        Question 23a. Colleges submit independent annual audits that, under
    the audit guide, are supposed to check for possible violations of the
    incentive compensation rule, among other things. Do the audits that the
    Department receives include evidence of a college's compliance with the
    incentive compensation rule?
        Answer 23a. Yes, for audits that include a finding questioning a
    school's compliance with the incentive compensation provisions, they
    will have that specific finding identified. The auditor's finding will
    explain the violation. In this sense, the audit and the finding provide
    ``evidence'' of the institution's possible violation.

        Question 23b. Please list all instances in which a school has
    reported violations or possible violations of the incentive
    compensation rule and how the Department responded in each instance.
        Answer 23b. The spreadsheet attached as Attachment G reflects in
    the comment section how the Department responded to each identified
    violation/possible violation of the incentive compensation rules during
    the relevant time period.

        Question 23c. Are there any rules are regulatory safe-harbors that
    currently prevent the Department from fully enforcing the incentive
    compensation rule?
        Answer 23c. This Administration successfully removed through
    regulations all of the safe harbors that previously plagued meaningful
    enforcement of the incentive compensation ban. In addition, it withdrew
    a directive put in place by the prior Administration that directed the
    Office of Federal Student Aid to avoid recovering student aid dollars
    that were improperly received as a result of illegal recruitment
    activity and, instead, seek to fine institutions for noncompliance.
    There remains at least one False Claims Act case that was initiated
    under the prior regulatory regime, which has been made more complicated
    because of these prior rules. Going forward, the Department has no
    current regulatory barriers to fully enforcing the ban. In 2015, ED
    also repealed a Bush administration directive that inhibited ED's
    enforcement of the statutory ban on incentive compensation and re-
    trained enforcement staff to utilize ED's full authority to hold
    violating colleges accountable.

        Question 24. The Department's auditors are expected to look for
    risk indicators, including those listed below. How do the auditors
    assess these indicators and how do the auditors respond when the audits
    indicate a potential problem?

         Rapid growth in a short period of time.
         Use of high-pressure recruitment tactics.
         High turnover of management, faculty, and other staff.
         Large number of students dropping/withdrawing after the
    last date when funds would have to be returned to the Education
    Department.
         High student enrollment but low student attendance.
         High rate of withdrawals or defaults.
         Signs of inadequate or overworked faculty.

        Answer 24. Audits of for-profits institutions are conducted in
    accordance with the OIG Audit Guide, ``Audits of Federal Student
    Financial Assistance Programs at Participating Institutions and
    Institution Servicers (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/
    nonfed/sfgd2000.pdf).'' Audits of private non-profits and public
    institutions are conducted in accordance with the OMB A-133 Compliance
    Supplement (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/
    a133_compliance_supplement_2015). The audits are submitted to the
    Department for resolution of the findings that have been identified.
    The testing procedures provided in the audits do not provide the level
    of detail to respond to this question.

        Question 25. The audit guide has not been updated since 2000. If
    you are confirmed, when will the Department update this audit guide?
        Answer 25. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for
    issuing the ``GUIDE FOR AUDITS OF PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS.'' The OIG
    intends to issue the updated guide by the end of April 2016.

        Question 26. The Higher Education Act was amended in 2008 to
    require Education Department investigators to share their findings with
    colleges before ever notifying the public of the exposed problems, and
    permanently prohibits public disclosure of those original investigator
    findings.
        How is this provision affecting the Department's ability to act on
    its findings, and on the type and timing of information that is
    available to the public? What types of changes have been made to
    program reviews before they have been made public?
        Answer 26. The HEA prohibits the public disclosure of a program
    review report until an institution has had an opportunity to respond
    and a final determination is issued. However, the final determination
    which becomes public includes a copy of the program review report with
    the original findings. This provision does not impact the Department's
    ability to act on its finding. It does delay program review information
    being publicly available.
        Changes are not typically made to a program review report that has
    been issued to the institution. Those that are made are generally to
    correct an administrative error. Even findings that are resolved remain
    in the report and the final determination will indicate that the issue
    has been satisfactorily resolved. Final Program Review Determinations
    are posted on the FSA Data Center.
                            legal rights of students
        Question 27. Many predatory schools require forced arbitration
    clauses, prevent students from joining together with other students to
    file complaints, or take other steps to limit students' recourse and
    prevent regulators and law enforcement agencies from gaining
    information about these students. What steps is the Department taking
    to ensure that students who enroll in college are not forced to sign
    away their legal rights, and that the Department and other agencies
    have timely information about complaints and disputes?
        Answer 27. It is absolutely critical that students are able to
    obtain redress if they have been taken advantage of by bad actors. The
    Department recently established an Enforcement Unit which will beef up
    oversight over higher education institutions, and, as part of the
    President's Student Aid Bill of Rights, we will be launching a state-
    of-the-art student feedback and complaint system by July 1, 2016.
    Regarding your specific question, we share your concern about avenues
    for adequate legal remedy being restricted for students and borrowers
    and we are looking broadly at how students can pursue disputes, and we
    will include the specific issue you raise--of students being forced to
    sign away their legal rights--in our analysis and efforts. We plan to
    report on the progress of this work in the coming months.
                                 accreditation
        Question 28. You spoke briefly about accreditation in response to a
    question from Senator Murphy.
        How will you ensure that accreditation agencies are proactively
    protecting students during upcoming National Advisory Committee on
    Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) review hearings?
        Does the Department have the legal authority to ask for and obtain
    accreditation team reports and self studies? If yes, when will the
    Department work to make these public? If not, please provide me with
    the legal rationale for why that is not the case.
        Does the Department have the legal authority to require accreditors
    to disclose accreditation team reports, self studies, or at least the
    personnel who participate in team visits? If yes, when will the
    Department work to make these public? If not, please provide me with
    the legal rationale for why that is not the case.
        Has the Department obtained or will it obtain and publish any of
    the accreditation documents related to Corinthian Colleges, FastTrain,
    Westwood, or other large college companies that have closed in recent
    years or are in the process of closing?
        Answer 28. The Department shares many of the concerns that Members
    of Congress have raised about accrediting agencies.
        Accrediting agencies must play a key role in ensuring quality in
    post-secondary education and protecting students. The Department's
    Office of Post-Secondary Education (OPE) provides recognition,
    oversight, and monitoring of accreditation agency compliance with
    statutory and regulatory requirements. In addition to the ongoing
    accreditation oversight that OPE has provided, the Department announced
    a number of executive actions in November 2015 to improve transparency,
    accountability, and focus on student outcomes in its recognition and
    oversight processes.
        The Department is taking a number of steps in order to better
    inform staff and NACIQI recommendations, particularly related to
    student outcomes and problematic institutions. First, the Department
    has made publicly available, via its Web site, performance data for
    institutions sorted by accreditor, as well as information regarding
    each recognized accrediting agency's student achievement standards. At
    its last NACIQI meeting, NACIQI expressed interest in incorporating
    these data into its review processes for the June 2016 meeting. Toward
    this end, NACIQI adopted a plan for the June 2016 meeting which
    includes analysis of key data points that NACIQI wishes to include as
    part of its review of accrediting agencies, and NACIQI identified
    questions regarding student achievement measures that it will pose to
    agencies in a systematic format. In addition, Department staff
    incorporate the number of complaints received for each accrediting
    agency and provides that information to NACIQI.
        All of these actions, taken together, are increasing accountability
    of agencies for the performance of their institutions. We also make the
    documents collected in the agency recognition process available to the
    public for inspection in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
    Act. This includes accreditation team reports and self-studies provided
    by agencies to the Department.
        The Department is working to conduct a rigorous review of the
    accreditors scheduled for re-recognition in June 2016, including some
    that accredited recently closed institutions. The Department is
    gathering relevant information that will inform staff and NACIQI
    recommendations. We will continue to work to strengthen accreditation
    and ultimately ensure high-quality options for students.
        As you know, in addition to the executive actions we are taking to
    strengthen accreditation, the Administration has called for legislative
    action to advance a focus on student outcomes in accreditation. We look
    forward to continuing to work with you and your colleagues on this
    effort.
                                      tcpa
        Question 29. In December 2015, Senators Lee, Markey, Hatch and I
    sent your predecessor a letter to express our concerns about using
    ``robocalls'' to collect student loan debt.\6\ While a caller must
    generally have a person's consent before using autodialers and pre-
    recorded messages to ``robocall'' the person's cell phone or
    residential line, Title III of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
    creates an exemption allowing anyone to robocall a person's phone--
    without consent--for the purpose of collecting a debt owed to or
    guaranteed by the Federal Government.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Letter from Senators Elizabeth Warren, Michael S. Lee, Edward
    J. Markey and Orrin G. Hatch to Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S.
    Department of Education (Dec. 21, 2015) available at http://
    www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1038.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our letter asked the Department not to use this new authority until
    the Department can demonstrate with data that robocalling is in the
    best interest of student loan borrowers and taxpayers and will not
    result in abusive debt collection practices. The Department's response
    dated February 24, 2016 indicated that the Department would ``provide a
    detailed cost-benefit analysis and burden assessment [] in accordance
    with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.'' In other words, the Department
    responded to our request for this specific data with a commitment to
    conduct a general cost-benefits analysis that agencies must provide
    anyway as part of a rulemaking process.
        In addition, our letter asked two questions: whether the Department
    agrees with our reading of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 that
    robocalling is not permitted until after the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) has issued implementing regulations; and whether the
    Department interprets the new authority to permit robocalling to the
    relatives and references of student loan borrowers. The Department
    responded that it has not concluded its ``review of implementation
    issues'' and that the Department ``has not developed guidance on the
    scope of the authority under Title III.'' In other words, the
    Department did not answer our questions.
        Given the Department's inadequate response, I ask again for the
    Department to provide the data requested in our letter and answers to
    our questions--specifically:

        Will you commit to not permitting robocalling under this authority
    until the FCC issues implementing regulations? Will you commit to
    ensuring that this authority cannot be used to robocall relatives or
    references who may be secondarily responsible for student loan debt?
    Will you commit to providing the data we requested, rather than simply
    committing to conduct the standard cost-benefit analysis?
        Answer 29. We continue to support efforts to protect borrowers from
    harassing phone calls and recognize the important role the TCPA plays
    in safeguarding consumers from excessive, unsolicited phone calls.
    Shortly after the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 was passed, we sent a
    notice to our servicers to not implement any changes related to the
    TCPA provision. The Department will not permit robocalling under this
    authority until the FCC issues implementing regulations and we will not
    allow our servicers to use this authority to robocall relatives or
    references who may be secondarily responsible for student loan debt.
        Regarding data and analysis to show whether this is in the public
    interest, we are determining the best way to be responsive to this
    request and plan to followup with your staff and staff of other
    interested offices.
        Please contact Josh Delaney (202-224-4543) in my office if you have
    any questions.
        [Editor's Note: The attachments indicated above were not available
    at time of print.]
                     additional questions of senator warren
    Regarding the Department's Review of Student Loan Servicers and the
    Education Inspector General 3/1/2016 Report. See http://www.ed.gov/
    about/offices/list/oig/misc/scrareport02292016.pdf.

        Question 1. How and why did the Department make the decision not to
    rely on DOJ's and the FDIC's investigation, and instead conduct
    separate reviews of Navient's conduct to determine whether Navient
    should be subject to penalties in the student loan program as a result
    of its settlement with DOJ and the FDIC?
        Answer 1. The misconduct of Sallie Mae/Navient that was alleged by
    the Justice Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
    was disturbing, and the Education Department was greatly concerned by
    this development. While the Department worked closely with the Justice
    Department in developing the relief provided to Federal student loan
    borrowers under the Consent Order, under the Department's contracts
    with loan servicers, we needed to determine whether Navient had
    complied with the terms of that contract, the HEA and regulations, and
    the guidance we provided to determine if we had a legal basis to take
    any action under the contract. Additionally, while working with Justice
    on the Consent Order we discussed how to apply the procedures required
    of Navient going to other servicers and to the FFEL Program. As a
    result, the Department issued new guidance to ensure that
    servicemembers could automatically receive the interest rate reduction
    on their Federal student loans and operationalized that guidance to
    ensure that every servicemember is guaranteed the benefits to which
    they are entitled on their Federal student loans under the
    Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

        Question 2. Given that neither the Department of Education nor its
    Office of Federal Student Aid--the Department's student loan bank--
    administers or enforces the SCRA, why was this review conducted by the
    Office of Federal Student Aid, and not a certified auditor with SCRA
    expertise or an arm of the Department that does not regularly engage
    with student loan servicers?
        Answer 2. Every office within the Department, including offices
    within the Office of Federal Student Aid, is deeply committed to
    protecting the interests of students and borrowers.
        The Department's review was to determine whether or not the
    servicers were in compliance with the requirements of the Higher
    Education Act, our regulations and guidance, and the servicers'
    contracts with the Department. That expertise is in Financial
    Institutions Oversight Service Group (FIOS), which is located within
    the Office of Program Compliance, a separate component within FSA that
    is not involved in the business operations of the loan servicers. FIOS
    is responsible for monitoring the servicers' compliance with the
    statutory and regulatory requirements for the Federal loan programs.
    Federal Student Aid did engage a certified auditor, CPA firm Ernst &
    Young, to conduct an independent review. The results of the Ernst &
    Young review aligned with those of the FIOS review. We are in the
    process of reviewing the OIG's recommendations to determine what
    additional action can be taken.

        Question 3. Did the Office of Federal Student Aid seek input on the
    scope of the review from the Department of Justice or the Consumer
    Financial Protection Bureau's Office of Servicemember Affairs, or from
    elsewhere in the Department of Education?
        If not, why not? If so, how did their input factor into the program
    review?
        Answer 3. The Department worked closely with DOJ to understand the
    scope of its review and the differences between our compliance standard
    applicable under our contracts and the standard DOJ incorporated into
    the Consent Order.
        Since the scope of the Department's review was significantly
    different from the scope of the action taken by DOJ, neither DOJ nor
    CFPB was contacted regarding the scope of the FSA review.
        More broadly, the Department has benefited from a close working
    relationship with both the Department of Justice and the CFPB, and will
    continue to look for ways to ensure our oversight responsibilities meet
    the highest standards for servicemembers, students, and borrowers by
    seeking opportunities to incorporate the expertise of other agencies
    where they may have relevant expertise. As an example, most recently,
    the Department's FSA has added an enforcement unit that includes a
    focus on protecting Federal student loan borrowers headed by Robert
    Kaye, one of the Nation's top enforcement attorneys and a leader in the
    consumer protection work at the Federal Trade Commission. In addition,
    Mr. Kaye coordinates enforcement activities with the Department's
    Office of the Inspector General.

        Question 4. When the Department was first briefed by both the
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Justice on
    possible SCRA violations by Sallie Mae/Navient? When did officials at
    the Department of Education know the details of the DOJ's May 13, 2014
    announcement?
        Answer 4. The Department is in regular contact with partner
    agencies, particularly our Federal law enforcement agencies, such as
    the Department of Justice and the CFPB. We continue to strengthen our
    cooperation through strong Memoranda of Understanding with such
    agencies that allow for greater information sharing to aid in
    investigative efforts. And we lead an interagency working group under
    the Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving
    Service Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members focused on
    ensuring better educational resources and strong protections for our
    Nation's military families.
        While it was before I arrived at the Department, my understanding
    is that the Department first learned about the Department of Justice's
    investigation and findings of Sallie Mae's compliance with the SCRA
    during the summer of 2013. The Department learned about the details of
    the investigation during a series of communications primarily with the
    Department of Justice. As noted in the Department of Justice's press
    release of May 13, 2014, the Department of Justice's settlement with
    Navient was the product of a joint effort with the Department of
    Education, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal
    Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Consent Order that resulted from the
    settlement was negotiated over a period of months and the Department of
    Justice consulted with the Department of Education throughout that
    period.

        Question 5. For each of the following reviews, who oversaw the
    first FIOS review of Navient, the second FIOS review of Navient, and
    the review of the other three TIVAS? How many full-time FSA and/or non-
    FSA employees were assigned to and/or worked on each of these three
    reviews? How was the methodology for each of these three reviews
    established and reviewed? Who set the parameters for the methodology
    and sampling methods for each of these three reviews?
        Answer 5. As with all reviews, Departmental employees receive
    training and guidance on conducting appropriate compliance activities
    in order to protect the interests of students, borrowers, and
    taxpayers. The reviews were managed by the Director of the Financial
    Institution Oversight Service Group. The Department's internal review
    was undertaken by 15 employees in FSA's Program Compliance office.
        The methodology was established based on the Department's
    requirements--mirroring statutory requirements of the SCRA--that
    borrowers request in writing the SCRA interest rate and provide a copy
    of their military orders. For the first review, FIOS relied on more
    limited data that were accessible in NSLDS to conduct the four TIVAS
    reviews in the timeframe provided. Since FSA's first review of Navient
    resulted in substantially different results than DOJ, FSA management
    wanted to do a second review utilizing the data match. We also engaged
    a CPA firm, Ernst & Young, to conduct an independent review. Ernst &
    Young selected a sample from the results of a data match with DMDC.
    FIOS used this same sample to conduct the second review. Despite the
    DMDC match used for the second review--and the threefold sample size
    increase--the second review identified the same results as the first
    review.

        Question 6. What policies and procedures guide FIOS' approach to a
    review such as these, and how are these policies and procedures similar
    to the reviews of other Department guaranty agencies, private debt
    collectors, contractors, and other financial institutions? Is it the
    Department's policy that a certain number of mistakes are appropriate
    from its servicers? What number and scope of mistakes would warrant
    punitive action against a servicer?
        Answer 6. FSA has policies and procedures to guide oversight
    activities, such as those related to the review of the TIVAS for
    compliance with SCRA-related regulations and guidance under the Higher
    Education Act. This review was not designed to be a formal statistical
    study. Rather, it was to review data for management's assessment of
    compliance and to determine the need for corrective or other actions.
        In certain situations, the Department can assess fines, such as
    when a guaranty agency's or lenders' violation, failure, or substantial
    misrepresentation is material and the entity knew or should have known
    that its actions violated the provisions of the HEA or Department's
    regulations. In the case of a violation by a contractor, the Department
    can pursue remedies available under the contract.
        Typically, if the cause of any instances of noncompliance were
    systemic in nature, such as a lack of controls, inaccurate controls, or
    a system coding issue, then the entity is instructed to take corrective
    actions, including adjusting individual accounts or implementing
    accurate controls or system changes. If FSA determines that the nature
    of the noncompliance is severe or willful, the Department may seek
    additional remedies, including contract termination.
        In addition, later this year, the Department will begin a new loan
    servicing procurement process to create a limited set of streamlined,
    consistent systems and processes that will allow Department staff to
    more effectively manage and oversee vendors' performance, leading to
    better outcomes for borrowers. Providing high quality service to
    servicemembers, and ensuring they receive all benefits to which they
    are entitled, will be among our top priorities.
        We appreciate any feedback you may have related to our policies and
    procedures as we consider steps to ensure that the Department's reviews
    of financial institutions meet the highest standards.

        Question 7. Was the first Navient review (initiated June 2014)
    completed, or merely stopped before completion? If it was stopped, then
    why was it stopped? Who made the decision to stop it?
        Answer 7. The review was completed.

        Question 8. Please provide the results of the first Navient review
    and explain why its existence and its content have not been previously
    disclosed to the public. If the review was not completed, then please
    provide materials produced as part of the review.
        Answer 8. For the first Navient review, the sample was selected
    from a National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) population of 33,837
    unique records of military deferment and military grace periods granted
    from June 17, 2009, through April 14, 2014, for FFEL Program and Direct
    Loan Program loans owned by the Department with an interest rate in
    excess of 6 percent that were serviced by Navient under the TIVAS
    contract. The DMDC match was not available at that time, and the NSLDS
    selection criteria were used to yield a more likely population of
    borrowers to have requested the SCRA benefit. The review identified one
    borrower out of the sample being incorrectly denied.
        The second review was conducted using the DMDC data match, which
    was unavailable when the first review was conducted. FSA decided to
    initiate a second review utilizing the data match. The second review,
    based on the larger sample, also identified one borrower that had been
    incorrectly denied. Since the second review was based on the larger
    DMDC data match and resulted in similar results as the first review, we
    had greater confidence in the results and focused efforts on the
    development of a public report on this second review.

        Question 9. Why didn't FIOS attempt to determine whether the TIVAS
    has information in their own servicing systems that could have helped
    them to identify a complete universe of servicemembers who might be
    eligible for the SCRA benefit? Why didn't the FIOS review of Great
    Lakes, PHEAA, and Nelnet use the Defense Manpower Data Center to
    identify potential SCRA-eligible servicemembers?
        Answer 9. The Department appreciates the importance of
    understanding the architecture of key servicing systems used by the
    TIVAS. This understanding helps to inform data sources for conducting
    oversight activities.
        Regarding your specific question, FIOS reviewed DOJ's sampling
    method and understands that Deloitte, on behalf of DOJ, first
    identified a population by matching the Navient borrowers against DMDC.
    They then determined if the borrower's active duty was in scope, then
    removed loans with an interest rate less than 6 percent or loans that
    were not eligible because they were originated during the borrowers
    active duty.
        From that they matched the population against Navient's imaging
    system to determine if any of the borrowers had a military document in
    the system (as designated by a code). Deloitte then manually reviewed
    the files of 12,400 borrowers (their ``sample''), and only 2,800
    borrowers had both orders and a notice in the file, even after using
    the data that Navient had in their imaging system. Therefore FIOS
    believed the data in the imaging system was not sufficient to identify
    the population of eligible servicemembers.
        If, as stated by the OIG, Navient instituted a computer system code
    as a result of the settlement, that code would not have been effective
    during the time of the first FIOS Navient review because the settlement
    had not been implemented. Although FIOS did not inquire directly of the
    other three servicers as to whether there was information in their
    system to identify SCRA eligible borrowers, FIOS did have a familiarity
    with these systems and did not believe that to be the case.
        During the time that the reviews were being performed, July/early
    August, 2014, Great Lakes, PHEAA and Nelnet had not yet fully
    implemented the data match. FIOS' goal at the time was to provide a
    timely response to inform management's assessment prior to the full
    implementation of this data match; however, FIOS did not have ready
    access to the information. In addition, based upon the results of the
    two Navient reviews, we concluded that there was not a meaningful
    difference between using the DMDC data base or NSLDS.

        Question 10. What percentage of servicemembers with Federal student
    loans are in military grace periods or deferment at any given time?
        Answer 10. We are continuing to collect these data, and will
    supplement these responses as soon as possible.

        Question 11. How much was Ernst and Young paid to corroborate the
    FIOS reviews of the TIVAS? Please provide copies of the contract,
    guidance, and directive that FIOS/FSA gave Ernst and Young. Did Ernst
    and Young ever raise concerns about the FIOS methodology? If so, what
    were those concerns and who received them? How did the Department
    respond to these concerns?
        Answer 11. Ernst and Young (EY) was paid $94,471.00 to offer its
    independent perspective. A copy of the contract and RFP are attached.
    In order to maintain independence, EY did not have a copy of the FIOS
    review methodology.

        Question 12. Why did the Department assert in its May 26, 2015
    press release that its reviews showed violations in ``less than 1
    percent of cases'' when the ``acceptance'' sampling methodology used by
    FIOS to analyze the non-Navient services makes it impossible to draw
    such conclusions? \2\ Who at FSA approved the substantive content of
    the May 26, 2015 press release? Does he or she still oversee financial
    institution oversight or compliance?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-
    completes-review-major-student-loan-servicers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer 12. Improving transparency in all we do is an important
    principle for the Department and I am very committed to it. We are
    currently reviewing the facts of this situation and the findings of the
    Inspector General. We will followup with your staff to provide a more
    detailed response.

        Question 13. Why did the Department assert in its May 26, 2015
    press release that its reviews showed violations ``in less than 1
    percent of its cases'' when the small sample and methodology of its
    sampling design preclude the reporting of a statistically valid
    aggregate denial rate, and its own reported raw data indicated
    incorrect denials in 8 percent of reviewed cases? Why did the
    Department combine the program review of all four TIVAS in its May 26,
    2015 press release?
        Answer 13. We summarized the reviews to provide a brief and simple
    explanation of the results. Our summary was not based on only those
    borrowers who applied for the SCRA interest rate cap. We modeled our
    review after the universe that DOJ used which was all eligible
    servicemembers; not only those who applied.
        We also provided in the press release a link to all of the
    underlying reports completed in order to provide all of the details
    about the reviews to be fully transparent.

        Question 14. Why did the dataset FIOS used to review PHEAA
    compliance with SCRA not exclude the more than 50 percent of reviewed
    loans for which borrowers could not benefit from the 6 percent interest
    cap?
        Answer 14. This is attributable to error. The sample was pulled
    incorrectly, and although the borrower's primary loan had an interest
    rate of 6 percent or less, some of the borrowers had secondary loans
    that had interest rates greater than 6 percent, so the actual number of
    borrowers with all loans having an interest rate of 6 percent or less
    was 16.

        Question 15. Why did the second FIOS analysis of Navient credit
    Navient with providing SCRA benefits to three servicemembers who did
    not receive those benefits during the designated review period, and
    only received them after the review period as the result of new SCRA
    compliance procedures implemented in the wake of the Navient SCRA
    scandal?
        Answer 15. The borrowers were correctly included in the sample and
    therefore should have been in the program review, but the borrowers
    should not have been reported as having requested and been granted the
    benefit. This situation had no impact on the number of borrowers
    incorrectly denied within the sample. Ernst & Young was also engaged to
    provide assurance regarding the accuracy of the results, mitigating any
    potential errors by staff in the first review.

        Question 16. Second Navient Review Methodology: a. Did this review
    sample at the loan level or the borrower level? b. What was the
    rationale for the sample design? c. What was the expected deviation
    rate for the sample design? d. What was the tolerable deviation rate
    for the sample design? e. What was the expected precision for the
    sample design? f. Why has the Department never previously disclosed the
    level of the review sample, the rationale for the sample design, the
    expected deviation rate for the sample design, the tolerable deviation
    rate for the sample design, and the expected precision for the sample
    design? g. Why didn't FSA consult with or use a statistician to assist
    with designing the sample it used in its program reviews?
        Answer 16. Improving transparency in all we do is an important
    principle for the Department and I am very committed to it. We are
    currently reviewing the facts of this situation and the findings of the
    Inspector General. We will followup with your staff to provide a more
    detailed response.

        Question 17. Why didn't FIOS recommend that all of the TIVAS--
    especially PHEAA and Great Lakes, whose program reviews identified SCRA
    compliance errors--review their borrowers to identify and correct all
    potential instances of incorrect denial of the SCRA interest rate cap?
    What corrective actions did FSA recommend for SCRA noncompliance with
    these two servicers?
        Answer 17. As a result of our oversight work and engagement with
    our partner agencies, the Department has taken a series of steps to
    ensure that any borrower who may have been improperly denied relief
    will receive the benefit.
        Recently, the Department has directed our servicers to review their
    SCRA records, going back to the start of their contracts, to determine
    whether there were any instances of servicemembers being improperly
    denied the SCRA benefit based on the guidance that existed at that
    time. In addition, I am pleased to report that we have initiated a
    process to conduct a data match, based on current guidance, to
    automatically provide credit for any servicemember who was on active
    duty since Federal student loans became eligible for the benefit in
    2008, including servicemembers who did not apply for the benefit.
        Importantly, servicers were also directed to develop and implement
    internal controls to prevent future errors. See the response to
    Question 25 for additional actions taken by the Department to protect
    servicemembers.

        Question 18. Why didn't FIOS ask the TIVAS for a sample of SCRA
    benefit denials?
        Answer 18. Based on its knowledge of the servicers' systems, FIOS
    did not believe that the servicers' databases contained data related to
    SCRA benefit eligibility or denials. This has been confirmed by FSA
    Business Operations. We wanted to look at all instances of compliance
    and non-compliance with the SCRA-related regulations under the Higher
    Education Act.

        Question 19. The Department of Education told the Inspector General
    that ``it was a management decision not to require further [TIVAS]
    corrective actions for the periods reviewed.'' The Department also said
    that this decision was ``not primarily based on a statistical
    analysis.'' Please explain how this decision was made, who made it, and
    what factors formed the basis for this decision. Similarly, what was
    the basis for the Department's decision not to pursue further
    corrective actions against Navient?
        Answer 19. Due to the urgency of the issue, the Department's review
    was not designed to be a formal statistical study but rather the review
    of data to quickly assess compliance and to determine the need for
    corrective or other actions. We currently are reviewing the findings of
    the OIG report. We take OIG's feedback very seriously and will take any
    appropriate steps to ensure that the Department's reviews of financial
    institutions meet the highest standards. I am pleased to report that we
    have initiated a process to conduct a data match and automatically
    provide credit for any servicemember who was on active duty since
    Federal student loans became eligible for the benefit. This would
    provide the benefit to any servicemember who was on active duty, going
    back to 2008, whether or not they had applied for the benefit. We look
    forward to engaging with you as we move forward with that process.
        Based upon the level of non-compliance, the Department used a
    corrective action plan focused on the limited number of incidences, and
    ensuring that the broader issue of servicemembers not ever applying for
    the benefit was addressed prospectively in order to ensure that all
    servicemembers receive the benefits they are entitled to automatically.
    The corrective action plan already in place uses a DMDC data match so
    that all eligible servicemembers will automatically get the SCRA
    benefit without applying. In addition, we modified the servicing
    contracts to provide premium service to all servicemembers and include
    (i) specially trained staff to work with servicemembers, (ii) dedicated
    web and phone services, and (iii) established premium pricing for
    servicemember accounts to ensure the highest quality services and
    resources. We also expanded our monitoring staff and increased focus on
    explicit reviews of SCRA compliance. We established a dedicated mailbox
    on StudentAid.gov where servicemembers can notify the Department of
    potential harm. Separately, we also posted a notification of the DOJ
    settlement and provided DOJ contact information for servicemembers.

        Question 20. Given FSA's demonstrated inability to conduct an
    accurate program review, does the Department plan to act to penalize
    Navient based on the Department of Justice and FDIC findings? Does the
    Department feel the need to conduct another review of Navient based on
    those findings or will the Department defer to the investigation and
    conclusions of the DOJ and the FDIC? Is the Department willing to fine,
    to cancel the contracts of, or to otherwise penalize Navient based on
    the DOJ and the FDIC findings?
        Answer 20. We take very seriously the issues raised by the
    Inspector General and will take any appropriate steps to ensure that
    the Department's reviews of financial institutions meet the highest
    standards.
        As noted, while the Department worked closely with the Justice
    Department in developing the relief provided to Federal student loan
    borrowers under the Consent Order, under the Department's contracts
    with loan servicers, we needed to determine whether Navient had
    complied with the terms of that contract, the HEA and regulations and
    the guidance we provided to determine if we had a legal basis to take
    any action under the contract.

        Question 21a. Given FSA's demonstrated inability to conduct an
    accurate program review, how will the Department ensure that an
    independent, thorough, reliable, statistically sound review of whether
    Great Lakes, PHEAA, and Nelnet complied with SCRA during the time
    period in question occurs? Is the Department willing to fine, to cancel
    the contracts of, or to otherwise penalize the Great Lakes, PHEAA, and/
    or Nelnet based on the results of any additional, reviews?
        Answer 21a. We are currently reviewing and take very seriously the
    issues raised by the Inspector General and will take any appropriate
    steps to ensure that the Department's reviews of financial institutions
    meet the highest standards.

        Question 21b. Will the Department direct every TIVAS to
    independently review every servicemember student loan based on the
    Department of Defense's Defense Manpower Data Center data base from
    June 19, 2009 to May 31, 2014 to identify servicemembers eligible for
    SCRA benefits who did not receive them?
        Answer 21b. The Department has directed our servicers to review
    their records going back to 2008. In addition, we have been working to
    find additional measures we can take to ensure that any Direct student
    loan borrowers who were entitled to the interest rate cap and did not
    receive it are made whole. To that end, I am pleased to report that we
    have initiated a process to conduct a data match and automatically
    provide credit for any servicemember who was on active duty since
    Federal student loans became eligible for the benefit. This would
    provide the benefit to any servicemember who was on active duty, going
    back to 2008, whether or not they had applied for the benefit. We look
    forward to engaging with you as we move forward with that process.

        Question 22. Will the Department take corrective action to require
    TIVAS to make whole any and all borrowers who were eligible for SCRA
    benefits from June 19, 2009 to May 31, 2014 and didn't receive them?
        Answer 22. After recent conversations with the OIG, on February 23,
    2016, we asked each servicer to review its SCRA records, going back to
    the beginning of their contract with the Department--to ensure that
    there are no borrowers who should have received the benefit but did
    not, in accordance with the Department's guidance at the time. If the
    servicer discovers borrowers who did not receive the benefit even
    though they submitted a written request and appropriate military
    orders, they will apply the benefit and submit to FSA the number of
    corrections made.
        As noted above, we have been working to find additional measures we
    can take to ensure that any Direct student loan borrowers who were
    entitled to the interest rate cap and did not receive it are made
    whole. To that end, I am pleased to report that we have initiated a
    process to conduct a data match and automatically provide credit for
    any servicemember who was on active duty since Federal student loans
    became eligible for the benefit. This would provide the benefit to any
    servicemember who was on active duty, going back to 2008, whether or
    not they had applied for the benefit. We look forward to engaging with
    you as we move forward with that process.

        Question 23. Given the serious and basic flaws here, do you feel
    that the Office of Federal Student Aid is equipped to do these kinds of
    reviews? Will the Department move financial institution oversight out
    of the Office of Federal Student Aid?
        Answer 23. We are always seeking to improve our training,
    operations, and policies to work in the best interest of borrowers.
        FSA is equipped to conduct these types of reviews and is familiar
    with the servicing records required by the Department's servicers under
    the contracts and can determine if the servicer properly determined if
    a borrower was eligible and the rate was properly applied. We take very
    seriously the issues raised by the Inspector General and will take any
    appropriate steps to ensure that the Department's reviews of financial
    institutions meet the highest standards. The Department and FSA are
    both committed to continuous improvement and will continue to look
    across government and private industry for best practices in performing
    reviews.

        Question 24. Please provide any and all communication between the
    Office of Federal Student Aid and Navient regarding this review.
        Answer 24. Attached are communications between FSA and Navient
    regarding the review. We are continuing to review our records and will
    supplement this response as appropriate.

        Question 25. What's the Department's full explanation for how this
    happened, and how will the Department ensure that this never happens
    again?
        Answer 25. We take very seriously the issues raised by the
    Inspector General and will take any appropriate steps to ensure that
    the Department's reviews of financial institutions meet the highest
    standards.
        In addition, when the issues regarding SCRA arose, the Department
    embarked on a comprehensive effort to ensure that all eligible
    servicemembers received the SCRA benefit to which they are entitled.
        In December 2013, we instructed our Direct Loan servicers to do a
    match with a DOD database to identify SCRA eligible borrowers.
        In April 2014, we instructed servicers to conduct outreach to the
    potentially eligible SCRA borrowers identified through the match and
    make them aware of the benefit and solicit, and process, the paperwork
    required at that time to grant the borrowers the benefit.
        In the few months that followed, we further simplified the process
    and requirements for servicers and borrowers. In May 2014, we
    instructed our servicers to match their portfolios against the DOD
    database of active duty service members and proactively and
    automatically grant the benefit to servicemembers.
        More specifically, we instructed our servicers to identify all
    servicemembers who were on active duty during the year, and
    automatically grant the SCRA benefit for the entire time the eligible
    borrower was on active duty.
        As a result of the new process, eligible Direct Loan borrowers on
    active duty and in the DOD database receive the benefit without having
    to apply for the benefit or submit copies of their orders, as was the
    case under our prior regulations. This addresses the most significant
    issue of potentially more than 90 percent of eligible servicemembers
    not applying for the benefit.
        To help address borrowers with loans issued under the older bank-
    based FFEL program, we issued guidance in August 2014 to the FFEL
    community informing them of our actions for Direct Loan borrowers and
    permitting them to take similar actions for FFEL borrowers.
        We modified our servicing contracts to provide enhanced service to
    all servicemembers, including specially trained staff to work with
    servicemembers, dedicated support, and have established premium pricing
    for servicemember accounts to ensure that servicers provide high
    quality services and resources.
        We established a mailbox on StudentAid.gov where servicemembers and
    other borrowers can notify the Department of potential harm.
    Separately, we also posted a notification of the DOJ settlement and
    provided DOJ contact information for servicemembers.
        We now perform quarterly SCRA reviews of servicers to ensure they
    are correctly applying the match and automatically granting the
    benefit. The first review of servicers' compliance with SCRA
    requirements illustrates consistent servicer processing of these
    borrower benefits, as 332 of the 335 accounts reviewed passed
    examination. And beginning this month, we will monitor as many as 200
    calls per servicer each month on SCRA.
        And, in October 2015, we issued regulations requiring FFEL
    servicers to follow the same procedures we developed for Direct Loan
    borrowers.
        As noted above, we have been working to find additional measures we
    can take to ensure that any Direct student loan borrowers who were
    entitled to the interest rate cap and did not receive it are made
    whole. To that end, I am pleased to report that we have initiated a
    process to conduct a data match and automatically provide credit for
    any servicemember who was on active duty since Federal student loans
    became eligible for the benefit. This would provide the benefit to any
    servicemember who was on active duty, going back to 2008, whether or
    not they had applied for the benefit. We look forward to engaging with
    you as we move forward with that process.
                                  attachments
                         U.S. Department of Education,
                         Office of Federal Student Aid,
                                            New York, NY 10005,
                                                          May 20, 2014.
    John F. Remondi,
    Chief Executive Officer,
    Navient Corporation,
    300 Continental Drive,
    Newark, DE 19713.

    UPS Tracking# 1ZA879640293294699

    Re: Program Review, Servicer ID: 700578, PRCN: 20143025005

        Dear Mr. Remondi: This letter notifies Navient Corporation
    (Navient) that a program review has been scheduled at your institution
    beginning on June 2, 2014 through June 6, 2014. The review will assess
    Navient's participation in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan
    (Direct Loan) Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Loan
    Programs and its compliance with provisions of the Servicemembers Civil
    Relief Act of 2003 (SCRA) and the Higher Education Opportunity Act
    (HEOA), dated August 14, 2008. The HEOA amended Sections 428(d) and 438
    of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. The review will cover
    the period July 1, 2008 through April 30, 2014, but may be expanded as
    appropriate.
        The U.S. Department of Education's (ED) authority to examine
    program and financial records and conduct reviews is reflected at 34
    CFR  682.414(c). We will contact you in writing concerning the
    documents, records and data files that Navient must supply prior to and
    during the review. Please make arrangements for all required
    information, hard copy, and electronic, to be available when requested.
        Included with this letter is Attachment A: Information Required for
    the Review which lists the general information Navient must supply for
    the review. Please provide the remaining information to this office by
    May 22, 2014. Also, please make arrangements for the review team to
    have access (view and print capability) to any computer databases
    containing information related to the FFEL and Direct Loan Programs.
    The review team will also require access to Navient's administrative
    staff.
        At the start of the review, the review team will conduct an
    entrance conference with you and your staff. We will contact you to
    establish a time for the conference. Please inform the appropriate
    program administrative staff, so they or their designees can attend the
    entrance conference and remain available during the review.
        During the review, we request that Navient provide a secure working
    space for the review team to ensure the confidentiality of the
    financial records being reviewed and the security of ED equipment. We
    will also require access to a telephone, Internet connections, copier,
    fax machine, and printer.
        At the conclusion of the review, the review team will conduct an
    exit conference to discuss the preliminary review findings. Your
    presence at the exit conference would be appreciated. If it is not
    possible for you to attend, we request that you designate a
    representative.
        If you have any questions, please contact Naomi Facey at 646-428-
    3853 or by e-mail at Naomi.Facey@ed.gov. Thank you for your
    cooperation.
                Sincerely,
                                            Susan C. Ferraiole,
                                  Compliance Manager, Eastern Division.
               attachment a: information required for the review
        Please provide all remaining information to the lead reviewer by
    May 22, 2014. Provide as much information as possible in electronic
    format. If any of this information cannot be provided, please note it
    in writing.

    Servicer ID: 700578
    General:

             All policies and procedures for acceptance, review,
            approval, and denial of requests for Servicemember Civil Relief
            Act (SCRA) benefits for borrowers in active military
            service.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Sallie Mae has provided all policies, procedures, and training
    associated with SCRA guidance, as of May 16, 2014.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sample:

             Universe of borrowers considered for SCRA benefits
            including all borrowers in the Department of Defense database
            identified as having military service.
                                     ______

                         U.S. Department of Education,
                         Office of Federal Student Aid,
                                            New York, NY 10005,
                                                          May 30, 2014.
    Patricia Potomis, Senior Director,
    Navient Corporation,
    220 Lasley Avenue,
    Wilkes-Barre, PA 18706.

    Re: Program Review, Servicer ID: 700191 and 700578, PRCN: 20143025006
            and 20143025005

        Dear Ms. Potomis: On May 20, 2014, we notified Navient Corporation
    (Navient) of an upcoming program review scheduled to begin on June 2,
    2014, at your institution.
        Included with this letter is Attachment A which lists the
    information Navient must supply to the U.S. Department of Education.
    Also included is the selected borrower samples in a password-protected
    WINZIP file; please note the tabs within the Excel files that identify
    the review populations for both of the referenced reviews. The password
    will be sent separately. This data should be made available at the
    beginning of the program review on June 2, 2014.
        Documentation may be provided in hard copy or electronically. If
    any of the information submitted contains sensitive personal data,
    Navient must place the file(s) in a password-protected WINZIP archive
    or other secure means.
        Thank you for compiling the materials referenced in the
    attachments, and for your cooperation. If you have any questions,
    please call 646-428-3771 or e-mail at Susan.Ferraiole@ed.gov.
                Sincerely,
                                            Susan C. Ferraiole,
                                  Compliance Manager, Eastern Division.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         U.S. Department of Education,
                                   Federal Student Aid,
                                            New York, NY 10005,
                                                       January 8, 2015.
    John F. Remondi,
    Chief Executive Officer,
    Navient Corporation,
    300 Continental Drive,
    Newark, DE 19713.

    UPS Tracking# 1Z A87 964 01 9477 6794

    Re: Program Review, Servicer ID: 700578, PRCN: 20152025099

        Dear Mr. Remondi: This letter notifies Navient Corporation
    (Navient) that a program review has been scheduled to begin on January
    20, 2015 through January 30, 2015. The review will assess Navient's
    participation in the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan)
    Program and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Loan Programs and
    its compliance with provisions of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
    of 2003 (SCRA) and the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), dated
    August 14, 2008. The HEOA amended Sections 428(d) and 438 of the Higher
    Education Act of 1965, as amended. The review will cover the period
    June 19, 2009 through May 31, 2014, but may be expanded as appropriate.
        The U.S. Department of Education's (ED) authority to examine
    program and financial records and conduct reviews is reflected at 34
    CFR  682.414(c). We will contact you in writing concerning the
    documents, records and data files that Navient must supply prior to and
    during the review. Please make arrangements for all required
    information, hard copy, and electronic, to be available when requested.
        If any of the information submitted contains sensitive and/or
    personal data, Navient must place the file(s) in a password-protected
    WINZIP file or other secure means. Any passwords must be telephoned or
    emailed under separate cover to Naomi Facey.
        At the start of the review, the review team will conduct an
    entrance conference via conference call with you and your staff to
    discuss the review process. We will contact Navient to establish a time
    for the conference. Please inform the appropriate program
    administrative staff, so they or their designees can attend the
    entrance conference and remain available during the review.
        At the conclusion of the review, the review team will conduct an
    exit conference via conference call. Your presence at the exit
    conference would be appreciated. If it is not possible for you to
    attend, we request that you designate a representative.
        If you have any questions, please contact Naomi Facey at 646-428-
    3853 or by e-mail at Naomi.Facey@ed.gov. Thank you for your
    cooperation.
                Sincerely,
                                            Susan C. Ferraiole,
                                  Compliance Manager, Eastern Division.
                                     ______

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]