[Senate Hearing 114-476]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Blunt, Moran, Cochran, Alexander,
Cassidy, Capito, Lankford, Murray, Mikulski, Shaheen, Schatz,
and Baldwin.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS P. SKELLY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET SERVICE
opening statement of senator roy blunt
Senator Blunt. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
will come to order. Glad to have, certainly, Secretary Duncan
with us today.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here, and thank you for
the conversations we have had prior to this hearing today. We
look forward to working with you.
One of the long-term commitments to the national
government, even before it was the government under the
Constitution, was to do things to encourage education. I think
the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Northwest Ordinance, set aside
a section in all that developed territory to be sold to be used
for public schools. So that is how long the Federal Government
or the national government has thought there was a role here.
I would also point out that they had no real interest in
running those local schools whenever they set that aside. And I
am, certainly, always more receptive to those things we do that
encourage local school districts to try things, rather than to
tell them that they have to do things that apply all over the
country.
I guess one of my biggest concerns with the budget
submitted is that it appears to be well beyond the amount of
money that the law would currently allow us to spend on these
issues. I hope we can work together to find common ground of
prioritizing, even in the early stages of marking up the
budget, the kinds of things you believe and we agree would have
the most impact on making education work better for families
and students.
I was encouraged that the budget emphasizes funding for
core education programs like Title I and IDEA, things that we
long ago told local districts they had to participate in, and
generally promised a significantly higher level of support than
the Federal Government has already provided. So I was glad to
see you looking in that direction.
I am concerned that we overreach into too many education
issues, as you and I have talked about. State capitals, in many
cases, are a long way from where education really has to meet
the students' needs, let alone the national capital. And we
need to be looking at that.
I also want to talk later about the idea of a proposed
framework for a Federal college rating system. I think it's
hard to come up with a truly unbiased rating or ranking system.
Frankly, I haven't yet been persuaded there is a reason for
that.
We have such diversity in higher education and diverse ways
of both delivering a product and measuring whether that product
has impacted the people who are served by that institution in a
way that really advances them. So I think this is going to be
an area that I'm going to be concerned about, as you know.
But hopefully, we can work together to meet the goals of
this committee, which is to achieve the right funding levels
and the right policy, to help you achieve the right policy
levels for the department.
So I'm glad you are here today.
I'm also glad to recognize Senator Murray, as she joins as
the ranking member of this committee.
statement of senator patty murray
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
You know, this is a very timely hearing on the Department
of Education's budget proposal. I also serve as the ranking
member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee, Senator Alexander is here as well, and is the chair
of that subcommittee.
And we began this week marking up a bipartisan bill to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That
compromise is a strong step in the right direction to fix the
badly broken No Child Left Behind law. It will give States and
districts flexibility while also maintaining Federal guardrails
to ensure all of our students have access to a quality
education.
We will continue to work on this bill today in the HELP
Committee. Senator Alexander, I'm assuming, will be able to
move it out, so congratulations to you on that. I look forward
to working with all of my colleagues to improve our bipartisan
compromise and actually get this bill signed into law.
And I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for all of your
leadership and for your staff's assistance to get the bill as
far along as it is. I look forward to continuing to improve the
bill with your help.
And for our work on this committee, we will need to make
sure that we make the right investments to improve education
and expand opportunities for all Americans.
I believe the only way to create sustainable economic
growth is from the middle out, not from the top down. And
education is an important investment to ensure our government
works for all of our families, not just the wealthiest few, so
more people get the opportunity to learn and to work hard and
succeed.
Not only that, a quality education system is also essential
to our Nation's economic competitiveness. The investments that
we make today will help ensure that America's workforce in the
years ahead will be able to create and take on the jobs of the
21st century.
Of course, last month, the Senate debated and passed a
budget resolution. Unfortunately, I believe that that budget
proposal, and the one that passed the House, fails to support
investments that we do need in education.
By contrast, the President's budget proposal would invest
in students, educators, schools, and communities to make sure
that every American has access to high-quality education from
the cradle through their career.
In 2013, I was very proud to work with Democrats and
Republicans to break through the gridlock and dysfunction here
to reach an agreement that rolled back those automatic cuts for
fiscal years 2014 and 2015. That deal, as we all know,
prevented another government shutdown. It moved us away from
the constant crises. And it restored critical investments in
education and research and defense jobs and a lot more. And it
really helped get our economy moving again.
So we need to work on ways to build on that agreement, lift
the caps, and restore those critical investments for the coming
year and beyond. The President's budget would do that. It would
roll back cuts to both defense and nondefense discretionary
spending.
Now, Democrats and Republicans both agree that
sequestration is terrible policy. We worked together to address
this before, and I hope we can work with colleagues on both
sides of the aisle in both chambers to come to a compromise,
avoid another crisis, and ensure that we are investing in our
communities.
support for the president's budget
The Department of Education's budget proposal starts with
our youngest learners. I'm a former preschool teacher. I have
seen firsthand the kind of transformation that early learning
can inspire in a child. And I believe that we should be
investing more in children, not less.
The President's budget would increase funding for the
preschool development grants program. Right now, this program
is helping 18 States expand high-quality early learning
programs for low- and middle-income children and families. But
the need to expand high-quality early learning programs doesn't
just exist in 18 of our States. In fact, 36 States actually
applied last year, including my home State of Washington.
This budget proposal would continue this program and enable
my State and others to earn grants to expand early learning.
In our country, we believe that all students should have
access to a quality public education, regardless of where they
are from or how they learn or how much money their parents
make. Congress established Title I in the Nation's education
bill to provide Federal resources so students from all
backgrounds get the support they need to succeed.
But today, across the country, inequality in our education
system persists. Some schools simply don't offer the same
opportunities as others.
Mr. Secretary, I was very pleased to see that the
department's budget proposal proposes an increase in Title I
funding. Those resources will help close the gaps in education
and achievements so all of our students do have access to high-
quality education that puts them on a path to graduate from
high school and college and be career ready.
And, Mr. Secretary, I do want to raise a concern on Impact
Aid in your proposed budget. Impact Aid is what gives our
students and schools in our military and our tribal communities
Federal support and stability. As you know, Impact Aid is
critical for communities in Washington State and across the
country.
Your budget would eliminate $67 million for the Federal
property program within Impact Aid. I have made very clear that
I oppose those cuts, just as a bipartisan majority of my
colleagues do.
Also, Mr. Secretary, as you know, our country will need a
highly skilled workforce to take on the jobs of the 21st
century. In Congress, we should be working to make college more
affordable, to reduce the crushing burden of student debt, and
to give Americans the chance to further their education and
training and skills. So I am pleased that your proposal will
help make college more affordable by increasing investments in
the Pell Grant program.
In addition, last year, Congress came together to pass the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act with strong bipartisan
support. In that bill, we strengthened the connections between
adult education and workforce systems. I'm pleased that your
budget proposes resources to support integrating those systems,
so more workers can connect with available job positions.
In our country, as I said, we believe all students should
have access to quality public education, so thank you,
Secretary Duncan, for being here today to share the
department's vision for achieving that goal.
Overall, the President's budget proposes several important
investments that will help prepare all students for the
challenges of the coming century, and they will help sustain
long-term and broad-based economic growth from the middle out,
so that more families have the chance to get ahead, not just
those at the top.
I am very hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work
together to make investments we need to make, to make sure
every American gets the chance to learn.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Secretary, thank you again for being
here. As you start into your seventh year as the Secretary of
Education, I appreciate your dedication to this cause and the
work you have done.
I might say, before we start, I think we have a vote
scheduled at 11, but I think it is only one vote, so my goal
would be to continue the hearing, Senator Murray, if that is
okay with you. We will try to go over at different times and
cast that one vote and take advantage both of our time and your
time in the best possible way.
Mr. Secretary, we are glad you are here, and look forward
to your testimony.
summary statement of arne duncan
Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Murray, and members of the subcommittee.
I am pleased to talk to you today about how we can continue
important progress and expand educational opportunity for every
child in America. Thanks to the hard work of America's
teachers, principals, families, communities, and, very
importantly, the students themselves, for the first time ever,
four out of five students are completing high school on time.
High school graduation rates are at record highs. Dropout
rates are at historic lows. We have seen very significant
reductions in dropout rates for minority students.
College enrollment for African-American and Hispanic
students is up by more than 1 million since 2008. And more
students than ever are graduating from college.
Getting to this point has required huge and difficult
challenges in our schools. These changes haven't been easy, but
they are working.
To build upon our current momentum, it's imperative to give
schools and educators the support, resources, and funding they
need. This is not the time to turn back the clock on progress
that our schools, our children, and ultimately our Nation are
making.
At the end of 2013, as you talked about, policymakers under
Senator Murray and Representative Ryan's bipartisan leadership
came together to partially reverse sequestration and pay for
higher levels of discretionary funding with long-term reforms.
reversing sequestration
This agreement, while limited, allowed us to invest in
critical areas, from strengthening our military to research in
our schools. In 2014, Congress was able to restore some
sequestration cuts to Title I, which serves our poor children,
and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B (IDEA),
which serves children with special needs.
The President's 2016 budget builds on this progress by
reversing sequestration and paying for it with a balanced mix
of common-sense spending cuts and closing tax loopholes. The
President's budget also proposes additional deficit reduction
and would reduce debt as a share of our economy.
The President has made it clear that he will not accept a
budget that locks in sequestration, which would bring both
defense and nondefense funding to their lowest levels in a
decade.
The reality today is that States and districts and families
and students need more smarter resources to prepare all
students, both for their future and for their now. To that end,
our budget reflects four main priorities.
priorities of the president's budget
First, ensuring that all young people have a chance to
learn and succeed. Our request includes a $1 billion increase
for Title I to help close resource and equity gaps.
Second, as Senator Murray talked passionately about, we
want to help States expand high-quality preschool. Our budget
includes $75 billion in mandatory funding to work with States
to make voluntary preschool available to all low- and moderate-
income 4-year-olds. It also includes $750 million to continue
and expand preschool development grants, where there is so much
demand, as we see across the Nation.
Third, supporting educators, including by investing $2.3
billion to improve teacher and principal effectiveness.
And finally, improving post-secondary access,
affordability, and outcomes, most notably through America's
College Promise, which would make 2 years of community college
free for responsible students. That idea has been led by
Senator Alexander's State of Tennessee.
Across these areas, we commit to supporting and spreading
local innovations, not innovations coming from me or anyone
else in Washington, but local innovations like those in the
Investing in Innovation program. We have received more than
2,800 applications for this program. Unfortunately, we only had
resources to fund about 140 of these fantastic local ideas. Our
aim is to focus on using and developing evidence to maximize
results both for students and for taxpayers.
Through First in the World, we are aiming to promote
student success at scale. A set-aside for minority-serving
institutions and historically black colleges and universities
will support their critical contributions to this work. We had
an overwhelming response to the 2014 competition, 460
applicants, and we were able to fund only 24.
Educators and schools need support to advance their
progress. This isn't about spending money for its own sake. It
is about making prudent investments to ensure excellence and
equity for every student.
Quickly, before I close, I want to thank Senator Alexander
and Senator Murray for their good faith bipartisan work to try
to fix the broken No Child Left Behind. It has been long
overdue. We are moving to real work. I can't ask you to work
any harder or smarter or more collaboratively. There is a long
way to go, as you said, Senator Murray. But I just really,
really appreciate your combined leadership and hope, not for us
but for our Nation's kids. So thank you so much.
I will stop there and be happy to take any questions you
might have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Arne Duncan
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the
Subcommittee: I am happy to testify on behalf of the President's 2016
budget request for the Department of Education. The overall
discretionary request is $70.7 billion, an increase of $3.6 billion, or
5.4 percent, over 2015.
At the end of 2013, policymakers came together on a bipartisan
basis to partially reverse sequestration and to pay for higher
discretionary funding levels with long-term reforms. We have seen the
positive consequences of that bipartisan agreement for our ability to
invest in the future, including partially restoring cuts in education
programs like Title I and IDEA. We have also seen the positive
consequences for our economy, which is experiencing the fastest job
growth since the late 1990s.
The President's Budget builds on this progress by reversing
sequestration, reducing the deficit, and putting debt on a downward
path as a share of the economy. The President has been clear that he
will not accept a budget that locks in sequestration or one that
increases funding for our national security without providing matching
increases in funding for our economic security. It would damage our
economy, preventing us from making pro-growth investments in areas
ranging from basic research to education.
The President has a plan to build on the bipartisan Murray-Ryan
agreement and end sequestration--fully reversing it for domestic
priorities in 2016, matched by equal dollar increases for defense. He
would more than pay for these new investments with smart spending cuts,
program integrity measures, and commonsense tax loophole closers.
Building on the bipartisan Murray-Ryan agreement and reversing
sequestration will make space for critical education investments. Even
without adjusting for inflation, total discretionary funding for
education in 2015, excluding Pell Grants, remains below its fiscal year
2008 level. If you take into account inflation, education funding
without Pell Grants is 10 percent below 2008. It's time to turn that
trend around and invest in the country's most important asset, our
people. Evidence shows us that this investment will contribute to
better jobs, higher earnings, and ultimately reduced income inequality.
If we can reverse sequestration, Mr. Chairman, you, Ranking Member
Murray, and the other Members of the Subcommittee can put together a
bill that's good for kids and the Nation.
president obama's 2016 budget request
Within our budget, we have four key priorities: (1) equity and
opportunity for all students; (2) high-quality early learning programs;
(3) support for educators; and (4) improving access, affordability, and
student outcomes in postsecondary education. The Budget also reflects a
strong emphasis on using and developing evidence in order to maximize
results for taxpayers and students.
increasing equity and opportunity for all students
The first major priority is to ensure all of our young people,
especially those poor and minority students in high-poverty schools
that are the focus of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), have the chance to learn and achieve. The outcomes of our
education system continue to reflect unacceptable inequities in the
distribution of resources, including funding, high-quality teaching,
challenging coursework, and other important academic and nonacademic
supports that contribute to improved student achievement. To close this
resource and opportunity gap, the request provides a $2.7 billion
increase, or almost 12 percent, for ESEA programs, including a $1
billion increase for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies
(LEAs)--the cornerstone of the Federal effort to ensure that all
students--including poor and minority students, students with
disabilities, and English Learners--graduate from high school prepared
for college and careers. The request also provides $11.7 billion, an
increase of $175 million, for Grants to States under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to support special education and
related services for children with disabilities, and $773 million, an
increase of $36 million, for English Language Acquisition grants for
English Learners.
A key request in this area is a new Equity and Outcomes pilot that
would promote more equitable and effective uses of Federal formula
grant funds. Applicants would demonstrate a commitment to equitably
distributing State, local, and Federal dollars--based on actual
expenditures--to their highest poverty schools. In exchange,
participating districts could receive flexibility from fiscal,
monitoring, and reporting requirements for their schools, and could
combine Federal formula funds to support a districtwide plan to use
evidence-based practices and strategies that improve student
achievement in high-poverty schools.
We are also proposing new resources that would help improve
educational opportunities and outcomes in some of our most impoverished
communities, including a $93 million increase for the Promise
Neighborhoods program. These funds would help an additional 25 high-
poverty communities develop and implement neighborhood-based plans for
meeting the cradle-to-career educational, health, and social service
needs of children and families in high-poverty communities. In
addition, the President's request includes a $50 million increase to
significantly expand the Native Youth Community Projects program that
we are launching in 2015. These funds will be deployed this year in a
select number of Native communities to support culturally relevant and
coordinated strategies designed to improve the college-and-career
readiness of Native children and youth. The budget proposal would help
up to 10 Native American communities develop and implement
comprehensive strategies to improve the college- and career-readiness
of Native youth.
Finally, consistent with the President's challenge to re-design
America's high schools to adequately prepare America's students for
college and successful careers, we are proposing $125 million for a new
Next Generation High Schools program, to support the whole school
transformation of the high school experience for youth. That program
would support our school leaders to personalize learning for students
and apply challenging academic concepts to real-world challenges,
particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math.
expanding high-quality early learning programs
The United States has fallen behind many countries in providing
access to preschool education, and currently ranks just 25th in the
world in its enrollment of 4-year-olds. This is why we are renewing our
commitment to a $75 billion mandatory Preschool for All program that
would partner with States to support universal access to high-quality
preschool for 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families. Our
preschool request also includes $750 million in discretionary resources
to expand the Preschool Development Grants program to nearly every
State that submits a high-quality application.
In addition, we are requesting an increase of $115 million for IDEA
programs to help States provide high-quality special education and
early intervention services for all eligible children with
disabilities. These funds include $15 million for Pay for Success
pilots to expand early screening and early intervention services for
infants and toddlers at risk of autism.
These investments complement important early learning initiatives
in the Department of Health and Human services including an historic
investment in high quality child care for
children under the age of 4 and new investments in Head Start to
make those programs a full school day and school year and expand access
for infants and toddlers to Early Head Start.
increasing support for teachers and school leaders
Our third priority is to provide support for teachers and leaders
who are doing the hard, daily work of implementing new college- and
career-ready standards and aligned assessments, turning around our
lowest-performing schools, and using new evaluation and support systems
to improve their practice. Teachers today do not have the support,
opportunities, or autonomy they need to succeed.
Our 2016 request would provide significant new resources to address
these concerns. Through the mandatory Teaching for Tomorrow program,
our Administration has put forward a new vision for how to support our
teachers and principals who are doing the hard work every day to ensure
all students graduate high school ready for college and career. This $5
billion over 5 years would support States and school districts as they
make meaningful transformations in their approaches to recruiting,
training, supporting, retaining, and advancing highly-effective
teachers throughout their careers. States and districts would submit
plans including strategies that are based on or build evidence of
effectiveness. Additionally, we would build on the Teacher Incentive
Fund through a $350 million Excellent Educators Grants proposal that
would support innovative approaches not only to compensation, but also
to professional development, support, and career advancement. We also
would support efforts to help expand the pipeline of effective teachers
and principals through a consolidated $139 million Teacher and
Principal Pathways proposal. We would improve upon the Educational
Technology State Grants program, providing $200 million in State
formula grants to help teachers and school leaders develop and test new
ways to use technology to improve instruction and personalize learning.
Finally, we would maintain strong support for the existing Improving
Teacher Quality State Grants program, providing a steady $2.3 billion
in funding.
improving access, affordability, and student outcomes in postsecondary
education
Our 2016 request would help make college affordable and help more
Americans attain a college degree or certificate. While the total aid
available to postsecondary students has grown dramatically over the
past 6 years, helping to ensure that more students are graduating
college than ever before, a significant opportunity gap remains. The
2016 request funds a signature initiative, America's College Promise,
which would create a new partnership with States to make 2 years of
community college free for responsible students, letting students earn
the first half of a bachelor's degree and earn skills needed in the
workforce at no cost. It also includes a $30 billion investment in Pell
Grants to protect and sustain its value for future generations by
continuing to index it to inflation beyond 2017.
Another key discretionary request in this area is $200 million for
a proposed American Technical Training Fund to expand innovative, high-
quality technical training programs that have strong employer
partnerships and include work-based learning opportunities.
using and developing evidence-based programs
In recent years, the Department has pioneered several evidence-
based programs and introduced priorities for the use of evidence into
existing initiatives.
This Budget continues that commitment by increasing funding for
programs that provide additional resources for interventions that are
either based on evidence of success or help build evidence of what
works in education. These programs build on approaches developed during
the last Administration and work in partnership with the Institute for
Education Sciences. The Budget requests $300 million for the Investing
in Innovation (i3) program for K-12 education, and $200 million for
First in the World for higher education. Within the latter program,
there would be a 30 percent set-aside for Minority-Serving Institutions
and HBCUs. The request also creates new incentives for the use of
evidence in existing programs, ranging from the Leveraging What Works
initiative for K-12 formula programs to targeted increases in the
School Improvement Grants and the postsecondary TRIO programs. Finally,
the Budget strongly funds the Institute of Education Sciences.
Already, our evidence-based initiatives have funded dozens of
randomized control trials and other evaluations that build knowledge
about what works. This knowledge can help all educators to help more
students succeed.
conclusion
In conclusion, our 2016 request reflects the President's
determination to make the investments necessary to secure America's
future prosperity. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to
secure support for the President's 2016 Budget for education.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
COLLEGE RATING SYSTEM
I will ask a couple questions and we can have another round
of questions, if members here want to have that. I'm sure I
will have more than one series of questions.
On the higher education ranking system, or the rating
system, it has been a year and a half now where the department
has been talking about coming up with criteria. That criteria
still looks like to me that it's not very specific, even
talking about how many intangible things there are in higher
education.
I'm wondering why after looking at this as long as you
have, and the criteria still being as nebulous as it is, why
are we still talking about this? What is the purpose of having
this rating system?
Secretary Duncan. First of all, I appreciate your past
leadership as a university president. Senator Alexander, the
same. So you have some real knowledge of this.
We have always come at this, and I have said this from day
one, with a real sense of humility. There is a lot we know we
can't do. And we can't begin to capture all the ways in which
higher education confers value, from inspiring creative passion
to creating a healthy democracy. So we come at this with real
humility.
But we think there are some basic and key areas where there
has been, frankly, a huge lack of transparency. There has been
an opaqueness. It's very, very difficult for families to figure
this stuff out and to get a better understanding of issues like
access and affordability, and the completion of degrees, and
whether folks can get a decent job at the backend.
We think that this is a huge decision that young people
make, whether they are first-generation college-goers or
whether they have two college-educated parents. I can't tell
you how many young people I have met with where this process is
simply overwhelming. Being able to get better information out
to the Nation's young people and their families about
graduation rates, what is a grant, what is a loan, what do
outcomes look like, is want we want to make it easier.
It's interesting to me. We have 7,000 institutions of
higher education, roughly. There is a huge diversity, public,
private, 2-year, 4-year, all kinds. It should be a very
efficient marketplace. It's not. It's a very difficult one for
young people to penetrate.
We look forward to working with you. I hear your skepticism
and appreciate it. I'm happy to come back with you and your
staff to talk it through.
But we want to do everything we can to get good information
out to young people and their families, and help them make
better choices, more informed choices.
CONCERNS ABOUT COLLEGE RATING SYSTEM
Senator Blunt. I would just say, Mr. Secretary, I think one
of the reasons that the Federal Government has been able to be
involved in higher education in a pretty significant way
financially since World War II, is it is the one place where
the Federal Government has been willing to make a financial
commitment and not try to run the system.
I mean, all these schools are accredited. If you qualify
for the financial assistance, then you choose among accredited
programs, and that has created a great diversity of options for
people to look at that to meet different student needs at
different levels.
People like me, who are the first person in their family to
graduate from college, often have a different set of
aspirational goals and a sense of what college might mean to
them, as opposed to somebody who is a fourth-generation Harvard
student who probably has not only a different set of goals, but
likely to make more money.
Eight hours at community college that allows you to get a
better job than you otherwise would have had, is that a plus or
minus in this system, whether you graduated or not?
I just think with all the challenges out there, that this
is one--I can't find very many people in higher education, I'm
going to concede there might be one, but I haven't found one
yet, who thinks this really adds to the system rather than adds
to the confusion in the system that might be there already.
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
On this subject, let me also, on the other side, the sort
of gainful employment side, which seems to be particularly
focused at the for-profit side of higher education, where are
you headed in terms of what you consider a gainful employment
ratio between what somebody was making and the student loan
they were trying to pay off? How would you measure that?
Secretary Duncan. Just to be very, very clear that gainful
employment is not just focused on the for-profit sector. There
are fantastic actors in the for-profit sector, but there are
some very bad actors in the for-profit sector.
We had to take some action earlier this week, and the
institution will have a chance to reply. But the findings that
we are putting forward are pretty stunning, pretty egregious--
the waste of taxpayers' money, which I think none of us want to
support, none of us can feel good about, and leaving young
people in a worse position than where they started.
So all we want to do is make sure that young people are
getting real skills that lead to real jobs and lead them to a
better financial situation. When young people are taking on
massive debt, who are already struggling, who are often already
in a disadvantaged position, and ending up in a worse position
because of this, I think we do them a great disservice. I think
we do taxpayers a great disservice.
So where there are good actors who are providing real
skills and providing a ladder to the middle-class, we want them
to grow. We want them to prosper. We want them to serve more
young people.
But where you have actors who are taking advantage of a
massive influx of taxpayer resources, and actually leaving
people in a worse position than when they started, that is not
something you or I or any of us should feel good about
supporting.
Senator Blunt. I may come back to this subject. I'm going
to go ahead and go to Senator Murray here. But I may come back
later and ask where you came up with this 8 percent of total
earnings as a ceiling for what would be the right ratio to look
at. But we can come back to that later.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
ACCESS TO EARLY LEARNING AND PRESCHOOL
Mr. Secretary, last week, the National Research Council
released a report and recommendations for how to apply the
science of development and early learning to building the
workforce needed for high-quality programs serving young
children. The report noted that its recommendations will
require significant resources.
[The information follows:]
Link to National Research Council Report released April 1, 2015,
referenced by Senator Murray: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19401/
transforming-the-workforce-for-children-birth-through-age-8-a.
Senator Murray. In the past few years, Congress has
provided your department with funding, since fiscal year 2011,
for Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grants and
preschool development grants. Washington State, my home State,
has used Race to the Top funding to invest in its workforce.
How is your department working with the Department of
Health and Human Services to administer these grants and
address workforce issues that are outlined in that report?
Secretary Duncan. We were happy to help and participate in
that report. The findings make a lot of logical sense,
intuitive sense, to someone like you who knows this field
intimately.
All of the applicants from all the States, both those we
fund and those who we couldn't fund, all 36 applicants for
grants, described in their grant applications their efforts to
provide comparable salaries and strengthen the workforce, so we
know how critically important this is.
So we fully support those findings. They move in the right
direction. We think, candidly, that we were ahead of the study
and encouraging these things, and States totally get it.
The real challenge, Senator Murray, that you talked about,
and I feel so passionately, is that we simply don't have the
resources to get behind people who know the right thing to do.
They just don't have the dollars to do that.
There is so much unmet need, waiting lists of thousands and
thousands of children in virtually every State I visit.
This has become a total bipartisan issue in the real world.
We actually have more Republican Governors than Democratic
investing today. I think that is a really good thing. We just
have to get past the dysfunction here in Washington and look at
what is happening out there.
New Mexico, Nevada, the new Governor of Texas, who is a
strong conservative, said his most important item is getting
more resources for early childhood education. Alabama, Georgia.
One of my most heartbreaking calls, you are obviously very
unhappy, which I respect, we couldn't fund Washington.
One of my toughest calls was with the Governor of
Mississippi, who desperately wanted resources. And as much need
as there is across the State, we know how bad the need is in
Mississippi, how the great the need is. We simply didn't have
the dollars to fund it.
I just really would love folks here in Washington to come
together, look at the bipartisan agreement in States across the
Nation, and figure out how we can get children off these
waiting lists and get them into kindergarten to prepare to be
successful, not have them start school a year to 16 months
behind. That serves nobody well.
Senator Murray. And it is worrisome for our competitive
global workforce in the future, because other countries are
investing.
Secretary Duncan. My number won't be exact, but we look at
other industrialized nations in terms of providing access, the
United States ranks something like 26th or 29th. It is no badge
of honor. It is just that a vast majority of these
industrialized countries understand how important this is, and
they have provided greater access.
We are trying to lead the world in everything, lead the
world in college graduation rates, lead the world in high
school graduation rates. We should think about leading the
world in access to high-quality early learning.
We know the brain science. We know the research. We know
the return on investment. And the fact that so many countries
have invested significantly more and provided greater access
than we have, we should be ashamed of ourselves. I can't put it
in another way.
We should be ashamed of ourselves, and we should want to do
better for our kids and for our Nation's economic
competitiveness, as you said.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
TITLE I FUNDING
Mr. Secretary, as you know, achievement gaps between our
low-income students and all students continue to exist. It is
about 11 percent in both reading and math. The Title I grants
to local Education agencies, the LEAs program, was created to
help eliminate those gaps.
Your budget proposal would increase funding for the program
by about $1 billion, fully replacing the cuts that were imposed
by sequestration in recent budget battles.
Can you talk a little bit about what has been the impact of
the reductions to Title I funding that have been made since
2010?
Secretary Duncan. There are two things and both have
happened at the same time, and neither is good. One is the
reduction in very real resources for our poorer children. And
two is that we have an increase across the Nation of children
who are eligible for these resources.
So greater need, less resources.
And I'm convinced, as are you, as I assume virtually
everyone on this committee is, that the best way for us to end
cycles of poverty and move children and families out of
poverty, is to give them a great education, give them a world-
class education.
If we do that, they have a world of opportunity, and they
can enter the middle class. If we exacerbate or perpetuate
those gaps, we are part of the problem. So we need those
resources, whether it's access to better afterschool programs,
whether it's access to AP classes, whether it's access to the
best teachers. Whatever it might be, our children, particularly
our poorest children, don't just need this, they deserve this.
So when we have less resources to help more children who
are poor, and if our goal is to reduce income inequality and to
increase social mobility, the best way we can do that--in fact,
I would say, by far the best way we can do that is by providing
a high-quality education to every child.
You mentioned achievement gaps. Our achievement gaps are
insidious. I'm very pleased that on the high school graduation
rates, we are closing those gaps. That is huge, but we have a
long way to go.
But instead of talking about achievement gaps, I prefer to
talk about opportunity gaps. As you know, far too many
children, poor children who live in disadvantaged communities,
do not have the opportunities that their wealthier counterparts
do.
So the children of the wealthy often get more. The children
of the poor often get less. That is unfair. That is un-
American. This is a step to try to rectify that problem.
Senator Murray. Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to our committee hearing, and we want to thank you
for your hard work and your efforts to help make sure that our
Federal response to needs in education around the country are
met. At the same time, though, recognize too that we have very
limited availability of funds and programs that will solve all
the problems in elementary and secondary education, for
example.
STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL
The States and local governments have the primary
responsibility of funding, the hiring of teachers, and all the
rest that goes into making our Nation a nation of opportunity
for good education.
I think working out a division of responsibility for what
programs are best handled by the local officeholders and people
who are responsible for operating our schools and colleges,
that we not encroach too much on the incentives that we have
that are created at the local level to benefit special needs.
I know Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act comes to mind, where teachers are recruited, you have money
there that goes to local governments to help encourage people
to go into education and help upgrade the quality of our
students.
What is your assessment during your time as Secretary about
the importance of our funding programs of that kind?
Secretary Duncan. First, Senator, I just want to publicly
apologize to you and your State, as I did with Senator Murray
privately. That was one of the hardest series of calls I had,
those with your Governor, who knows how far behind so many
children in your State start, who desperately wanted our
resources. We simply couldn't fund down the preschool
development grants slate far enough. We simply ran out of
money.
As a Nation, we have a long way to go. By virtually every
measure, Mississippi, sadly, on educational achievements, is
near the bottom. So there is no place, arguably, with greater
need than your State.
So I just want you to know how badly I felt about that and
feel about that and hope, going forward, we can do more to
help.
FUNDING FOR EDUCATION
Where we have resources to help close, again, not just
achievement gaps, but what I call opportunity gaps, that is
critically important. And when we see high school graduation
rates at all-time highs; when we see Black and Latino high
school dropout rates cut by about half and 45 percent,
respectively; when you see every group of children graduating
from high school at higher rates, Black children, Latino
children, English language learners, students with
disabilities, poor children, that is fantastic progress.
I'm just so thankful for the hard work that teachers and
educators and parents and, ultimately, students are doing
around the Nation.
The issue for me is how do we get better faster? Our
dropout rate is still too high. Our graduation rate is not high
enough. And we need these resources to give young people a
chance to be successful in life.
Senator Cochran. Well, if we find a way to add money for
some of these programs that have proven to be so beneficial,
you wouldn't recommend to the President that he veto the bill,
would you?
Secretary Duncan. If we can find some more resources to
support what is working, that is very, very important.
Senator Cochran. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Duncan. If I could just quickly add--sorry, not
to go on too long. We need to invest in those programs like
Title I, like IDEA. But we also need to invest in innovation.
Again, there is so much great local work going on where people
are starting to get outsized, extraordinary results for young
people who historically struggled, whether it's in rural
Tennessee or in Appalachia in Ohio, where graduation rates are
now higher than the State.
What we don't do in education is take to scale what is
working. So we should invest in those core programs. But I
would also say we need to invest in innovation and just help
great local educators scale up what is making a difference in
their communities.
There is amazing work going on out there. We just don't
capture those benefits enough. I think that is a very
appropriate Federal role, and it, candidly, doesn't happen at
the State and local level.
Again, we have so many more applications. With dollars
available, we can do better together there.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
First of all, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service,
the fact that your tenure has been long in the Obama
administration shows that you really have a real commitment to
education and really now, over the span of your tenure, really
seen what works and what doesn't. So we really want to thank
you for your advocacy and your steadfastness.
I want to associate my remarks with the Senator from
Washington, Senator Murray. In order to meet our needs, we have
to focus on lifting the caps. There are no two ways about it.
I know there are colleagues who want to lift the defense
caps, and I don't argue that in this committee or even on the
floor. But I think we have to look at raising the caps in the
domestic programs. And they are intertwined.
IMPACT AID, IDEA, AND JAVITS GIFTED AND TALENTED
So let me tell you how I see it: one county, two people,
three programs. One county, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the
home of the State capital, the home of the United States Naval
Academy, the home of Fort Meade, the National Security Agency,
and other intel agencies. Three programs--Impact Aid, IDEA, the
Javits Gifted and Talented. Two people, they have names like
Rosa and Jack.
Rosa was a child who was stigmatized and bullied in school
because she has Down syndrome. And the word ``retarded'' had
become a bullying invitation.
Working on a bipartisan basis with Senator Enzi, we passed
Rosa's law--he had the same challenge in his own State--to
remove the stigma. Rosa is in this county.
Then there is Jack Andraka. He is one of the 1 percent, not
the 1 percent that makes zillions of dollars, but the 1 percent
who is a genius. Jack is a genius. In high school, he has
invented a test for pancreatic cancer.
But if you talk to his mother, a nurse, she had to forage
to fund the programs to help Jack. And then he goes on to win
the Intel scholarship and invent this stunning, stunning,
stunning discovery.
So what is it? You talk then to the Republican County
Executive. He didn't even know about Impact Aid. Then I tell
him he's a compassionate post because the Army at Fort Meade so
loves the educational program and the linkage to Kennedy
Krieger. IDEA, and it's underfunded.
Then the Javits program, they laugh about it because it's
so small, so skimpy, so spartan.
So my point is, while we look at innovation, and aren't we
cool, and we're doing brave new ideas, and we're going to scale
up and follow the hoop dreams, I'm worried about these bread-
and-butter programs.
So I associate myself with Impact Aid. If we are going to
support the troops, let's support where the troops live. We are
proud of those troops. We love them there. Quite frankly, they
are good for economy. And we sure are proud of them.
IDEA is continually underfunded. That is a bread-and-butter
program in every State.
And then that takes me to the Javits program, the program
for the gifted and talented. I have kept that program alive.
Tell me what your plans are. We know what we can do on
Impact Aid. I think there is a commitment for IDEA.
But do you even know what I'm talking about? That isn't an
argumentative question. It is not meant to be argumentative.
But that is my point.
These children are a national resource. I'm not talking
about the 1 percent genius. I'm talking, in our schools, there
is a presumption that only rich kids are smart. You and I don't
believe that.
Where are we on the Javits program? And what is the
Department of Education's commitment on that? What have you
identified, if any, the need for that? And why did you cut it?
Of any program that could be picked on, you took it from $10
million to $9 million for the whole country. We could use that
in just the Delmarva Peninsula.
STATUS OF JAVITS GIFTED AND TALENTED
Secretary Duncan. I will start and turn it over to Tom
Skelly, our budget director, to walk that through.
First, I just want to thank you for your service. My
service pales in comparison to what you have done, in terms of
longevity and impact. So thank you for everything you have
done. It has been a joy working with you. I know we have a
little bit more time together, but I just wanted to say that
publicly.
On all these things, again, and I hate that so often,
because of the dysfunction in Washington, we have to make these
choices between whether it's the bread-and-butter programs you
talk about or doing more innovative stuff or doing more
preschool. We should be doing all of the above and hold
ourselves accountable for results. If we are not getting
results, we should scale back.
But in all these things, it shouldn't be either/or. We
shouldn't be forced to choose. Too often, with things like
sequester caps, that is the position we are put in.
So whether it's Javits Gifted and Talented, whether it's--
--
Senator Mikulski. Javits. Javits.
Secretary Duncan. Javits. Whether it's IDEA, whether it's
Title I, we should be supporting and building upon these
programs. We should also be doing more early childhood.
Senator Mikulski. Tell me what you are doing for Gifted and
Talented.
CUTS TO SMALLER PROGRAMS
Mr. Skelly. The Javits program itself is one of the smaller
programs that did get eliminated over the last few years. We
had almost $8 million in it.
Again, the priority has been for larger programs, like the
$1 billion in Impact Aid or the $12 billion in IDEA. Some of
the smaller programs over time have been cut back.
Again, as Secretary----
Senator Mikulski. I know they have been cut back. You told
me what I already know. Tell me what you do to help these
children in the Department of Education. And what is that
identification of need? Or do you even know?
Mr. Skelly. I think that the approach is to take all
children and look at them, provide the support for the general
programs, look at things that are innovative, but Congress has
made decisions in the past. These weren't things necessarily
proposed by the administration.
Fifty-three programs have been eliminated since 2010. They
tend to be smaller programs. When Congress goes through the
ESEA reauthorization process, you can affirm that that is the
kind of program that should be continued and Congress can put
money into it in appropriations.
Senator Mikulski. Do you know what you do at the Department
of Education to help these kids? Do you even think about them?
Secretary Duncan. We think about every child every single
day.
Senator Mikulski. I don't want to hear about how you think
about every child. We all think about every child. I'm asking
about this population.
Every child is special. I understand that.
Secretary Duncan. We do the best we can to help provide a
world-class education to every single child.
Senator Mikulski. Do you have a focus in any department to
implement this and think about the talent pool we have to
identify them and help the teachers know how to best develop
them?
Secretary Duncan. To be clear, when students are gifted and
talented, we don't identify. That is done at the local level.
Senator Mikulski. This proves my point. It is a waste of
national resources.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
We have the opportunity here to have both the ranking
member and the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking
member and the chairman of the authorizing committee, so that
gives us a lot of strength on this committee.
And Senator Alexander is the chairman of the authorizing
committee and an important member of this one.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. Thanks for your nice comments about
Senator Murray and our work on fixing No Child Left Behind.
I think Senator Murray must have been a good preschool
teacher, because in preschool, you learn to work well together,
and she understands that. Whether it's working on the budget or
working on No Child Left Behind, which is a tough nut to crack,
she has been good to work with and we have made a lot of
progress.
Let me throw the compliment back. Sometimes the President
doesn't get much credit for working well with Congress. I want
to thank you and President Obama for your public comments and
the private way you have worked with us in creating an
environment where we have a better chance to succeed on No
Child Left Behind.
We have some strong opinions on this. Everybody does. But
you have been very constructive and very helpful. So has the
President. I thank you for that.
REAUTHORIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT
I would like to talk about higher education, and I will
just ask a single question and let you make an answer.
Not long ago, Senator Mikulski, I, Senator Burr, and
Senator Bennet asked a distinguished group of higher education
officials headed by the chancellors of the University of
Maryland and Vanderbilt University to look at higher education
and give us a report about how we can simplify Federal rules
and regulations.
They gave us 59 specific recommendations. It's a very good
report. It is not a sermon. It is specific things we can do.
You and I have talked about it a number of times.
They put them in order. They even told us what the top 10
were. And Senator Mikulski and I and Bennet and Burr are going
to take as many of those as we can and put those into
legislation and try to make it a part of our reauthorizing of
the Higher Education Act.
But here's where I'm getting: Twelve of the 59 were things
that the department by itself could fix. Three of the top 10
were things that the department by itself could fix.
Now these aren't things that Secretary Duncan and President
Obama by themselves did. I mean, Secretary Alexander and
President Bush did some of them. I mean, this is going all the
way back to 1965.
But what they found was that, for example, Vanderbilt
University hired the Boston Consulting Group to tell it how
much it cost Vanderbilt, its non-hospital part of Vanderbilt,
how much Federal regulations cost Vanderbilt to operate in 1
year, and it was $150 million.
That is $11,000 on every student's tuition. It's 11 percent
of all their money. That is what the whole commission said is a
jungle of red tape.
The National Academy of Sciences has said that an
administrator's time on investigations is 42 percent
administrative time. That is billions of more dollars of wasted
money. Now most of that is not Department of Education. Those
are other departments in the government.
But this is a widely recognized problem that we have that
we have all contributed to, including us in Congress and those
of us who have been in government.
So here's my question. An example, let me just give an
example. For example, when students withdraw from college, a
portion of their Title IV funds has to be returned to the
Federal Government. Regulatory text for figuring out what that
is is over 200 pages in a handbook. That is one of the number
one objections they have. That could be easily fixed.
With financial responsibility standards, there is a
requirement for audited financial statements for private,
nonprofit, and for-profit colleges that causes them to go get
expensive letters of credit, according to this report. These
requirements by the department don't follow accepted accounting
principles.
Another one is that when the Federal Application for
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), the application for a Federal
grant or loan, which is 108 questions, is applied, there is a
verification process, very time-consuming.
Senator Bennet and I recommended cutting these 108
questions to two. President Obama in his budget has endorsed
this idea and said he has found 30 or 40 questions. You and I
working together might find some more.
If we simplify this form, if we move--which would require
legislation--the data to the junior year in high school instead
of the senior year, these are all very common-sense, non-
ideological issues.
So my question is, would you be willing to sit down with
Chancellor Kirwan and Chancellor Zeppos, who led this study,
and listen to them and their recommendations about what you and
the department could do to implement the dozen of the 59 that
the department by itself could do? And would you be willing to
work with Senator Mikulski and me and Bennet and Burr and
Senator Murray to try to implement this simplification of what
the report called a jungle of red tape?
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. We think there is really good
stuff in the report. Our staff has actually looked at it pretty
closely. We have not met with them yet, so if you want to help
facilitate that, that would be fantastic.
But whatever we can do here to remove red tape, to stop
wasting time, to stop wasting dollars, we should absolutely do.
There are a couple of recommendations that our staff has
already looked at that we think we can move on potentially
pretty quickly. So we are starting internally to get behind
this.
And in a bigger picture, if we can get to a good spot on
ESEA, getting to a good spot on HEA reauthorization will be
like a walk in the park, in relative terms. So there is a lot
of fertile ground here going forward.
Senator Alexander. Well, Senator Murray and I are ready for
a walk in the park after No Child Left Behind.
No, seriously, we look forward to that. Thank you very
much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary.
ON TIME COLLEGE COMPLETION
I wanted to talk again about college education, making it
more affordable. I want to talk specifically about finishing on
time for full-time undergraduates. I know the University of
Hawaii has worked very hard with their P-20 initiative and with
the department to try to enable kids to finish.
It is not just the annual cost of college, but it's how
quickly, as a practical matter, kids are able to finish. Some
of that has to do with the counseling they get in their
freshmen year. Some of that has to do with availability of the
courses they need.
But I would like you to talk about that because we tend to
focus on the interest rate in the Congress, and we tend to
focus on the Pell Grant level. And then sometimes we talk about
the retail price, but none of that matters, if it takes you 5
or 6 years to finish.
Secretary Duncan. First of all, Senator, I just want to
say, we have seen a huge amount of innovation and great work
coming out of Hawaii. You should be so proud. That was a State
where we invested early on in Race to the Top. Lots of folks
thought that was a huge mistake on our part. Candidly, I had my
own concerns and trepidation.
It has been amazing to see on both the K-12 side and early
childhood, as well as the higher education side, what your
State is doing. So I just want to thank folks for their courage
in really challenging orthodoxies and doing things differently
in some pretty profound ways, getting much better results than
many places and improving faster than many other States. So
again, we just love what we are seeing there.
FIRST IN THE WORLD
So obviously, whatever we can do to reduce the time it
takes to obtain a degree, that is the whole point of the First
in the World competition, looking at competency-based, looking
at better support, as you said.
There is so much good work going on around the Nation where
we can invest, as I said before, where we can scale up what is
working. We think that is a hugely important role to play.
Whether it's a first-time full-time student or whether it's a
29-year-old single mom with two children trying to go back to
school to climb the economic ladder, whatever we can do to get
more people into college, but, more importantly, get them that
degree at the back end and get them in position to get a better
paying job, we have to do that.
That is why we think programs like First in the World are
so critically important. Again, there was so much greater
demand in the 2014 competition than there were dollars
available. We would like to be investing in many more
institutions of higher education that are taking very seriously
their role, not just to enroll students but to help them
graduate and graduate as swiftly as possible.
COLLEGE ACCREDITATION
Senator Schatz. I appreciate your work in the area of
coming down on some of the bad actors among the online degree
granting institutions. But I'm wondering whether we can come at
some of those challenges from the accreditation side, because
as the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned, they get their
accreditation and then we move on and try to clean up after
it's all done.
I'm wondering whether you have the authority under the
statute to kind of come after some of these bad actors with
minuscule graduation rates, awful outcomes on pretty much every
level. I guess I'm wondering why they are accredited in the
first place.
Secretary Duncan. I think that is a fair question. In some
of these situations, the accreditation process, we are looking
at very, very closely to see what we can do to challenge folks
and to raise the bar.
So I'm happy to continue the conversation off-line with you
and your staff. But we have a team that is looking at that
piece of the higher education puzzle very, very intently.
NATIVE LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Senator Schatz. Thank you. And in Hawaii, we are doing some
pretty innovative work among native Hawaiian educators. And
students and families have played a really critical role in
advancing the native language education. But, as you know,
unfortunately, mainstream English-based standards, assessments,
and teacher training requirements often undermine efforts of
native communities to use their languages in schooling.
I'm wondering what you can do at the department to better
support access to and fair assessment of education through the
medium of native languages.
Secretary Duncan. So as I'm sure you know, we recently
granted a waiver request to your Hawaii Department of Education
to pilot the development and administration of new assessments
in native languages.
Again, what is happening there has relevancy in many other
States around the Nation. So we really appreciate the
leadership and thoughtfulness there.
Please challenge us and hold us accountable for being a
good partner, and we will see what develops there. We know that
what develops there has implications in many other places, so
we are very interested and supportive of that work.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Schatz.
Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Mr. Secretary, thank you for the call
yesterday. As I mentioned, my interest is dyslexia.
PROGRAMS FOR DYSLEXIA
What specific programs does the department fund for
dyslexia?
Secretary Duncan. I don't think we have a specific program
for dyslexia. Children with dyslexia have special education
needs that fall under the IDEA bucket where we have pretty
significant resources.
Senator Cassidy. If I can interrupt just for a second?
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely.
Senator Cassidy. So dyslexia is 80 percent of learning
disabilities, and maybe at least 50 percent or maybe more of
those who cannot read. This is all epidemiological data, peer-
reviewed, et cetera.
So it strikes me if it is 80 percent of those with learning
disabilities, 20 percent of the general population, why in the
heck don't you have a special program for dyslexia? Do you
follow what I'm saying?
Secretary Duncan. It is a fair question. Again, that is
something for Congress to think about.
Senator Cassidy. So you are suggesting Congress should give
a special emphasis?
Secretary Duncan. I'm not suggesting. I'm just saying
Congress can look at this. There are many children with special
needs, and we are trying to ask for more resources. Obviously,
a significant portion of those resources go to help children
with dyslexia.
Senator Cassidy. Do you have any sense of the quality of
programs currently in schools addressing the needs of
dyslexics?
Secretary Duncan. I think it would be varied and mixed. I
think there are some schools, some communities, and some
districts that do an extraordinary job of early identification
and support.
Senator Cassidy. Now, granted, there is always going to be
a spectrum.
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Senator Cassidy. But do we have a sense of where the mean
is? If not the mean, the median?
Secretary Duncan. Yes, I would say much better than 10 or
15 years ago. There is heightened awareness.
Senator Cassidy. That is a low bar, man.
Secretary Duncan. That may be true. Is there more that we
can and should be doing? Absolutely.
Senator Cassidy. So in your dream of dreams, what would be
done to actually improve the screening and intervention for
those with dyslexia? If you tell me that currently there is no
single office looking at it, there is no--Senator Mikulski
speaks about the 1 percent. I'm speaking about the 20 percent.
And she is speaking about those who might succeed no matter
what we do or don't do. I'm speaking about the 20 percent that
will not succeed, quite likely, unless we do something.
Now I just have a sense that this has been kind of ``may
happen, may not.'' But there has not really been that sort of
supervision to make sure, not like you are doing for the for-
profit colleges, for example. You know there is a problem and
you are going to go in and look at it. Here I have a sense it's
more along, well, maybe it happens, maybe it doesn't.
Secretary Duncan. No, I think our Office of Special
Education Programs is doing really good work there. Again, it's
a fair critique. Do we have enough resources put behind
children, whether they have special needs or whether they are
extraordinarily gifted? I think it's a very fair critique that
we are not investing enough in either population.
For us to invest more, we clearly need your help and
support.
SCREENING AND EDUCATOR TRAINING IN DISABILITIES
Senator Cassidy. Now that said, I would argue it's a little
bit more than investment because I do think that there is a
lack of awareness. I have read about RTI and I read about
others that think we should screen differently. Those that
criticize and praise RTI, both say that there must be a general
faculty understanding of what dyslexia is or otherwise the
child gets to the fourth grade and cannot read and, at that
point, intervention is less profitable.
So is there any sense that there is a general faculty
understanding in more than a small fraction of schools?
Secretary Duncan. So these are complicated issues. I don't
want to blow through them. They are really important issues.
We have about 1,400 schools of education, and so if you
wanted to have a general or universal faculty understanding,
once they enter the classroom, I would argue that is a little
bit late in the game. That general understanding should happen
well before that.
I think to really get to the root of that, the honest
question would be, what are our schools of education doing in
this space?
Senator Cassidy. I got that. But, of course, on the other
hand, if we just say wait until those who are currently in
school become aware of the issue, then we are really speaking
about 30 years from now before we replace all those who are
currently active and then no longer would be.
So I just say that as kind of, oh my gosh, we need a
cohort, and not just a current cohort, we need all cohorts to
be engaged.
But I think it also kind of answers my question, because I
really have a sense that most educators are not aware of this
and have not received training dollars to be made aware of it.
So if it takes a general faculty engagement, it is like we have
met the enemy and it is us.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Secretary Duncan. We invest in professional development and
we would like to invest more. I also argue publicly at many
places that the money we put behind current teacher
professional development, not future teachers, is often poorly
spent and not spent on things that teachers are really looking
for.
Senator Cassidy. It seems like it's reasonable that
Congress would give some direction, if we see a need that is
addressing 20 percent of the population and probably at least
50 percent to 60 percent of those who read below grade level,
that we would give specific direction that it shouldn't just be
an amorphous, ``Here's a pot of money. Spend it as you wish.''
But, ``We have a specific national need. Please address,'' much
like conquering HIV or going to the moon. I don't know your
thoughts on that.
Secretary Duncan. There are many children with special
needs. Many children facing real challenges. For me, it's not
about picking out this population or that population. It is how
you give every single one of those children----
Senator Cassidy. I accept that, but in times of limited
resources, one has to be somewhat directed.
So if you have one that is 80 percent of the LD community,
it seems more likely you would focus.
Secretary Duncan. So many of your colleagues are looking
for us to be less directed. I just want to be clear about that.
Senator Cassidy. Okay, I yield back. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your leadership in putting
forth a budget that supports investments in the learning
continuum from early childhood to career.
I want to start by focusing in on one stage in that
continuum, and that is high school, while acknowledging that
every stage of that education continuum is vitally important.
HIGH SCHOOL REDESIGN
Your fiscal 2016 budget calls for a $125 million investment
in our high schools to ensure that these schools can redesign
to meet student's needs. I'm concerned that too many high
schools are failing to help their students make it even to
graduation. Even those who do graduate may not be armed with
the skills they need to enter post-secondary education,
training, or the workforce.
For example, in my State of Wisconsin, there are 13 high
schools that fail to graduate a third of their students.
Earlier this year, I introduced the Next Generation High
Schools Act to allow high schools to redesign and innovate to
better meet student needs and increase rigor in coursework,
particularly in the workforce critical areas of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, the STEM fields, and
career and technical education.
So, Mr. Secretary, can you speak to the need to focus on
and invest in our high schools, specifically, and the necessity
to have a dedicated program like the bill I described, the Next
Generation of High Schools act that supports students and
prevents dropouts?
Secretary Duncan. I just really want to thank you for your
leadership and passion on this. And let me take a step back.
When you have high schools, whether they are in Wisconsin
or anywhere in the Nation, to say the reverse of what you said,
where two-thirds of students do not graduate, those are dropout
factories. We have to take that problem on. We have to
challenge the status quo. We have to do some things very, very
differently.
I have visited many high schools that a couple years ago
were dropout factories and have now turned around, have
transformed. None of them are perfect yet. This is an ongoing
process, but we have seen remarkable changes.
I met with a young man here last week who was from a high
school in Miami that was historically a dropout factory, and
they have totally changed the culture there now, in 2 or 3
short years.
So same children, same families, same building, same
socioeconomic challenges, same neighborhood, but radically
different results. So I would like to follow up with you very
directly. The outcomes of those 13 high schools are
unacceptable. We need to look at that very, very significantly.
We have put resources, as you know, behind school
improvement grants. We have seen many schools turn around, but
clearly we have a ways to go.
And to state the obvious, when young people drop out of
high school today, there are no good jobs, none in the legal
economy for them. So we just can't passively stay on the
sidelines. So your leadership is so important.
Many young people drop out of high school, not because it's
too hard, but because it's too easy, and they're bored. They
don't see the relevance.
So the more we are redesigning high schools and helping
young people understand what to learn in class, what the tie is
in the real world and to real jobs, when they are engaged, when
they are excited about coming to school, you see those dropout
rates go down pretty precipitously. We have seen this in many,
many high schools around the Nation.
So while, again, I'm so proud that high school graduation
rates are at all-time highs and dropout rates are down, our
dropout rate is still unacceptably high for the Nation. When
you have high schools like that, it's untenable for us to stand
on the sideline and just see that continue to happen.
So no easy answers, but we should look very carefully at
those 13 schools and what is going on in the community and what
is going on in the feeder schools. We have to do something
better.
And your leadership on these issues to redesign high
schools, to get many more resources there, and have the work
there be more relevant to the real world, it's absolutely the
right thing to do.
Senator Baldwin. I definitely am going to take you up on
continuing to work together to advance these proposals and see
them reflected across the country.
AMERICA'S COLLEGE PROMISE
I have just a couple seconds left, actually, so I know we
are not going to get into this fully. But I wanted to hear a
little bit more about the community college program.
I actually offered an amendment during our budget
resolution markup to put this into action. But right now, and
perhaps in follow-up to this hearing, I want to hear more about
the department's vision for the America's College Promise, how
it will ultimately save student and taxpayer dollars, and sort
of how you envision this proposal supporting the vital
contribution also of technical colleges and tribal colleges?
Secretary Duncan. I know we are over time. I will try to be
very quick.
Is that okay, Mr. Chairman, if I answer?
Senator Blunt. Go ahead and do a quick answer there. There
will be a second round.
And the 11 o'clock vote has now been eliminated, so there
will be no 11 o'clock vote.
Secretary Duncan. Do you want me to wait?
Senator Blunt. We will have a second round. Just in case
Senator Baldwin has to leave, go ahead.
Secretary Duncan. Yes, sir. Just very, very quickly.
I'm just a huge fan, as is the President, of our Nation's
community colleges. I have been to dozens of the most inspiring
visits where you see 18-year-olds, 38-year-olds, and 58-year-
olds all retraining and retooling.
They are like baby United Nations. You have people from all
over the world coming to learn and to get better.
Green energy jobs and IT jobs, advanced manufacturing, and
healthcare, this is the path, the route to upper mobility, to
the middle class, and to the jobs of tomorrow, not the jobs of
yesterday.
So the idea of making these community colleges free and
giving, whether it's young people or middle-aged people, the
chance to get the skills they need to be productive citizens to
support their families, we think makes all the sense in the
world.
We would simply partner with States that are doing more.
Again, this isn't the President's idea or my idea. This is
really coming from Senator Alexander, from Tennessee, that has
done this at scale. And while it's very early, the outpouring
of interest has stunned them. It's far beyond what they
anticipated.
This is absolutely an investment, not an expense. Tribal
colleges and universities would be a part of this. Tribal
colleges do an amazing job, as you know, on shoestring budgets.
So whatever we can do to strengthen community colleges,
provide more people access. I think too many folks in rooms
like this don't understand is that often, while, relatively
speaking, they are cheaper today, just the cost of childcare or
transportation or gas or buying books can literally stop
somebody from taking that step.
We just want to eliminate those financial barriers and give
hardworking folks a chance to get the skills they need to climb
the economic ladder.
Senator Blunt. Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Secretary Duncan, thank you. I have quite
a few questions. Let me just try to go through several of them.
One is, you and I have spoken before about the waiver and
the issue with No Child Left Behind. It is the importance to
replace No Child Left Behind, because my State of Oklahoma has
obviously dealt with this extensively with your department, but
every State has had to deal with the waiver process.
I appreciate your cooperation in trying to get a complete
replacement of this so you do not have to deal with the
constant waiver battles back and forth.
I also appreciate some of the comments that Senator
Alexander made about the FAFSA. For any person who has a junior
or senior in high school, and they get that form, the very
first question is, why are they asking all these questions?
What does it matter? And why is the Federal Government
collecting this amount of information on my particular student?
Any work that can be done to simplify that form I think is
extremely important, for multiple reasons. But if we discourage
people from engaging in that process by the sheer length of the
form, we are doing them a great disservice. So I would
encourage that.
I do want to spend a little more time on what Senator Blunt
was talking about with the college rating system, and I wanted
to dig into that a little bit as well.
In your budget, is there a detail of the cost to develop,
implement, and sustain the college rating program that is
currently going through right now, including some sort of
estimate of legal costs? Obviously, this is going to be
challenged tremendously, and I would assume your department is
aware of that.
Is there an estimate in your budget somewhere that I'm
missing of the cost of developing and sustaining this ratings
program?
FAFSA SIMPLIFICATIONS
Secretary Duncan. So let me back up quickly on the FAFSA. I
couldn't agree more. I would just say, we reduced about a third
of the questions early on in the administration. Clearly, we
have more work to do. We feel really proud about that. We have
average completion times down to under a half hour. So we have
made some progress, but have a long way to go. Again, we look
forward to partnering with you.
Senator Lankford. Yes, completion time vs. gathering all
the forms required to actually do the completion is a different
thing, because there is quite a bit they have to be able to
gather to pull that together.
But that's a different issue.
Secretary Duncan. No, we have some work to do and look
forward to doing it with you.
To your point, just to state the obvious, completing that
form unlocks $150 billion in grants and loans each year. If you
don't fill that form out, you're locked out, so that cannot be
a barrier.
And you are exactly right. In too many places, it still is
a barrier, an impediment to those resources. So we have to do
that.
COLLEGE RATING SYSTEM
Again, just to repeat, on the college rating system, we are
still developing this. I'm happy to sit down with the chairman.
Senator Lankford. Is that something in the budget
currently? Is there a section there? Can you tell us----
Secretary Duncan. There is not a huge section. This is not
a high-cost item. This is us sort of thinking it through. I'm
much less worried about it than you are. We can talk through
the concerns or whatever.
This would be a modest effort to try to get more
information and more transparency.
Senator Lankford. Is there a spot that you are all looking
at and saying here's where the statutory authority comes from
to do it, based on either previous budget statements coming
from this committee saying, hey, we are going to allocate some
funds and time and full-time equivalents (FTEs) to be able to
help prepare a rating system? Or from the previous 1979
document saying this is within the purview of the Department of
Education to be able to do it?
Secretary Duncan. I think the appropriate role for the
Federal Government or State government or local government
should be around transparency, and I think this is a massive
play around transparency.
Senator Lankford. Sure, which has traditionally been the
State responsibility that oversees the State colleges or
private entities.
Secretary Duncan. Again, this isn't overseeing. And as you
know, people aren't just picking colleges in their State or
their locality. This is national.
And if we can get more information, again, I can't tell you
how many conversations I have had with young people and their
parents where they just don't have good information.
Senator Lankford. I understand that. I have high school age
kids myself as well.
Secretary Duncan. So you are living this.
Senator Lankford. I am, and so I'm very aware of that.
I would just ask that you would submit to the committee any
kind of budget work that has already been done to try to build
towards this, the dollars, FTEs, that you have set aside to
start researching and preparing this rating system. Obviously,
you have spent some time going through it.
And any estimates that you have, as you start to guess out
the cost of some of the litigation in the future, that would
help us in the decisionmaking process in the days ahead, as we
start allocating funds.
ESEA FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS SERVING SPECIFIC POPULATIONS
I need to shift subjects to you as well. As we are talking
about a replacement for No Child Left Behind, which again I
completely encourage and I'm glad to participate in that
process, one of the areas that has come up in No Child Left
Behind is that children in homeless families have to be
mainstreamed into schools. If they are segregated, they are not
eligible for any Federal funding in that school.
So a school like Positive Tomorrows in Oklahoma that
targets helping homeless kids that have a very difficult time
engaging in mainstream schools, public schools, because of
their spotty attendance and everything else, have no access to
those funds.
Is that something that we can work together to try to
resolve, so that we have an ability for homeless children, that
specific population, so at least schools that are targeted to
reaching them are not excluded?
Secretary Duncan. It is a great question. I'm not familiar
with that school in your State, so I'd like to learn more.
There is a school in San Diego, San Diego County, that I am
more aware of that seems to have done some pretty remarkable
work.
It's a complicated issue. You never want to stigmatize
kids. You never want to separate them. But there are tremendous
additional challenges that some schools are doing a great job
of helping to meet.
I would love to have a further conversation and learn more.
I did not know about that school.
Senator Lankford. There is a tremendous asset to being able
to help those students because there are some very unique
environments there.
NOT-FOR-PROFIT SERVICERS
And if I could ask one more question just for the record as
well, the loan servicing issue, there have been some changes on
that. Now 25 percent of loan servicers will be not-for-profit,
and it's capped at that amount.
I'd be interested in just getting some background on why
the 25 percent number was capped for not-for-profits. Why not
just have the open competition and allow those that are quality
servicers? I know I'm out of time on that, but if I could get
that submitted for the record, that would be helpful.
My hope is that it doesn't set the not-for-profits up for
failure by capping the amount for loan servicing for the
multiple companies that are doing it.
Secretary Duncan. Just very quickly, going forward, I think
in September, we are looking at performance. Based upon
performance, we will be doing reallocations.
Senator Lankford. Okay, thank you.
Senator Blunt. Are you all clear on the question he asked
about money being spent on this rating system? You are going to
submit the information and response to that question? Money
spent, money you anticipate spending?
Secretary Duncan. Yes, happy to provide it.
Senator Lankford. And FTEs.
Secretary Duncan. This is just part of what folks are doing
so. There is no big budget. There is no big whatever. But I'm
happy to----
Senator Lankford. I just assume, as you are thinking it
through, you are committing some FTEs to it, as you're thinking
it through. And you are also having a look out on what is going
to be the court costs that are possible on this.
Again, we have to plan on funding. If that is going to be a
funding issue in the days ahead, dealing with higher education
and court costs, we need to know.
Senator Blunt. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is nice to have you in front
of the committee.
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT
I want to follow-up on a question that the chair was
talking about on the gainful employment regulation.
You mentioned, I think, the purpose of the gainful
employment rule in terms of weeding out the bad actors for the
for-profits. Understanding that that occurs and that is a lofty
goal, but you mentioned that it wasn't just for the for-
profits. So I want some clarification on that.
Are you saying that this goes to public institutions,
liberal arts schools, community colleges? Are they subject to
these kinds of metrics? Do they have to report these? And how
do they compare out when you look at the for-profits that are
doing it the right way, which we happen to have in our State?
Secretary Duncan. The gainful employment rule does apply to
certificate and nondegree programs at public and private
nonprofit institutions.
Senator Capito. So just taking that further, at a public
institution, if you are getting a 4-year degree in social work
and you have a certain amount of debt and obviously that is one
of those entry-level jobs--unfortunately, because it's so
important--that comes in rather low on the scale, those
metrics, you are not getting that?
Secretary Duncan. No, again, it doesn't matter whether
folks are going to high-income jobs or low-income jobs. We just
want that debt to be manageable and for them to be in a better
spot.
Senator Capito. Agreed.
Secretary Duncan. And in some places, that absolutely
happens. In some places, the opposite happens.
And to be very clear, the vast majority of for-profits are
getting 88, 89, 90 percent, sometimes even more of their
revenues, from you and I, from taxpayers.
So there is this massive public subsidy. And if it's
something leading to better outcomes, that is an honest
conversation to have. But when it's leading to worse outcomes,
we can't support that.
Again, if you look at the findings we put out on one of
those institutions this week--and again they have a chance to
reply. And if we are wrong, we'll say we're wrong.
But what we found was stunning and deeply, deeply
disturbing, deeply troubling.
I just want folks on both sides of the aisle to be eyes-
wide-open on this. To stick taxpayers with this and to leave
disadvantaged folks in a worse position, that is not what any
of us get up every single day to do, I don't think.
Senator Capito. I agree. I don't think I'm getting up every
day to do that either.
ACTUAL COLLEGE COSTS
I am going to switch over to another question on student
loans. This is something that really bothers me. I have run
into numerous students, parents, and people in institutions in
the financial aid offices who try to get the metrics of what it
actually costs for whatever institution it is. Let's say it's
$15,000, with the students eligible and can loan up to $25,000.
You are looking at somebody who maybe might want to buy a car,
a vacation, has extra needs, all these kinds of things separate
from their educational costs. Then in the end, you hear about
the very large amounts of student loans.
What can we do about that? Who can we empower to make sure
that we are getting more reasonable decisions? That is just a
very troubling statistic. I think it's pretty prevalent.
Secretary Duncan. It is an issue. Our staff have looked at
it very closely. I'm happy to follow up with you off-line. But
one thing we are trying to do is to empower those financial aid
counselors at universities to provide very clear guidance.
Senator Capito. Right. We worked on the House on a
transparency issue. I mean, I think that would help. But I just
see that some of the sums, they are astronomical. But when you
look at the actual cost as calculated----
Secretary Duncan. That is a piece of the puzzle. Again,
these issues are much more complicated than that. There are
other things at play.
But looking at this whole ball of wax where student debt is
higher than we would like it to be, we need to think about all
these pieces that can contribute to reducing that debt.
Senator Capito. Right. Right.
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND HEAD START PROGRAMS
Another question I had, which is different than that, is on
early childhood. And I'm a believer in early childhood. Our
State of West Virginia has pre-K. It's mandatory for each
school to offer, but it's not mandatory for children to attend.
But I think it has some pretty decent attendance.
You have said numerous times throughout our testimony, if
we had the resources, we could do this. If we had the
resources, we could do that.
Understanding that is an issue, you have Head Start sitting
there an established program. I have been a supporter of Head
Start even, though it has had some troubled issues. I'm very
concerned, as we move more into pre-K, with Head Start here,
having its issues and other issues an established government
program has, political and otherwise, how are we going to make
sure the resources are actually used efficiently, directed at
the student and the family? And we are not going to end up
fighting for the resource for the same child?
Secretary Duncan. We work in very, very close concert with
Health and Human Services (HHS) and with Secretary Sebelius
prior, Secretary Burwell now. So of all my worries, that is not
on the list.
We have to think about a 0 to age 5 continuum. It starts
with early home visiting and other things.
Head Start was focused more on 3-year-olds, and pre-K is
focused more on the 4-year-olds. There are ways to do this and
work together so we are not fighting over kids or resources,
but making sure there is a continuum, a seamless continuum of
opportunities birth through 5.
Senator Capito. Right. And then you have Head Start that
has facilities in different areas, not necessarily in the
school. They have their own buses.
And I'm not picking on that. I just want to make sure we
are maximizing what we have.
Secretary Duncan. Yes. And to be very clear, what we would
love to do is have this not developed by us here in Washington
but at the local level. So we are agnostic on facilities,
whether they are schools or whether they are Head Start
facilities or whether they are nonprofits or YMCAs. There are
lots of different places. When I ran Chicago Public Schools, we
had pre-K in many different places.
So this would be developed at the local level. Just again,
for me, what is the problem we are trying to solve? The problem
we are trying to solve is far too many children and families
who desperately want these opportunities do not have them today
because they don't happen to be wealthy.
Senator Capito. And one of the reasons we don't want the
resources to not reach them is because we are competing with
HHS over here.
Secretary Duncan. That has been 0 percent of the
discussion. We have worked in concert with them on everything.
All the grants we've done around early childhood education we
have jointly administered with HHS.
So I think, again, not that we do things perfectly, but I
think we have, frankly, modeled an extraordinarily good
partnership that didn't happen before.
So take that one off your worry list.
Senator Capito. Okay, I will take that off my worry list.
I am just going to fly one other comment that I think has
to be on a list of concerns moving forward, because the way
education is changing in every aspect, but particularly higher
education, is all the online, the competition for online.
It has been really interesting for me to see the way it
grows. And keeping an eye on accountability and other issues
and competition I think of as a real challenge in the future.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Secretary Duncan, thank you for being here today and
for your service.
COMPETITIVE GRANT FUNDING
I continue to hear concerns about the department's
prioritization of competitive grant funding for programs.
As I'm sure you're aware, New Hampshire is a small State.
It is relatively, if we look at all the States in the country,
we have a good school system. We have average, relative, high-
income levels.
On the other hand, we still have pockets, particularly in
rural areas, where we have real poverty, real challenges with
our schools. So can you talk about how we can ensure that
States like New Hampshire that may not rank so well on the
scale for competitive grants can still get help for programs
that we need help on, particularly some of the support for
reading, for elementary school, the Title I program, others,
where we have real challenges because the formulas that we have
often benefited from are not as robust as they used to be in
terms of funding?
Secretary Duncan. It is important for this committee to
know the facts. In the 2016 budget request, 92 percent of our
resources are formula-based--the overwhelming majority, $.92 on
every dollar. We are asking for 8 percent on the competitive
side, but that is obviously the minority investment.
We don't see these things as in competition or conflict at
all. We see them as absolutely complementary. We have seen in
virtually every place where we have done competitive work,
whether it's on turning around underperforming schools, whether
it's the Investing in Innovation fund, or Promise
Neighborhoods, we have seen significant rural participation.
Just one quick example, New Hampshire, your State, has done
some amazing work on thinking about assessments in a very
different way.
Senator Shaheen. They have done very well.
Secretary Duncan. You guys are leading the Nation, and we
are partnering very closely. Again, maybe a small State, but
there some real assets, there are some real strengths to that.
What you guys have done, frankly, might be impossible in a
larger State. So there are huge assets and different strengths
and weaknesses in different sized States.
So please hold us accountable for being a good partner
there. But we have worked very, very hard. And the work that
your State is doing I think is very important not just for the
children and educators in New Hampshire.
If it goes well--that is a big if; they will have
challenges--it has very significant national implications.
So we feel good about our ability to partner with big
States, small States, rural, urban, whatever. I understand the
concerns. But candidly, I think we have managed that pretty
well.
Senator Shaheen. Well, I certainly appreciate your nice
words about the work on assessments in New Hampshire. I think
it is a place where the State has done a great job and provides
a model.
Secretary Duncan. There is a thoughtfulness and depth of
commitment and expertise that, frankly, we have not seen any
other place. And they are far, far ahead of other folks.
That is fantastic. Other people can learn from you. But
there is some real potential there that our team and I find
pretty exciting.
STEM AND FIRST ROBOTICS
Senator Shaheen. I was pleased to see that you have spoken
out about FIRST, which is another great program that started in
New Hampshire with Dean Kamen, the robotics competition. They
are having their national finals this weekend at St. Louis, so
hopefully we will see New Hampshire do well in those finals.
But one of the things, having been a teacher, that I
appreciate is that all students don't learn with a teacher
standing in front of the classroom lecturing, and that the
opportunity for hands-on education is very important. It is one
of the things that FIRST and other programs like FIRST do for
students.
So what is the department thinking about, in terms of how
to really ensure that every school can have a FIRST team or
similar kind of team, where the students can do hands-on work
with mentors, get into the STEM subjects in a way that
sometimes they are not able to do when they are in the
classroom?
Secretary Duncan. First of all, I would just say I'm a huge
fan of Dean Kamen and what he has created.
Senator Shaheen. Aren't we all?
Secretary Duncan. What he has created, it's just amazing.
For folks who haven't seen it, they fill stadiums with students
doing extraordinarily exciting work, and all the cheering and
all the noise and excitement that you traditionally see in
athletics contests. I think it is actually much more important
and valuable.
Senator Shaheen. It's sort of Einstein meets Michael
Jordan.
Secretary Duncan. So people who haven't been to one should
go see one and soak it in.
We don't have any direct funding there. It would be great
if every not just high school, but middle school in the Nation
had a robotics team. I think that would be amazing.
So I'm a big, big fan. We don't have a direct funding
stream for it. They can use resources that we have to support
it.
It is actually extraordinarily low-cost. This is not a big
ticket item. And the benefits for students I think are amazing.
So whatever we can do to support and to be a strong
cheerleader advocate--I have been out a couple times. I'm not
going this weekend, but it is amazing to see the impact it has
had.
Senator Shaheen. It is, and as we are looking at ESEA, we
are hoping that there might be some language we can get in that
would support programs, not just FIRST, but other programs like
that that are hands-on.
So I know that the chair and ranking member are looking at
those issues as they are looking at ESEA.
Secretary Duncan. If more students had those opportunities,
that would be a fantastic thing at lots of levels.
RE-COMPETING CONTRACTS OF STUDENT LOAN SERVICERS
Senator Shaheen. It would be.
Mr. Chairman, if I can just make one final comment. I know
that Senator Lankford asked about the servicer loan
organizations and that, Mr. Secretary, you said you would be
looking at re-competing contracts in September and looking at
the numbers, the volumes that you will allocate.
I would just urge you to look at the good job that many of
those servicer organizations are doing. We have one in New
Hampshire that does great work. I would rather support them as
a not-for-profit than support some of the for-profit
organizations that are doing that kind of work.
Secretary Duncan. I appreciate that. We are just trying to
do it strictly on performance. I'm happy to share our metrics.
Senator Shaheen. That would be great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Thanks, Senator.
I have a few more questions. I have a couple, and maybe
more than a couple, but I will ask a couple then go to Senator
Murray and Chairman Cochran, if we have any more, and then back
to Senator Shaheen, if she has more she wants to ask.
IMPACT AID PAYMENTS FOR FEDERAL PROPERTY
On Impact Aid, Mr. Secretary, you asked for level funding
for Impact Aid in a budget that basically asks for a 6 percent
increase in total. I think we had a vote on this during the
Budget, and overwhelmingly, Congress suggested that the goal of
these Impact Aid programs and the PILT program and other
programs where we are replacing money that would be there if
this were privately owned property, should we get that money to
a level as near as possible approximates what a private
taxpayer would pay.
So it does seem to me that level funding for Impact Aid, if
everything else was level funded, would not hear complaints.
But the priority here doesn't seem very high.
Then you take the payments in the Federal property program,
which is $67 million, $1 million of that goes to Missouri
schools, and you put that in your own facilities maintenance
program. Surely, you don't really expect that.
Secretary Duncan. I will take the second half and then give
it to Tom. On the first half, I'm really happy to have that
conversation.
Senator Blunt. What do you have, Tom? Twelve buildings that
this facility money would go to?
Mr. Skelly. There are still 12 buildings that are owned by
the Federal Government. We would like the local school
districts to take those over, but they think that some of the
schools haven't had the proper maintenance and upkeep on them.
So we would use the $67 million from the payments for Federal
property program for the upkeep of the buildings so that they
would be in good shape to be taken over by the local schools.
Senator Blunt. The $925,000 that goes to really, in almost
all cases, really small districts in my State, that what you
are doing with that money, you are taking care of 12 Federal
buildings instead of giving them the $925,000?
Secretary Duncan. We are trying to get rid of these 12
buildings, to be clear. But again, we are happy to have----
Senator Blunt. To be clear, you zeroed out the payments in
the Federal property program and moved it to the facilities
management program. That is to be clear, what you did.
Mr. Skelly. That is exactly right.
Secretary Duncan. That is exactly right. Again, the goal is
to eventually move these properties from us to local districts.
Local districts don't want them today.
Mr. Skelly. The other argument for the $67 million, and you
might not agree with it and your folks wouldn't, is that the
districts lost the property tax base because of a Federal
activity. Those Federal activities in the property program
aren't ones that have resulted in a lot of kids going to
schools. They are parks and things like that where the property
tax base is reduced, but there weren't kids being served.
We have supported over $1 billion for the Impact Aid
program in the areas where they are having an impact on the
student enrollment in the district. But what we understand is
that most of the schools that applied under the property
program before 1970 did lose property tax revenue because they
can't charge the Federal Government for the property tax, but
they are not serving a lot of kids in those areas.
So you might want to ask them if there is an argument
against that that would help us in developing future budgets,
because we have repeated this proposal a couple years.
Senator Blunt. Well, there are a number of arguments
against that. One is that they still have to run the long bus
route through that entire area to pick up kids that are either
in the middle of the area or on the other side of the area. The
fact that if the Federal taxpayer wasn't there, whether there
are kids there or not, somebody would be paying a property tax.
I think there are lots of arguments, and I will be
surprised if that part of the budget is the way you submitted
it.
Secretary Duncan. We are happy to have a conversation.
Senator Blunt. All right.
COLLEGE RATING SYSTEM AND TRANSPARENCY
Back to the college ratings program, which I'm glad Senator
Lankford asked the questions he did to get information on that,
but a lot of these, I know I have one clipping in front of me
now where you all put out a list of 56 Missouri schools and a
number of others who people should be aware of because they
were under heightened cash monitoring.
Now, that is a trailing indicator. I think those numbers
are all 2 years old, and a number of things there would
indicate maybe that is like all these ratings may be, it may
not be not all that good.
I think Sweet Briar had the perfect score right before they
announced they were not going to be in business next year.
Sweet Briar in North Carolina had a 3.0. Harvard dropped to 2.3
during the recession.
I think a lot of these ratings are going to have those same
kinds of problems.
But, Tom, you look like you want to respond to that?
Mr. Skelly. Not a lot, but, I would say, Sweet Briar is in
Virginia, not North Carolina.
Senator Blunt. You're right. You're right.
Mr. Skelly. But they did decide to close on their own. It
wasn't because of the cash management regulations.
Some of those cash management regulations are minor things.
We put out several different categories, some that the schools
just didn't complete an audit on time. For example, I think
there are some 40, 45 in Minnesota. It wasn't a major problem
for them. It is just something to look out for.
Senator Blunt. Well, it's a major problem like the ratings
will be a major problem if somehow your school is suddenly
rated by some matrix of not filling out the form, or something
that maybe matters at the Department of Education, but really
doesn't matter in terms of whether the school continues to
produce a quality student and a quality product.
So we are going to continue to talk about this until you
give up on this.
Senator Blunt. Yes, Secretary.
Secretary Duncan. Let me just, from a broader,
philosophical standpoint, it's a fair conversation to have.
Again, I really respect your deep expertise in this area.
I think a pretty important role that we can play is one
around transparency. So what we did--and not everyone agreed
with this, and candidly, not everyone inside our own department
agreed with this--but not too long ago, we put out the list of
universities that we are looking at where there are allegations
around sexual assault. And an allegation is not a proof of
guilt. And we do the investigations and sometimes we find real
problems. Sometimes we clear a place.
But I thought, personally, it was important to have that
information in the public sphere.
The same on heightened cash management. It is an issue. It
means different things. But for us to be withholding all this
information from the public, not being transparent, I think a
really important role of government is to be clear on these
types of things and to have the public conversation and the
debate.
But when we hold all the cards and don't share that with
the public, I don't think as a public servant, we are doing a
good job.
So in lots of these areas, the more we can get honest, good
information out there and where we need to adjust metrics or
have that conversation, we should absolutely do that. But I put
this in the broader category, maybe you disagree, but I thought
it was important to be public and to be clear about where we
were looking at allegations.
Senator Blunt. Areas that might not be available, maybe we
ought to talk about whether the accreditation process itself is
transparent enough, available enough.
Secretary Duncan. I would love to have that conversation.
Senator Blunt. Good.
Senator Murray.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS SEXUAL ASSAULTS CASELOAD
Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, I was actually pleased to
see that your budget proposed a significant increase for the
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) so that it can address its backlog
of investigations and reduce the amount of time that it takes
to respond to a complaint and keep up with increasing
workload--all things that, of course, make our college campuses
safer.
OCR now receives about 10,000 complaints a year. That is up
from 2010. Its budget is still underfunded and below, actually,
pre-sequestration levels. Their workload includes investigation
of sexual assault on campus, which are complex investigations
and take a lot of time.
So I wanted to ask you today, can you explain to our
subcommittee how that increased funding you requested will help
to reduce the backlog?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. This is a really important issue.
These are just really hard, difficult issues that we struggle
with every day. Again, your honest feedback is really helpful.
But as you said, we have gone from about 6,000 complaints
in 2008 to over 10,000 in 2016. I don't have any evidence to
back this. I don't necessarily think there are that many more
sexual assaults happening. I just think people know that we are
open for business and taking this seriously. Far too often,
victims felt no one would listen and no one would pay
attention. It was swept under the rug. Those consequences,
psychologically and emotionally, are pretty devastating.
So it is a good thing that people now know that we take
this very, very seriously, but it has created an extraordinary
workload for our team. In fact, we have less staff than when
this started.
I think one thing we owe these universities, but more
importantly, the individuals, is to try to bring these to
resolution as quickly as we can. This is absolutely traumatic,
both for the alleged victim and also for the alleged
perpetrator. If something bad really happened, we owe it to the
victim to not go through this for 2 or 3 or 4 years. If the
alleged perpetrator is, in fact, innocent, we owe it to that
perpetrator to not have them go through trauma for a couple
years.
So we are just trying to bring these to a thoughtful but
relatively speedy resolution. And we, frankly, cannot keep up
with demand. It is as simple as that.
I wish our budget for this was zero. I wish there were none
of these cases. I wish we weren't in this line of work. That is
not the reality, unfortunately, on far too many of our college
campuses, and we have an obligation to work as thoughtfully, as
consistently, as honestly, and as speedily as we can to try to
deal with hugely traumatic issues. That is just the reality of
where we are today.
Senator Murray. Okay, thank you. I really appreciate that.
I understand the need for additional dollars. You're right. We
need to make sure that both the victim and the perpetrator have
an answer.
What do you do at these colleges, if you do find victims
who rightfully need a remedy? What do you do on the campuses?
Secretary Duncan. Again, I'm just so proud. We don't do
perfectly, but I think our Office for Civil Rights has done an
amazing job with this. You've seen this issue enter the public
dialogue. You've seen this on magazine covers, where
historically it was swept under the rug. You have seen
universities change their policies and practices in pretty
significant ways.
So we think there has been a seachange here. Now, there is
a long way to go. We have to keep learning. We have to keep
getting better together. But you see more and more universities
sort of embracing these difficult, complex issues, not hiding
from them, and trying to come up with policies and practices
that, again, have a process that leads to the right outcome,
wherever the facts may lead.
So we have done some very, very significant work. I go back
to my earlier point. I think the fact that we have been so
transparent on this has helped. There are some challenges
there, but it has created a huge amount of movement.
And it's not only young women. There are young men, too,
but it's disproportionately young women. And many more are
feeling safe in extraordinarily difficult situations to have
their voice be heard. I think we owe it to them and to their
families to listen.
Senator Murray. I think your emphasis is correct. Students
leave college for a lot of reasons. Feeling insecure and unsafe
should not be one of them. So thank you.
SALLIE MAE REVIEW
One last question. Last May, during a Budget Committee
hearing on your 2015 budget, we talked about the issue of a
Sallie Mae alleged violation of the terms of the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act. Sallie Mae settled with the Department of
Justice in that situation. And you promised that you would
pursue every avenue, if laws were broken, and review all of
your service providers for compliance with the law.
It has been a year since our conversation, so I wanted to
know what the results of that review were.
Mr. Skelly. Senator, we are checking on all those reviews
and it looks like, by May 1, we will be finished with reviewing
all the servicers and finalizing that agreement with Sallie Mae
and Navient.
Secretary Duncan. So stayed tuned, the next 2 weeks.
Senator Murray. The next 2 weeks. Are you confident that
the Federal Student Aid's (FSA) review is thorough and
objective and will identify any issues of denial of benefits
owed to our servicemembers and veterans?
Mr. Skelly. It looks like they've been very, very thorough
on it, and they're putting veterans' needs at the top of their
list.
Secretary Duncan. If you look at the work they did leading
up to the announcement earlier this week on a slightly
different issue but on an institution, they did very, very
thorough, thoughtful, comprehensive work.
We don't rush to judgment on these issues, in these
situations. And they have a lot on their plate, but they are
working very, very hard.
Senator Murray. Okay, we look forward to seeing that very
soon. And thank you.
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Senator Blunt. I have two more quick things.
One is on gainful employment. I think under the proposal,
the department estimates approximately 1,400 career training
programs serving 840,000 students would not initially meet the
standard you are proposing.
I think the standard is a 3-year out-of-school standard.
Would they meet it if it was a 5-year out-of-school standard?
Are you looking at what point many or most of these schools
might meet the standard? Would they never meet that standard?
Secretary Duncan. My honest take on this is that when we
are clear--and again, I think this is not a high bar. I would
say this is a relatively low bar. But when we are clear on
that, you see behavior change in pretty significant ways. And
these are all projections going forward.
Again, we have maximum transparency. Every institution has
these facts. We think we will see more good programs grow, and
we will see bad programs either change or go away. We think all
those outcomes--more good programs is fantastic. Bad programs
improving, that is fantastic, or bad programs being eliminated.
Those are all positive outcomes.
So I'm actually pretty hopeful about where this thing goes.
Senator Blunt. So would you envision a school financial
officer would begin to say, don't major in art history?
Secretary Duncan. No, no, no. No, this is very different.
This is at the program level.
Again, there are institutions that have 50 or 100 programs.
So this is just trying to say, at the program level, do
graduates have a good chance at having a better financial
future, or are they saddled with debt that they can never pay
back?
There is huge variation across programs and between
schools. And we are just trying to make sure people take,
again, yours and my huge investment in tax dollars every single
year--often 90 percent or more of the revenue is coming from
us--and using it for good rather than for just pure profit.
STUDENT DEBT
Senator Blunt. I did also think Senator Capito's points
were points that we ought to be talking about. Of the debt
problem when you get out of the school, how much of that
related to the actual cost of going to school, and how much
related to what you thought your living standard should be
while you went to school? I'm pretty confident that, over the
years, the student expectations for their personal living
standard at school often increased beyond where they would have
been just a few years ago.
Secretary Duncan. It may be a piece. I, candidly, don't
know whether that is a huge piece of the puzzle, but we should
be looking at all of these things. Again, I'm happy to have
that conversation and share our data.
Senator Blunt. I would like you to look at your data on
that and see. I think it may be a bigger piece of the puzzle
than we think, when you accumulate some of the debt. At schools
that don't even have that high of a tuition number, a books
number, even an on-campus living number, you can still see
students graduating with debt that you wonder how that debt
accumulated.
The last thing I'm going to ask you to do is I would like
you to provide a year-to-year summary of marketing and
advertising expenses for the department over the last 3 fiscal
years. This relates to a topic I have been interested in,
whether we should specifically identify that this is a
taxpayer-funded marketing effort. And it would help me to know
how needed that is, if we knew what your marketing and
advertising expenses for the department were.
Secretary Duncan. We don't do a whole heck of a lot of it
at all, but we would be happy to provide you with that.
Senator Blunt. It should be easy to comply then.
Secretary Duncan. We would be happy to do it and provide
you with that.
Senator Blunt. Chairman.
Senator Alexander. I have nothing further.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Secretary, thank you and your staff for
your time today. And we look forward to working with you. As
you can tell, there is a lot of interest on this committee in
what you do. And it's important to the country what you do. We
are grateful to have your time and your patience today.
Secretary Duncan. Thanks for your leadership, and thanks
for the opportunity.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
The record will be open for any questions to be submitted
in writing.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
defining gainful employment
Question. The Department estimates that under the Gainful
Employment regulation 1,400 programs serving 840,000 students (99
percent of which are at for-profit programs) would be classified, at
least initially, as failing. This would jeopardize these programs'
eligibility for Federal student financial aid funding. The
Administration and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) both estimate
that at least some of these students would not go on to attend other
post-secondary schools, which is an indication that these career
training programs often serve students that other post-secondary
schools are not currently serving. Given the number of students
impacted, and that Congress and the Department have never defined
``gainful employment'' in statute or regulations previously, do you
think Congress should have an opportunity to weigh in on what the
Higher Education Act means by ``gainful employment'' prior to
implementing such an extensive regulation? Do you think 2- and 4-year
degree programs at public and private colleges and universities should
be held to a similar standard? If applied to 2 and 4-year degree
programs, has the Department estimated how many programs would fail to
meet this same standard?
Answer. The Department remains committed to increased transparency
and accountability across all of higher education and will continue to
explore policies that are most appropriate to achieve this goal. The
gainful employment regulations apply to programs and institutions that
are required by law ``to prepare students for gainful employment in
recognized occupations.'' The regulations are intended to address very
specific concerns regarding these programs: too many gainful employment
programs, particularly those offered by for-profit institutions, are
leaving students with unaffordable levels of loan debt in relation to
their earnings and too many of those students are defaulting on their
Federal student loans. While we are troubled by rising costs and
increasing levels of debt across all of higher education, our data show
that these problems are most acute for the programs subject to the
gainful employment regulations. The Department has not estimated how
many 2- and 4-year degree programs at public and private not-for-profit
colleges and universities would fail to meet the gainful employment
standard because program level data is not currently available for
traditional 2- and 4-year degree programs. We appreciate that Congress
may have a strong interest in addressing the uses addressed by these
regulations in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act (HEA) or
other legislation and we look forward to working with Congress on its
legislative proposals. However, in light of the numerous concerns about
the poor outcomes of students attending many gainful employment
programs, the risk they pose to the Federal interest, and the
Department's statutory authority to protect students and taxpayers, we
do not agree that the Department should not take, or should defer,
regulatory action on this basis.
college rating system
Question. The Administration announced the plan to develop a
college ratings system in August 2013. Over 15 months later, in
December 2014, the Department released a ``College Ratings Framework''
that still does not include specific details on exactly what metrics
will be used, or how the proposed ratings system will be used. However,
the Department still plans to release a college ratings system before
the 2015-2016 school year. Given the obvious challenges in developing
such a ratings system, why continue to go forward with the plan to
release a college ratings system before this next school year?
Answer. The Department is continuing its work on the college
ratings project, including providing new data about college performance
that will be helpful for students and families before the 2015-2016
school year. Throughout that process, we have worked to evaluate the
best ways to provide useful information to students and families that
can help inform their choices about college. We have held public
meetings and one-on-one sessions with thousands of stakeholders, and
received hundreds of written comments from student advocates, officials
from institutions, and other members of the higher education system. We
are paying very close attention to the diverse needs, resources, and
missions of institutions across the higher education system. The
Department is listening closely to these comments and suggestions, and
our final product will reflect the input of the higher education
community.
budget for college rating system
Question. How much funding has the Department spent on developing
the ratings system in previous years, and how much does it plan to
spend in fiscal years 2015 and 2016?
Answer. To date, the Department has spent $1.9 million on the
college ratings project. This includes approximately $85,000 on events
and outreach to the higher education community and others (e.g., the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) symposium hosted in
February 2014, and the open forums held around the country in 2013-
2014). This also includes $1.8 million spent by the Department for
contractor assistance on several components of the project including
Web site design. The total value of contractor assistance is $4,053,870
over 3 years. However, this amount would cover the cost of all core and
optional activities as proposed by the contractor. The Department is
currently working to determine which activities the contractor will
carry out. Additionally, the Department is continually assessing what
other costs, if any, would be needed in fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year
2016.
preschool development program
Question. The Department of Health and Human Services provides $8.6
billion for Head Start and approximately $5.3 billion, in discretionary
and mandatory funds, for the Child Care and Development Fund. States
spend another approximately $5.5 billion on State-funded preschool
programs. Given these other large Federal programs, and significant
State funding, what can be accomplished with a relatively new $250
million Preschool Development Grant program that provides competitive
grants to States to develop or expand preschool programs?
Answer. Despite the existing programs that provide child care and
pre-kindergarten programs for children, there is still tremendous unmet
need in this country for access to high-quality preschool. Parents know
and want what is best for their children, but there are simply not
enough affordable, high-quality slots for children to attend these
programs. Nationally, nearly 60 percent of our Nation's 4.1 million 4-
year olds don't attend any publicly-funded preschool program. In almost
every State, the unmet need for early learning is enormous. For
example, in Pennsylvania, 6,700 children are waiting for openings in
the State preschool program; in Colorado, districts report that over
8,000 eligible children cannot be served; and in Michigan, Governor
Snyder reported last year that 29,000 needy preschool age children
didn't have an opportunity to go to subsidized preschool.
The demand from parents is not just for more preschool options for
4-year olds--it's for high-quality early learning opportunities from
birth through age 5. That unmet need is not just in cities, but in
suburbs and rural communities all across the country. The number of
applications that the Department received from interested States speaks
to the need for additional funding for both preschool slots for
children and quality improvement efforts at the State level.
To further respond to this need, a key purpose of the Preschool
Development Grants program is to leverage improvements in the quality
of State early learning systems, including changes that can help
increase the effectiveness of the larger existing Federal investments
in early childhood programs.
plan for states when preschool development funds expire
Question. To the extent this program is funding slots for children
to attend preschool, what happens when this funding for States goes
away, as is intended?
Answer. The Department is committed to funding projects that will
be sustained beyond the grant period. Accordingly, we included in both
the Development and Expansion grant competitions a selection criterion
regarding the sustainability of the project and how the State will
ensure that it will maintain the number and percentage of children
served after the grant period ends. Furthermore, the Department expects
that the quality improvement efforts that States will undertake will
extend beyond the grant period and have a continuing positive impact on
State early learning systems and services to children and families.
coordination of early childhood education programs
Question. How do you ensure the Federal Government is supporting a
well-coordinated system of early childhood care and education, and not
duplicating efforts or creating a complicated system of overlapping
programs, eligibility standards, and reporting requirements?
Answer. We share your concern about the potential to duplicate
efforts, and our Preschool for All proposal is designed to reduce
duplication of Federal programs. For example, as more 4-year-olds are
served by Preschool Development Grants and Preschool for All programs,
we anticipate that Head Start centers will serve a larger share of
infants, toddlers, and 3-year-olds, thereby reducing any duplication in
programs. In addition, HHS is working to strengthen services to
children birth through age 3 through new investments and reforms in
Head Start. These joint efforts are essential to reaching our goal of
providing universal preschool for 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-
income families, while at the same time strengthening existing programs
across the continuum of early learning from birth through kindergarten.
title iv additional servicers
Question. Currently the Department is choosing to allocate 75
percent of new student loans to the four Title IV Additional Servicers
(TIVAS), and 25 percent to seven not-for profit servicers. Why create
this arbitrary distinction, and why not just allocate loans to all
servicers based on performance and capacity?
Answer. On January 1, 2015, we began providing allocations of new
borrower accounts to the Not-For-Project (NFP) servicers through the
Common Origination and Disbursement system. From that point, NFP
servicers have received 25 percent of all new borrower accounts. As the
allocation process is new to the NFPs, this percentage was established
to minimize risk to student and parent borrowers and allow time to
ensure that all the NFP servicers are fully able to meet all
requirements and expected service levels, including financial reporting
and reconciliation, prior to receiving larger volumes of new accounts.
We will re-examine this percentage for the allocation period beginning
in September 2015.
limited selection of student loan servicers
Question. Similarly, when a student consolidates their student
loans and they get to pick their loan servicer, why do they only get to
pick from the four TIVAS. Why not allow the student to pick from all
eleven servicers?
Answer. The responsibility for most elements of originating and
servicing new consolidation loans was competitively awarded to the four
Title IV Additional Servicers in fiscal year 2013, as part of the
transition from the expiring Common Services for Borrowers contract. As
this contractual arrangement is already in place and provides
sufficient capacity to provide the required services for all estimated
consolidation volume over that period, we do not plan to award
additional contracts to service new consolidations at this time. To do
so would incur additional expense, create additional risk, and add
operational complexity.
department of education marketing and advertising expenses
Question. Hardworking taxpayers deserve more transparency and less
over-reach from their Government especially when it comes to how
Washington spends their tax dollars. Please provide a year-by-year
summary of marketing and advertising expenses for the Department over
the last 3 fiscal years, including the primary programs involved in
such marketing activities and their primary objectives?
Answer. In fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the Department of Education
did not spend any funds on marketing and advertising activities. In
2014, the Department spent a total of $27,865: $15,996 to contract for
a marketing plan and campaign for a video series to help show teachers
and educators how the Department's initiatives are improving and
transforming classrooms across the country; and $12,898.76 to assist
the Department with radio interviews that would enable the Secretary to
share relevant success stories and highlight the local leadership that
is making reform happen in schools.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
explanation of impact aid level funding
Question. Mr. Secretary, in its fiscal year 2016 Budget Request,
the Administration proposes a $3.6 billion increase for the U.S.
Department of Education. Could you explain why Impact Aid was not
prioritized for an increase, especially given the strong Congressional
support for this important initiative? The Administration consistently
touts the importance of supporting military families and very rightly
so yet the most important education program that keeps the doors open
for many of these school districts is not prioritized for an increase
in this budget request.
Answer. The Department takes seriously its responsibility to
provide continuing support for the longstanding Impact Aid programs,
and our total request for fiscal year 2016 is nearly $1.3 billion, the
same as the fiscal year 2015 enacted level and an increase over the
$1.2 billion requested in the President's 2015 budget. In addition,
participating Impact Aid districts would receive an estimated $3.1
billion in Title I funding under our fiscal year 2016 request, an
increase of $220 million over the fiscal year 2015 level for those
districts.
college rating system applied to community colleges
Question. I have visited with the leaders of several colleges in my
State to get their insight on the Administration's effort to implement
a ``ratings'' system for institutions of higher education. These
leaders tell me they believe in quantitative measurements of
performance. In fact, some of these colleges have their own key
performance indicators that chart progress in areas such as graduation,
persistence, student success, and cost. And, assessment of these
indicators is a primary factor in how the job performance of these
Kansas college administrators is evaluated.
Using community colleges as an example, these schools are unique as
they reflect the demographic and economic conditions of the areas they
serve. Consequently, to apply a statewide or nationwide performance
metric regarding graduation, or persistence, to community colleges
invites very real discrepancies and inconsistencies between the
institutions' ratings. How is your Department taking these differences
between community colleges into account as it works on its ratings
system?
Answer. The Department is continuing its work on the college
ratings project, including providing new data about college performance
that will be helpful for students and families before the 2015-2016
school year. Throughout that process, we have been paying very close
attention to the diverse needs, resources, and missions of institutions
across the higher education system. We have held public meetings and
one-on-one sessions with thousands of stakeholders, and received
hundreds of written comments from student advocates, officials from
institutions, and other members of the higher education system. We are
listening closely to these comments and suggestions. Throughout the
process, we have been working to develop a system that will, in part,
recognize and reward institutions that serve disadvantaged students
well, providing an affordable college education that helps them pursue
their goals and find success.
community college graduation rates
Question. I have heard concerns from Kansas community colleges that
the Federal graduation rate significantly understates the actual
completion rate of their students. In part, this is because transfers
are counted as failures, even though we know that preparing these
students to study at a 4-year institution is central to their mission.
Community college graduation rates would dramatically increase if
transfers were included. Will the Department consider options to count
these transfers-out cases differently in its efforts to obtain data
regarding college completion rates?
Answer. The Department is very familiar with the concerns of
community colleges and other institutions with high levels of transfers
regarding the development and presentation of completion rates, and we
share those concerns. To that end, we are evaluating all possible
options for providing the most valuable information we can, with
appropriate context. That process includes evaluating ways to give
colleges credit for their students' success in transferring and
completing college.
The Department is also taking steps to improve the federally
reported graduation rate in other ways. For instance, many community
colleges serve students who are not enrolled on a first-time, full-time
basis; yet those students are not included in the cohort for the
Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS) graduation rates. To help
mitigate those exclusions, schools will begin reporting graduation
rates for their non-first-time (transfer) students and their part-time
students for the 2015-2016 academic year. The addition of those student
cohorts makes the IPEDS rates more inclusive and more representative of
many schools, including community colleges.
streamline compliance reports to reduce administrative burden
Question. The leaders of higher education institutions in my State
tell me they find themselves having to allocate more and more resources
to fulfilling compliance reports for State and Federal agencies. In
fact, one institution told me it has two full-time attorneys and a
paralegal on staff tasked to oversee these compliance efforts. Needless
to say, this ultimately impacts on schools' ability to deliver their
product, quality education and training, in the most efficient manner
possible. What are some ways that State and Federal agencies can work
together to utilize the same information gathering requests and
procedures? And, what ways can the Department streamline compliance
requests and reduce the administrative burden on these institutions?
Answer. Congress recognized the important role States play with
respect to institutions of higher education in passing the Higher
Education Act of 1965. Under the law, in order for an institution to
participate in Federal student aid programs, a State must authorize
such an institution located in the State to provide postsecondary
education, thereby ensuring that it helps to protect students in
accordance with the State's consumer protection laws. As a result of
this, and the fact that States differ in terms of how they oversee
postsecondary institutions in their States, what States require of
institutions varies. There are clear examples where State agencies and
the Federal Government work together to utilize the same information-
gathering requests. For example, the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA) is developed each year by the Department of
Education, which seeks input from State student aid agencies in
developing the questions that appear on the form. This is done for the
purpose of reducing the number of State financial aid forms that
otherwise might be required for students to complete, and for
institutions to process, in order to make decisions about how to
allocate State student aid. Recent innovations with respect to FAFSA
also serve to illustrate how the Department can streamline compliance
and administrative burden on institutions. For example, FSA and the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collaborated to create the IRS Data
Retrieval tool (DRT), which allows applicants to access and transfer
directly from the IRS the Federal tax data required to complete the
FAFSA. The tool saves time and increases the accuracy of the data
submitted. More than 65 percent of students and more than 50 percent of
parents with available data use the IRS DRT.
These improvements have not only reduced burden on FAFSA
applicants, but for institutions of higher education as well. As a
program integrity measure, institutions are required to verify about a
quarter of aid recipients at the institutions the information reported
by applicants on the FAFSA form. This verification requires applicants
to provide documentation to their institution such as copies of IRS tax
forms and other information to confirm the information reported on the
FAFSA. For applicants who use the DRT tool, institutions can be assured
that they have the most accurate financial data to calculate student
aid eligibility as it has come directly from the IRS, thereby
eliminating the effort associated with manually verifying a student's
and parents reported AGI, taxes paid, untaxed portion of pensions, IRA
deductions, tax exempt interest income and education tax credit data.
improve reporting requirements
Question. A consistent criticism of the Department of Education is
that it asks colleges and universities to respond quickly to the
Department's inquiries and demands, but can often take months, even
years, to issue its own reports and responses back to those colleges.
The result leads to schools sometimes facing surprising penalties. For
instance, in 2013, the Department fined an East Coast university for
violations that were found in an audit in 1996 and another university
for violations from a 1997 audit, a 17-year and 16-year time lag,
respectively. These are not isolated cases. Colleges throughout the
country can tell similar stories, not just on compliance interactions
with the Department, but also for approval of new programs. Since this
practice by the Department severely limits colleges' abilities to plan
and budget for the future and impedes their ability to seek out
innovative approaches, what is the Department doing to address these
challenges?
Answer. The cases involving violations dating back to 1996 and 1997
were unique circumstances that involved three interrelated cases
involving lengthy legal proceedings. The initial case was appealed to
the Secretary in 2000. As a result, the two cases listed above, which
were based on similar circumstances, were deferred awaiting outcome of
the case appealed to the Secretary, which wasn't resolved until 2013.
These types of extreme delays are quite rare. Some audit, program
review, and eligibility applications (to include approvals for new
programs) require extensive follow-up for additional documentation,
institutional responses to findings, or the need to obtain legal or
policy guidance. The Department recognizes the importance of timeliness
in responding to oversight and monitoring actions. We have been making
changes over the last 2 fiscal years to address some of the challenges
noted above: we recently consolidated our oversight functions of large
corporate institutions to provide a comprehensive monitoring approach,
and we centralized our response to student complaints regarding school
compliance issues to provide more timely responses. The Department is
committed to assessing and improving the timeliness of our monitoring
and compliance actions to better assist our participating institutions
and the students they serve.
teacher preparation regulations
Question. Of the more than 4,500 public comments submitted
regarding the Department's proposed teacher preparation regulations, I
understand that a vast majority were in opposition to the proposal. I
am concerned about these regulations because colleges in States like
Kansas could be placed a significant disadvantage. For my State, I am
concerned with the Department's assumption that all States and all
institutions have the same capacity for data collection. Similar to the
Department's college-ratings system proposal, these teacher preparation
regulations read like a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach that does not
reflect the true diversity of missions, approaches, and resources that
exists among American higher education. How can you assure me that the
teacher preparation regulation will not do major harm to effective,
good quality education programs, especially at smaller colleges in
States like Kansas?
Answer. There was a great degree of public interest in our proposed
regulations on this issue and the Department is still in the process of
reviewing the comments we received. As such, we cannot, at this time,
provide a comprehensive response to your question. However, the
Department takes the issues you raise very seriously. We are carefully
considering how to ensure States have significant flexibility in
designing their systems and evaluating program performance, while also
offering transparency into the performance of teacher preparation
programs. Great teachers matter enormously to the learning and to the
lives of children, and we are dedicated to ensuring the final
regulations reward effective programs and facilitate continuous
improvement.
support for entrepreneurship for students
Question. As we think about the current fiscal environment, one way
we can help reduce the Federal deficit is to grow the economy. To do
this, I have advocated for the need to strengthen our support of
entrepreneurs given that new businesses account for the creation of an
average of 3 million jobs each year. Support for entrepreneurship
begins with developing our next generation of American talent and
independent thinkers. What specific activities and programs at the
Department focus on helping students attain the skills necessary to
become entrepreneurs and compete in a global economy?
Answer. The Administration's longstanding emphasis on State-
developed college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments
has been driven, in large part, by the recognition that we need to
prepare all students to compete successfully in a global economy
characterized by near-constant change and innovation. The higher order
thinking skills, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, that
are reflected in college- and career-ready standards are exactly the
skills essential for entrepreneurship. While the Department does not
administer any programs or activities focused solely on
entrepreneurship, our $125 million Next Generation High Schools
proposal would support the kind of rigorous, engaging, and relevant
education including work-based learning and other career-related
experiences that can give students the skills and aptitudes needed for
successful entrepreneurship. Also, the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers program has supported many locally directed entrepreneurship
projects over the years that have involved such activities as writing
and presenting a business plan, identifying sources of funding,
advertising, and learning how to manage money. For example, States have
used 21st Century Community Learning Centers funds to make grants to
support the Young Entrepreneurs Academy sponsored by the Boys and Girls
Club.
trio competitions
Question. In fiscal year 2015, the Department mishandled the TRIO
Student Support Services competition. This included a late release of
the initial grant application, followed by a re-issued application that
prioritized experimental competitive preferences over actual student
needs. Ultimately, this Committee along with our counterpart in the
House included language to the fiscal year 2015 Omnibus Appropriations
bill to improve timely handling of the competition. What assurances can
you give me that the Department will meet the statutorily established
deadline of August 10, 2015, for delivering notification of the results
of the Student Support Services grant competition? Additionally, how
will the Department avoid similar problems in the upcoming competitions
for TRIO's Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers during
fiscal year 2016?
Answer. We are on track to make all Student Support Services (SSS)
awards by August 10, 2015. The Department received over 1,800
applications for SSS grants in the fiscal year 2015 competition. We are
finalizing the peer review process and expect to make the first slate
of SSS awards by July 2015. We will then undertake the statutorily-
required second review process and expect to make awards from the
corresponding second slate by August 10, 2015.
We acknowledge that our handling of this competition, including
issues related to both timing and communication, should have been
better executed. We are committed to addressing and resolving those
issues in advance of the Talent Search and Educational Opportunity
Centers competitions in fiscal year 2016.
We are very excited about the substance of the SSS competition,
which offered competitive preference priority points to applicants
proposing projects designed to implement evidence-based strategies.
Specifically, applicants could earn one additional point for providing
individualized counseling, an activity explicitly authorized in the
statute; and two additional points if that individualized counseling
strategy was supported by quality research. Additionally, applicants
could earn one additional point for proposing strategies to improve
students' non-cognitive skills and behaviors (such as perseverance or
academic mindset), and an additional two points for a non-cognitive
strategy that was supported by evidence. In order to maximize the
benefits for students of Federal dollars, the Department believes it is
essential to continue encouraging the adoption of evidence-based
strategies throughout our programs.
individuals with disabilites education act funding
Question. I understand that the Administration requests a slight
increase for IDEA funding for fiscal year 2016, and has prioritized
some formula grant funding over competitive grants, as compared to
previous budget submissions. However, why not place a greater emphasis
on IDEA support given the enormous gap in the Federal commitment? Had
funding for formula programs such as IDEA been a priority in the last 6
years, do you think we would be in the position we are today shifting
such a huge shortfall to the doorsteps of States and school districts
across the country?
Answer. We recognize the importance of Federal funds in assisting
States in providing a free appropriate public education to children
with disabilities. The record demonstrates the Administration's
commitment to providing formula funds to States and school districts to
support special education and related to services to children with
disabilities. For example, over the last 5 years, the Administration
has consistently requested funding levels for the Grants to States
program that exceeded the amount appropriated by Congress. In fact, the
amount provided for Grants to States for fiscal year 2015 is $80
million less than what was appropriated in fiscal year 2012. The fiscal
year 2016 request demonstrates the Administration's continuing support
for States and local school districts working to improve the
educational and developmental results of children with disabilities
across this Nation.
We have spent a lot of time thinking about how, given limited
resources, we can best support professionals in the field, and we
believe that our budget request reflects the best way to do that. We
know that early intervention services and early childhood education are
critically important to getting kids on the right path, so we've
requested funds to support those efforts, not only through IDEA
programs, but also through Preschool Development Grants and Preschool
for All. Our 2016 request increases Preschool Development Grants
funding by $500 million, for a total of $750 million. Those funds will
help lay the groundwork to ensure that more States are ready to
participate in the Preschool for All program, a 10-year, $75 billion
mandatory investment that establishes a Federal-State partnership to
provide all low- and moderate-income 4-year-olds with high-quality
preschool. These programs, in supporting high quality early learning
for all students, will also increase the number of inclusive preschool
settings for children with disabilities.
While State economies are improving, we recognize that some
districts still face resource challenges. That is why the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has increased its focus
on helping people do more with the resources that they do have. Under
the Department's new Results Driven Accountability framework, we're
supporting States in identifying high leverage areas of need and
focusing their work to address gaps in performance. In shifting from a
focus on compliance to one based on results, we hope to ensure that
States and districts can more effectively prioritize their efforts and
improve results for children with disabilities, while doing both more
efficiently.
accounting principles
Question. I understand that the Department's Financial
Responsibility Standards were designed to provide a measurement of
colleges' fiscal health. However, there are at least seven components
of the these standards where the Department uses a methodology that is
not compliant with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles nor
compliant with even the Department's current regulations in other
areas. I am concerned that all seven of these components disparately
impact smaller non-profit colleges. Why not use the same accounting
principles that the institutions themselves are expected to follow and
respect?
Answer. The Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended, regulations
require the institutions to submit the financial statements based on
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and prepared per
Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). In addition, the HEA
regulations govern the composite score calculation, and these
regulations provide for adjustments to certain financial statement
amounts. For example, intangible assets, and unsecured related party
receivables are removed from total assets in the composite score
calculation. Another example is that unrestricted revenues are used,
instead of total revenues, when calculating the composite score for
non-profit institutions. These examples are not all inconclusive. The
purpose of the composite score adjustments is to assess the risk
associated with each institution's financial and administrative
capability to use HEA Title IV funds. GAAP and GAAS do not assess such
risk exposure or adversity that may exist in the various financial
statement amounts.
The `strength factor scores' used in the composite score
methodology provide for distinctions among different school sizes, to
make the resulting composite score reflect more fairly the actual
financial health of each institution.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
supporting effective educator development grants
Question. Secretary Duncan, in Mississippi, the Supporting
Effective Educator Development grant program has been used to train
hundreds of teachers over the past several years. The positive impact
that these teachers are having on Mississippi children is impressive to
me. Can you speak to the importance of setting aside a percentage of
funds to support evidence-based models that recruit and prepare
teachers and principals to be successful in classrooms and communities
across the country?
Answer. We are committed to continuing to make Supporting Effective
Educator Development (SEED) grants to support projects with evidence of
effectiveness that recruit, select, and prepare or provide professional
development activities for teachers or principals. The Administration's
budget request for fiscal year 2016 would more than double support for
the SEED program, increasing funding from $54.0 million to $117.5
million. Moreover, the Department firmly believes that the strongest
available evidence should inform educational funding and policy
decisions. Creating a larger pool of evidence-based activities will
provide more opportunities to scale up projects that have a history of
success and to improve educational outcomes for more students.
ready-to-learn programs
Question. Secretary Duncan, in this day and age, children are
spending more and more time watching television and using digital
media. Children cannot be in school 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but
that does not mean that we should not try to provide educational
opportunities for them outside of the classroom. It is my understanding
that the Ready-to-Learn program's grantees have been able to
demonstrate positive and statistically significant gains in math or
literacy skills for children who access their educational material. Can
you speak to the positive impact that effective educational programming
can have on student academic achievement?
Answer. The Department is interested in supporting the development
of transmedia products, including applications and online educational
games, which demonstrate positive and statistically significant gains
in math or literacy skills. The Ready-to-Learn Television (RTL) program
established a performance measure to capture this information. To date,
the Department has received the results of five of the seven studies
grantees planned to conduct and has found that all of the studies
demonstrate positive and statistically significant gains in math or
literacy skills when RTL-funded properties are compared to similar non-
RTL-funded properties.
ability-to-benefit provision
Question. Secretary Duncan, we have had a lot of students in
Mississippi who have been negatively affected by the elimination of
both the ``ability-to-benefit'' and ``year-round'' provisions that had
been included in the Pell Grant program until fiscal year 2012. In
fiscal year 2015, we were able to partially reinstate the ``ability-to-
benefit'' provision in a very limited way but the Department has not
released guidelines on the implementation of the change. Can you please
provide this Committee with an update on the status of the
implementation of the change set forth in the fiscal year 2015 Omnibus
in relation to the ``ability-to-benefit'' provision in the Pell Grant
program?
Answer. The Department is finalizing a Dear Colleague Letter that
will clarify changes made by the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2015 to the Title IV eligibility of students who
are not high school graduates. We expect this guidance to be released
in the next weeks, and it will allow schools to implement the relevant
changes immediately.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
institutional reporting requirements compliance calendar
Question. The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 included a
provision requiring the Secretary of Education to issue a compliance
calendar indicating all institutional reporting requirements and when
each was due. It is now 2015 and the Department has failed to issue
this calendar. Are you prepared to complete this task and when exactly
can we expect the compliance calendar to be issued?
Answer. An electronic announcement was issued February 20, 2015,
indicating that the compliance calendar was included in the 2014-2015
Federal Student Aid Handbook Appendix F. The announcement is available
at: http://ifap.ed.gov/eannouncements/
022015AppendixFInstRptgDisclosureRequireFedStudentAssist
Prgms1415FSAHdbk.html and the Handbook Appendix can be found at http://
ifap.ed.gov/fsahandbook/1415FSAHbkAppendices.html.
implementating recommendations of the higher education task force
Question. I appreciate knowing that the Department has begun
reviewing the Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education's
report Recalibrating Regulation of Colleges and Universities. The
report identifies several items which the Department may implement or
improve on its own and in response today Mr. Secretary, you indicated
that staff have begun looking at these items. Of those identified,
which specific items is the Department focused on changing and has a
timeframe been established for implementation of the Department's
proposed changes?
Answer. The Department is examining the Task Force's recommendation
concerning implementation of a performance-based approach in the
financial responsibility standards regulations. We are also looking to
see how we can simplify the verification process. We do not have
specific timeframes for this work.
audit process of private collection agencies
Question. The Department of Education recently decided not to
continue the contracts for five private collection agencies that assist
borrowers who have defaulted on their Federal student loans. Please
outline the process the Department used to determine that it would not
be continuing these contracts, including the process it followed when
conducting the audit the Department cited when taking this action. In
describing the audit process, please provide information including, but
not limited to: (1) the aggregate numbers of phone calls reviewed,
calls flagged, and calls with errors for each collection agency; and
(2) a description of all measures taken to ensure that the call sample
reviewed for each collection agency was representative of that agency's
performance.
Answer. The Department conducted a focused review of the 22 private
collection agencies (PCAs) and identified 5 that had made misstatements
to borrowers at an unacceptably high rate. In particular, the
Department found that these five PCAs gave borrowers inaccurate
information about the benefits of the Department's loan rehabilitation
program, including misleading information about the benefits to the
borrowers' credit report and about the waiver of certain collection
fees. These misstatements violated Federal consumer protection laws.
Based on the review, the Department declined to extend the contracts of
the five PCAs that had made misstatements to borrowers at an
unacceptably high rate. As you note, the Department did not terminate
these contracts. The contracts were expiring by their own terms and the
Department has allowed them to expire, declining to give those PCAs
award terms that could have extended the contracts.
transferring of borrower's accounts to new private collection agencies
Question. As a result of the Department's decision not to continue
contracts with some private collection agencies, some borrower accounts
are being reassigned to other agencies. Please describe the process
that the Department is following to transfer borrower accounts to new
private collection agencies, including (1) any notice provided to
affected borrowers, and (2) all measures that the Department is taking
to ensure that each collection agency has the capacity to handle any
increase in the volume of work without sacrificing performance or
compliance with program requirements. In addition, please describe the
steps that the Department is taking to update the guidance it provides
to collection agencies regarding the issues for which it found
compliance errors in its recent audit.
Answer. In addition to winding down contracts of the PCAs that had
the highest rates of inaccuracy, the Department is working to ensure
that the remaining PCAs implement effective corrective actions and
expand monitoring for these types of issues to ensure borrowers are
getting effective and accurate information. Accounts that were in
active repayment at the time the PCA contracts were allowed to expire
will remain at that PCA in order to avoid disruption for the borrower.
The rest of the accounts are being removed on a scheduled basis, in
stages over time. Based upon our planning efforts, including
communication with our PCAs, we do not anticipate that any of the
collection agencies will be unable to handle the assigned account
volumes.
addressing students with dyslexia
Question. Several Senators are concerned with various subgroups of
students. One prevalent group is students with dyslexia. Please inform
the Committee of programs within the Department that specifically
address or focus on students with dyslexia. Please provide any specific
information on on-going or recently completed research projects that
have involved dyslexia and Department programs solely or primarily
focused on dyslexia.
Answer. As you are aware, dyslexia is a type of learning disability
characterized by difficulties with specific language skills,
particularly reading and spelling. In addition, difficulties with other
language-related skills, such as writing, listening and speaking, may
be present. The Department does not generally fund programs that are
focused on a specific disability, except in the case of low incidence
disabilities required by law. However, the Department does support both
research under the Institute of Education Sciences and a number of
grant programs under the Offices of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services and Elementary and Secondary Education that
benefit students with dyslexia and other types of learning
disabilities. For example, the National Center for Special Education
Research and the National Center for Education Research in the
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) support research related to
improving literacy achievement. In addition, both the Office of Special
Education Programs and the Offices of Elementary and Secondary
Education and Innovation and Improvement support grant programs that
benefit this population. Information about relevant research
investments and grant programs funded through the Department is
provided below.
institute of education sciences programs that address dyslexia
The National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) and the
National Center for Education Research (NCER) in IES support research
related to improving literacy achievement. NCSER's programs of research
focus on improving reading, writing, and language skills of students
with or at risk for disabilities. NCER focuses on achievement more
broadly to improve educational outcomes for all students; however, its
work can include improving outcomes for struggling readers and those at
risk for academic failure.
Together the IES Research Centers support research designed to
develop and rigorously evaluate interventions to improve outcomes for
children with or at risk for reading disabilities, to prevent reading
disabilities from emerging, and to close the reading performance gaps
between children with reading disabilities and their peers. They also
fund research related to the development of valid and reliable
assessments to identify children with reading disabilities, monitor
progress, guide instructional decisions, and provide accommodations for
large-scale assessments.
The Centers continue to provide significant investment in examining
cognitive and linguistic processes of reading for children with
disabilities, as well as typically developing children. Finally, the
Centers are interested in effective approaches to professional
development for general and special education teachers and related
services providers, such as speech language pathologists, who often
provide reading and language instruction to children with or at risk
for reading disabilities. The research supported across the two Centers
covers infants with or at risk for disabilities to adult learners who
have been identified as having disabilities or are struggling readers.
It should be noted that the researchers supported by the two
Centers typically do not define their sample as having dyslexia;
instead, they prefer to define their sample more broadly as having or
being at risk for reading disabilities. That being said, research
projects supported by the two Centers address the language and visual
processing difficulties that individuals with dyslexia present. For
example, Dr. Nickola Nelson at Western Michigan University is
completing validation research on the Test of Integrated Language and
Literacy Skills to develop profiles of students' spoken and written
language and literacy strengths and weaknesses. The measure will assess
vocabulary skills, phonemic awareness, decoding, listening and reading
comprehension, and writing. Dr. Beth Calhoon at the University of
Miami, in conjunction with Lehigh University, is conducting a
randomized controlled trial designed to explore the most effective and
efficient means to develop reading skills of middle school students
with reading disabilities. The team is examining the efficacy of two
versions of a fully developed intervention. Both versions address
deficits in phonological decoding, spelling, fluency, and comprehension
skills. However, they differ in the amount of allotted instructional
time devoted to phonological decoding or comprehension.
In 2014, IES released a synthesis of the first 8 years of research
supported by both Centers (see: http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20143000/
pdf/20143000.pdf). The synthesis focused on ways to prevent and
remediate reading difficulties in students with or at risk for
disabilities and described the Centers' research contributions related
to assessment, cognitive and linguistic processes of reading, effective
interventions, and teacher professional development. Major
contributions described in the synthesis are provided below.
--Screening all students' reading skills (i.e., universal screening)
at the beginning of the school year, especially in the early
grades, after which using assessments to monitor their progress
can be a valid and efficient way to: (1) identify children who
are at risk for poor reading outcomes and (2) guide the
decisionmaking process for determining whether an intervention
is improving a student's reading skills.
--Increasing the intensity of interventions in kindergarten and first
grade can prevent reading difficulties for many students.
--Fluency interventions that focus on repeated reading of text,
opportunities to practice reading in the classroom, and reading
a range of texts can generally improve students' fluency and
comprehension.
--Language outcomes for many preschool children at risk for language
disabilities can improve if they are provided extensive
opportunities to hear and use complex oral language.
--Peer-assisted or cooperative learning is a promising method to
increase the intensity of instruction for students and
improving their reading outcomes.
--Interventions that are differentiated to target an individual
student's profile of component skills are effective in
improving students' reading development.
--Developing teachers' specialized knowledge and supporting
consistent long-term implementation of evidence-based
instructional practices can improve delivery of complex,
evidence-based instruction and interventions.
--Combining multiple professional development strategies, including
coaching, linking student assessment data to instruction, using
technology, and participating in communities of practice, can
support teachers' learning and implementation of research-based
reading instruction.
The Centers' research support has extended our knowledge about
helping children with or at risk for reading disabilities. Through this
research, we have learned more about how to prevent reading
difficulties through valid and reliable assessments and have developed
and tested interventions that are targeted, intensive, and based on
rigorous evaluations so that schools can support learning to read for
all students. In addition, we are gaining a better understanding of the
components of reading comprehension and how underlying cognitive and
linguistic processes operate in a coordinated fashion to support
reading. This research has also helped to illuminate how children bring
different and developing profiles of skills to the classroom with
implications for assessment and instruction. Finally, the research has
helped to provide new knowledge on ways to bring research-based
assessment and instructional practices into the classroom by
identifying and testing ways to improve the effectiveness of teachers
and their practice.
IES' Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) program supports
SEAs in developing, expanding, or improving data systems to efficiently
and accurately manage, analyze, disaggregate, and use individual
student data, consistent with the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act. To date, 47 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands have received awards. A number of States have used SLDS
funds to develop indicators in their data systems for students with
learning disabilities. Under the 2015 SLDS grant competition, these
efforts will be further supported with States being encouraged to apply
for funds to carry out projects to address up to two of the following
data use priorities: (1) Financial Equity and Return on Investment; (2)
Educator Talent Management; (3) Early Learning; (4) College and Career;
(5) Evaluation and Research, and; (6) Instructional Support. Under any
of these priorities, States would be able to enhance their ability to
leverage their SLDS to address the needs of students with learning
disabilities.
office of special education programs that address dyslexia
The vast majority of Federal funding for children with disabilities
is provided through the Special Education Grants to States program,
which received nearly $11.5 billion in fiscal year 2015. The Grants to
States program, authorized under Part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), assists States in covering the
excess costs associated with providing special education and related
services to children with disabilities.
In 2013, approximately 39.5 percent (2.3 million) of children with
disabilities, ages 6 through 21, receiving special education and
related services under the Grants to States program were identified as
having a specific learning disability (SLD). Under Part B program
regulations, a specific learning disability means a disorder in one or
more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or
in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the
imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do
mathematical calculations. States annually report the number of
students in the SLD category that receive services under IDEA Part B;
but are not required to report data on subtypes within the SLD
category. However, we are aware that a large percentage of students
identified under the SLD category demonstrate deficits in reading and
related areas of language, which can include dyslexia.
In addition to formula grant funding, OSEP administers
discretionary grant programs under Part D of the IDEA that support
children with disabilities. Projects awarded under these programs help
to improve outcomes for children with disabilities primarily through
technical assistance, personnel preparation and professional
development, and model demonstrations. These investments are not
targeted to specific disability categories (with the exception of deaf
and deaf/blind which are congressionally-mandated). However, since
students identified as SLD, including those with dyslexia, represent
such a high percentage of children served under IDEA, technical
assistance and training in evidence-based interventions that address
the needs of SLD students are typically a major focus of projects.
Below is a list of current OSEP investments that are of benefit to
students with SLD, including those with dyslexia.
Personnel Preparation Grants: $23.25 million total for fiscal years
2011-2014
During fiscal years 2011-2014, 21 grants were awarded to
institutions of higher education (IHEs) for teacher, leader, and
related-services preparation that will benefit students with dyslexia.
In addition to training teachers to use evidence-based practices, some
of these projects train speech/language pathologists to meet the
language needs of students with disabilities, including those with
dyslexia.
2014
--State University of NY: NY
--Clemson University: SC
--Florida State University: FL
--Vanderbilt University: TN
--University of Cincinnati: OH
--Washington University: MO
--University of Tennessee: TN
--Jackson State University: FL
2013
--Miami-Dade College: FL
--Washington University: MO
--Florida State University: FL
--Vanderbilt University: TN
2012
--University of Washington: WA
--University of Texas: TX
2011
--University of Connecticut: CT
--Teachers College, Columbia U.: NY
--University of Missouri: MO
--University of Georgia: GA
--University of Oregon: OR
--California Lutheran University: CA
--Syracuse University: NY
State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG): $47 million, 5-year grants,
three cohorts--fiscal years 2010-2015, fiscal years 2011-2016,
and fiscal years 2012-2017
Eight grants were awarded from fiscal year 2010-2012 to increase
the number of trained teachers that provide direct literacy services to
students with disabilities, including students with dyslexia. The funds
are used for professional development to train and prepare teachers and
speech language pathologists as well as doctoral-level training. The
doctoral graduates generally become university faculty who train more
teachers as well as conduct research.
2010
--North Carolina Department of Education
2011
--Connecticut Department of Education
2012
--Virginia Department of Education
--Michigan Department of Education
--New Hampshire Department of Education
--Kentucky Department of Education
--Vermont Department of Education
--California Department of Education
Adolescent Literacy Model Demonstration grants: $4.8 million total for
5 years to be awarded in fiscal year 2015
The Department plans to award three cooperative agreements to
establish and operate model demonstration projects that are designed to
improve the literacy of adolescents with disabilities in middle and
high school grades. These models must be designed to implement
evidence-based adolescent literacy interventions for improving reading,
and locating, understanding, interpreting, evaluating, and using
written information across multiple content areas. The deadline for
submitting applications under this grant competition was May 4, 2015,
and grants are expected to be awarded this summer.
BOOKSHARE for Education: $40 million for fiscal years 2007-2017
This grant serves students in all 50 States, providing accessible
materials to children with disabilities. Students with dyslexia who are
certified as ``Print Disabled'' are eligible for free digitalized
instructional materials that are text to speech that can assist
students with reading challenges.
National Center on Intensive Interventions (NCII): $10.4 million for
fiscal years 2012-2016
NCII is charged with providing technical assistance to identify
interventions that are most effective for students who do not respond
to Tier 2 instruction under a multi-tiered system of support. This
Center, which works intensively in RI, MI, MN, and MO, addresses both
academic and behavioral interventions. Because reading is a significant
focus of the academic portion of the Center's scope of work, these
interventions should benefit students with dyslexia. In addition to the
intensive technical assistance provided to RI, MI, MN and MO, the
Center reaches students across the country through the provision of
general technical assistance (e.g., Web postings, product/curriculum
review, webinars) and targeted technical assistance (e.g., communities
of practice comprised of multiple States focusing on a particular topic
such as literacy).
SWIFT (Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation): $25 million
for fiscal years 2013-2017
SWIFT provides intensive technical assistance to SEAs in five
States (MD, MS, VT, NH, OR), and to LEAs and schools within those
States, to implement inclusive school reform by aligning resources to
support the needs of all students in safe, inclusive environments. They
also provide general technical assistance, such as resource guides and
best practices, which are posted online and accessible to all States.
SWIFT supports multi-tiered systems of support to more effectively
deliver evidence-based instruction in inclusive settings. Reading is
one of the content areas.
IRIS: $1.5 million per year for fiscal year 2013-2017
IRIS provides training modules (see: http://
iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/iris-resource-locator/) and other
information for free to States, IHEs, school districts, and schools on
evidence-based reading instruction, which are used to help teachers
assist all children with specific learning disabilities, including
children with dyslexia. These include:
--9 reading instruction modules
--2 reading case studies
--29 information briefs
--4 interviews related to reading instruction
--8 video vignettes related to reading instruction
In addition, IRIS posts on its Web site a fact sheet prepared by
the Dyslexia Association that includes information on causes,
diagnoses, and rights for people with dyslexia.
Center on Technology & Disability: $6 million total for 5 years; fiscal
years 2014-2018
The Center on Technology & Disability housed at Vanderbilt
University provides technology solutions to support evidence-based
instruction. States, districts, schools, faculty, and students can
access the content for free.
--Partners include FHI 360, American Institutes for Research, Parent
Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights or PACER Center, and
Adirondack Accessibility.
--The Center is designed to increase the capacity of families and
providers to advocate for, acquire, and implement effective
assistive and instructional technology (AT/IT) practices,
devices, and services.
--The Center is a strong advocate for universally designed
instruction. Some Universal Design for Learning features may
support better outcomes for students with dyslexia.
--One of the products housed on their Web site is ``The CAST
Universal Design for Learning Book Builder''. This is a program
that operates on the assumption that all children have a unique
style of learning and that their brains process information
differently. This program allows digital books to be created in
individualized ways to accommodate different ways of reading
and learning.
Results Driven Accountability (RDA)
Since 1975, ED's accountability efforts focused on States'
compliance with IDEA program requirements. In the 2004 IDEA
reauthorization, Congress shifted the focus to improving educational
results and functional outcomes for children. To meet our obligation to
focus on outcomes, in 2012 the Department began to develop RDA for
making Sec. 616 State determinations. Many States* identified Reading/
English Language Arts (ELA) as their area of focus for RDA. States were
required to submit Phase I of a comprehensive State Systemic
Improvement Plan (SSIP) on April 1, 2015, which included an extensive
data analysis leading to selection of an educational outcome for
targeted improvement. Those States which have chosen to focus on
improving Reading/ELA performance for children with disabilities,
including children with dyslexia, will submit Phase II of the SSIP in
February 2016, detailing the activities the State will implement to
achieve the desired result.
*States that identified Reading/ELA include: AR, AS, AZ, CNMI, CO,
CT, DE, FSM, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MI, MS, NE, NV, NM, NY,
OH, OK, OR, Palau, SC, SD, TN, TX, VI, WA, WI, WY
office of elementary and secondary education and office of innovation
and improvement programs that address dyslexia
These offices administer programs authorized under Titles I, II,
and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Funding
provided to States under Title I support the efforts of LEAs and
schools serving large numbers of children from low-income families to
help ensure that all children meet challenging State academic
standards. Under the Title I, Part A, the Department does not direct
the use of funds toward certain programs or services. However, if a
student with dyslexia is a low- achieving student in a targeted
assistance school, ESEA funds could be used to provide direct
supplemental services to the student, including services for needs
arising from dyslexia. In a schoolwide program, if the school needs-
assessment indicated that services or programs for students that have
dyslexia are needed to improve the overall academic achievement of the
students at the school, then the school could use Title I funds for
these services.
States, school districts, and eligible partnerships use Title II,
Part A program funds to develop and support a high-quality teaching
force through a broad range of evidence-based activities, which may
include incentives and support for recruiting, training, and retaining
highly qualified teachers of students with disabilities and teaching
specialists in core academic subjects who can provide individualized
instruction to students with special needs.
In addition, a number of ED programs, including those administered
under Titles I, II, and III, help support the integration of
educational technology into teaching and learning. The Department has
pointed out in guidance that digital learning can open up new avenues
for students with blindness, dyslexia, or other print disabilities to
access educational content. In accordance with Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, grant recipients must ensure that all
digital learning opportunities are fully accessible.
Striving Readers
These grants provide funding to SEAs, which must make subgrants to
LEAs and early learning providers to improve the language and literacy
development of disadvantaged students, a category that includes
students with disabilities and, by extension, those with dyslexia. The
needs of disadvantaged students, which could include students with
dyslexia, must be included in the project design.
Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL)
The IAL program supports high-quality programs designed to develop
and improve literacy skills for children and students from birth
through 12th grade in high-need LEAs and schools by using school
libraries as partners to improve literacy, distribute free books to
children, including students with disabilities (including dyslexia) and
their families, and offer high-quality literacy activities. However,
the focus of the IAL program is on literacy through libraries, not on
specific interventions, such as those for dyslexia.
Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP)
The TQP program, authorized under Title II of the Higher Education
Act, as amended (HEA), supports partnerships between universities and
high-need school districts that will recruit, train and support new
teachers and improve student achievement. We have many TQP grantees
that use their funds to prepare teachers to work with students with
disabilities broadly. For example, several grantees are preparing
teacher residents in special education, and others are offering dual
certifications such as Science-Students with Disabilities, and Early
Childhood Education and Teacher of Students with Disabilities. Teacher
candidates in many TQP programs are learning to select and integrate
assistive technologies in the support of students with disabilities
both for individual classroom use and in the collaborative development
of Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). These technologies include
devices such as audio books, including for students with dyslexia,
alternative keyboards for students with learning or physical
disabilities related to writing, and free-form database software to
help students with memory and organizational difficulties.
Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF)
The TIF program, authorized under the Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-149), supports efforts to develop and
implement performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems
in high-need schools. Grantees are using funds for a variety of
activities to effectively enhance student achievement so that high-need
students graduate from high school fully prepared for college success.
For example, grant funds are being used to improve administrator,
teacher and counselor effectiveness, including effectiveness of special
education teachers.
Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED)
The Department is authorized to award grants for this competition
under Division F, Title III of the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2012. The primary focus of the SEED program is to
train teachers or principals to work in schools with concentrations of
high-need students, including students with disabilities. In the fiscal
year 2015 SEED competition, applicants will receive competitive
preference if they propose to train teachers or principals to work
specifically with high-need students, including students with
disabilities. Additionally, there are multiple current SEED grantees
whose projects are focused on providing professional development to
teachers to improve their ability to teach writing and literacy skills.
This focus would allow those teachers to better address the needs of
students with dyslexia.
Full Service Community Schools
These grants provide funding to school districts or a non-profit in
conjunction with a school district to establish wrap around services
which include opportunities to assess student learning issues
(including dyslexia) and health needs. Based on need, required
interventions are provided to students, including support for
interventions to address dyslexia.
Promise Neighborhoods
These grants provide funding to non-profit, community-wide partners
in collaboration with school districts to improve the educational
opportunities for students and families. Diagnostic work, including
identification of dyslexia, can be a component of the program. For
example, work being done by Northside Achievement Zone matches academic
navigators to the needs of students and families. Students and parents
with identified health needs are supported with counseling from partner
organizations. This helps students to remain in high-quality academic
programs and helps parents to stabilize their household.
Race to the Top-District (RTT-D)
The Race to the Top-District (RTT-D) program supports local
education agencies in efforts to personalize education for all
students. While the program funds are not specifically targeted to
students with disabilities, the program prioritizes the strategies,
structures and systems needed to support student-focused approaches to
teaching and learning that promote excellence and equity for all
students. RTT-D grantees are equipping teachers to use a range of
collaborative tools and strategies, such as online learning platforms,
computers, mobile devices and learning algorithms that deliver
instruction and just-in-time intervention tailored to the individual
learning needs and goals of each student, with the aim of preparing all
students to graduate college- and career-ready.
Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC)
RTT-ELC funds support States in increasing the quality of the
programs serving children from birth to age 5. States could choose to
use funds, for example, to increase the quality of early learning
programs which may serve children with dyslexia. Additionally, States
could choose to use funds to provide professional development to early
childhood educators on addressing the needs of children with dyslexia,
share materials and make referrals to parents of children with
dyslexia, develop assessments that meet the needs of children with
dyslexia, and provide screenings for children with dyslexia.
Preschool Development Grants (PDG)
States who were awarded the grants must ensure quality preschool
programs that address the multiple domains of school readiness
including language and literacy development. States must also ensure
screening and appropriately identifying children with disabilities.
States must provide for full inclusion of children with disabilities in
the preschool classes, and ensure that the percentage of children with
disabilities served in the programs is not less than either the
percentage of 3-year-old children served statewide through part B,
section 619 of IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), or the current national
average, whichever is greater.
technical assistance addressing dyslexia
Question. Please list the number of times over the past several
years that the Department has provided technical assistance regarding
dyslexia to schools and an estimate of the percentage of those calls in
relation to other technical assistance calls received by the
Department.
Answer. The Department receives a wide variety of technical
assistance requests each year related to the education of children with
disabilities. Many of the technical requests received by the Department
are related to the implementation of IDEA while others are more
specifically related to the provision of services to children with
disabilities. These requests generally relate to learning issues (e.g.,
reading), developmental issues (e.g., early childhood language
development) or school climate issue (e.g., schoolwide behavior
systems). Additionally, the various technical assistance centers
supported by the Department field hundreds of TA requests each year.
When the Department receives a request for technical assistance,
including best practices for SLDs, the Department generally directs the
request to one of the technical assistance providers within OSEP's
Technical Assistance and Dissemination network whose scope of work is
consistent with the request. Because of the varied scope and nature of
all of these requests, the Department does not collect data in such a
way as to disaggregate technical assistance requests by disability
category, or a subtype of a disability category such as dyslexia.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator James Lankford
costs associated with implementation of college rating system
Question. The Department of Education recently proposed significant
new areas of responsibility: a proposed college ratings system and
gainful employment regulations. However, your budget submission does
not specify how much these complex new systems will cost to implement
and sustain. I respectfully request that you provide the subcommittee:
the program name and funding level within each relative program at the
Department of Education to develop the college rating concept to date
and how much total money the Department has spent on the development of
the college ratings, including legal costs and hourly cost of employee
or contractor time. Please also include an itemized budget estimate of
both the number of FTEs, anticipated legal costs, and money needed to
sustain these two systems over the next 2, 5 and 10 fiscal years. If a
contractor has been or is in the process of being hired to study or
develop any aspect of a college rating system, please list the
contractor name and the dollar amount of the contract agreement.
Answer. To date, the Department has spent $1.9 million on the
college ratings project. This includes approximately $85,000 on events
and outreach to the higher education community and others (e.g., the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) symposium hosted in
February 2014, and the open forums held around in the country in 2013-
2014). This also includes $1.8 million spent by the Department for
contractor assistance on several components of the project including
Web site design. The total value of contractor assistance is $4,053,870
over 3 years. However, this amount would cover the cost of all core and
optional activities as proposed by the contractor. The Department is
currently working to determine which activities the contractor will
carry out. Additionally, the Department is continually assessing what
other costs, if any, would be needed in fiscal year 2015 or fiscal year
2016.
It is important to note that the Department does not keep track of
the time and portion of an employee's time that is spent on specific
projects or assignments. As such, the Department cannot provide an
exact accounting of the number of full-time equivalent employment (FTE)
that have been assigned to work on the ratings. While the project has
been staffed by several employees in the Department, it does not take
up 100 percent of any individual person's time. Staff who do work on
the ratings project are often given discrete tasks based on their
expertise (e.g., data analytics, contract oversight, etc.).
Regulatory Requirement Gainful Employment (GE): $16.6 million
The Department published the GE final rules on October 31, 2014,
and the rules will become effective July 1, 2015. FSA will use these
funds to collect and validate student information, implement metrics
and validation rules, disseminate information related to program
performance, and support the challenge process. The 2016 request will
be used to procure a system and support to manage student data
challenges from institutions, system updates to implement metric
calculations, data storage, and enforcement processes on FSA systems.
The system and support to manage student data challenges will support
GE, as well as other types of data challenges, such as cohort default
rate challenges.
FSA also plans to need 30 additional FTE to support the GE
regulation. These FTE will be in three areas:
1) management and oversight of the GE metrics (including
implementation within FSA systems as described above);
2) review and approval of all GE-related challenges;
3) oversight of school compliance with the GE regulations.
metric used to calculate debt-to-earnings ratio
Question. Under the gainful employment regulations, all programs
offered at proprietary institutions and certificate and diploma
programs offered at traditional institutions of higher education must
pass a metric that requires that the estimated annual loan payment for
a program's graduates must to be less than 8 percent of their annual
gross earnings, as calculated by the Department of Education. According
to the Department, the 8 percent represents the maximum amount of non-
mortgage debt that mortgagers use to determine the extent of non-
mortgage debt that can be sustained outside the mortgage. Recent
graduates, in fact, routinely have debt-to-earnings ratios (DTE) well
above 8 percent. A recent Department study (NCES: Degrees of Debt,
October, 2013) found that the average ratio for bachelor degree
graduates at all schools was 13 percent, and 16 percent for such
graduates of non-profit schools. Please explain what assessments were
used to conclude that 8 percent DTE metric is realistic for
institutions of higher education to achieve, considering that the
average ratio for bachelor degree graduates at all schools is at least
5 percent higher.
Answer. As detailed in the Gainful Employment regulation (79 FR
64918-22), the Department engaged in an extensive review and analysis
to determine the appropriate thresholds for the gainful employment
metrics. The Department reviewed the relevant research (Baum &
Schwartz: ``How Much Debt Is Too Much? Defining Benchmarks for Managing
Student Debt,'' 2006; Cellini & Chaudhary: ``The Labor Market Returns
to For-Profit College Education,'' 2012; Kane & Rouse: ``Labor Market
Returns to Two- and Four-Year College,'' (1995); Avery & Turner:
``Student Loans: Do College Students Borrow Too Much Or Not Enough?''
2013; and Deming, Goldin, & Katz, ``For Profit Colleges,'' 2013) as
well as account lending ratios currently set by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB). We acknowledged that the research established a range of
acceptable percentages for non-housing debt and concluded that 8
percent for education-related debt is well within the range of
acceptable debt levels and the standard that is most generally
supported.
With respect to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
``Degrees of Debt'' study, we disagree that it demonstrates that the
annual earnings threshold is too low. The NCES methodology for
calculating student debt-to-earnings ratios is not comparable to the
gainful employment methodology in several key areas and results in
higher estimates of debt burden than is observed under the gainful
employment debt to earnings (D/E) rates. Specifically, the NCES study
does not include students who receive Pell Grants but do not borrow,
and looks at earnings 1 year from completion compared to approximately
3 years after completion for the gainful employment rates.
Additionally, the gainful employment D/E rates use the higher of mean
or median earnings instead of just the means and the median of debt,
which makes the D/E rates less sensitive to extremes in high debt or
low earnings. Moreover, because the debt component of the gainful
employment D/E rate measure is capped at the cost of tuition, fees,
books and supplies, the gainful employment measure captures only a
portion of the actual total student debt, which may be much higher than
8 percent. As a result of these differences in methodology, the results
of the NCES study do not provide a useful basis for evaluating the
gainful employment D/E rates thresholds.
streamline metrics for not-for-profit-service providers and title iv
additional servicers
Question. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, Congress
directed the Secretary of Education to report to Congress on its plan
to ``streamline metrics by which [Not-For-Profit Loan Servicers (NFPs)]
and Title IV Additional Servicers (TIVAs) are measured to ensure
consistency across all servicing contracts.''
TIVAs are required to be compliant with the Common Origination
Disbursement System (COD), which is used to interface between the
Department of Education, FSA, and colleges/universities and other
schools eligible for Federal Student Loans. In its report to Congress
subsequent to the 2014 Continuing Resolution, the Department of
Education told the Education and Workforce Committee on March 31, 2014,
that the Department will require the NFPs to become compliant with COD.
The Department of Education informed my staff that last fall you
announced, starting with their first new allocations from COD, NFP
servicers will receive 25 percent of all new borrower accounts. The
Department stated that ``Since the allocation process will be new to
the NFPs, this percentage was established to minimize risk to student
and parent borrowers by allowing time to ensure that all the NFP
servicers are fully able to meet all requirements and expected service
levels, including financial reporting and reconciliation, prior to
receiving larger volumes of new accounts.''
Please explain what assessments were used to conclude that 25
percent of all new borrower accounts was an appropriate allocation the
NFPs to measure performance against TIVAs, who were able in the past to
compete for a much higher percentage of new borrower accounts. When
will the allocation percentage change and what assessments or quality
metrics will that percentage reflect?
Answer. On January 1, 2015, we began providing allocations of new
borrower accounts to the NFP servicers through the Common Origination
and Disbursement (COD) system. Since that point, NFP servicers have
received 25 percent of all new borrower accounts. This percentage is
not related to measuring the performance of the NFPs relative to the
TIVAS; as of this point the portfolios serviced by these two groups of
vendors are too dissimilar to support direct performance comparisons.
As the allocation process is new to the NFPs, the percentage was
established to minimize risk to student and parent borrowers and allow
time to ensure that all the NFP servicers are fully able to meet all
requirements and expected service levels, including financial reporting
and reconciliation, prior to receiving larger volumes of new accounts.
We will re-examine this percentage for the allocation period beginning
in September 2015; this examination will reflect servicer performance
and operational requirements.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
office of civil rights and student safety on college campuses
Question. Secretary Duncan, we discussed during the hearing the
importance of increasing funding for the Office for Civil Rights,
reducing the backlog of complaints and supporting every effort to
improve student safety at colleges and universities around our Nation.
However, we did not get to talk about how your Department's efforts fit
into the Administration's overall work on safer campuses. Would you
please describe the Administration's overall strategy in this area?
Answer. Ensuring that schools are safe places for teaching and
learning is a priority for President Obama, the Administration, and the
entire Nation. Notably, in 2014, the President convened the White House
Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. The first Task
Force report to the President, issued in April 2014, provided useful
information to help address and prevent sexual assault in higher
education and coincided with the creation of NotAlone.gov, a resource
hub for students, parents, and stakeholders on the same topic. Under
the White House's leadership, the Department of Education contributed
actively to the Task Force and to the development of the NotAlone.gov
Web site.
At the Department of Education, we know that for students to have
the best chance for academic success, it is imperative to create safe
school climates that support active academic engagement through
comprehensive, evidence-based supports for students' physical, mental,
and behavioral well-being. One of the Department of Education's core
strategic objectives, therefore, is to increase the success, safety,
and health of students, particularly in high-need schools, and deepen
family and community engagement. Another, related strategic goal of the
Department is to increase educational opportunities for underserved
students and to reduce discrimination and other barriers to learning
and achievement including the lack of equitable, safe and healthy
learning environments so that all students are well-positioned to
succeed.
Enforcing the laws is one critical component of the Department's
strategy to ensure greater equity and safety for students. The Office
for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Federal Student Aid Office (FSA) enforce
laws to ensure safety for students across the Nation. OCR is
responsible for enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972, which protects students from discrimination based on sex
(including sexual harassment and violence). OCR also enforces Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, and Title II of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, to
ensure student safety and freedom from violence and harassment based on
race and disability (in addition to sex). FSA enforces the Clery Act,
which applies to postsecondary institutions. The Clery Act requires
schools to provide crime statistics and policies to their students,
employees, and potential students and employees and to submit crime
statistics to the Department. In addition, schools must issue timely
warnings and emergency notifications to the campus community. In 2014,
the Department published final regulations to implement the changes to
the Clery Act included in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization
Act of 2013. Those regulations require expanded reporting by schools
for incidents of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence,
and stalking; require institutions to provide training for students and
employees in areas such as primary prevention and bystander
intervention; and require schools to provide additional protections for
students involved in disciplinary proceedings relating to sexual
assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. FSA and OCR
share, where appropriate and possible, information about complaints,
investigations, and expected resolutions or determinations. And where
appropriate, if FSA and OCR are both investigating the same institution
of higher education (IHE), they coordinate and share work plans,
interviews of complainants and institutional officials, and public
activities to minimize duplication of effort and burden on complainants
and institutions and to ensure student safety.
To support schools and districts, the President's fiscal year 2016
budget request for the Department includes a $90 million request for
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities to
support key initiatives in the President's Now is the Time plan, which
sets forth several proposals to ensure student safety (including the
addition of new resource officers and counselors, better emergency
response plans, and more nurturing school climates). Key activities
under this request include $62 million (of which $15 million would
support an estimated 30 new awards) for School Climate Transformation
Grants, and related technical assistance, to help schools train their
teachers and other school staff to implement evidence-based behavioral
intervention strategies to improve school climate; and $15 million for
Project Prevent continuation grant awards to local educational agencies
(LEAs) to help schools in communities with pervasive violence break the
cycle of violence. Funds would also be used to help LEAs and IHEs
recover from emergencies under Project SERV (School Emergency Response
to Violence), and for evaluation, data collection, dissemination,
outreach, and related forms of technical assistance. The President's
fiscal year 2016 budget request also includes $49.6 million for the
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program, which would allow
approximately 149 LEAs to hire or train qualified school counselors,
school psychologists, child and adolescent psychiatrists, and school
social workers to provide students with counseling services that
provide benefits for both students and teachers by helping to create a
safe school environment, improve teacher effectiveness and classroom
management, increase academic achievement, and promote student well-
being and healthy development.
More broadly, the Department is continuing its work with numerous
agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Justice, Health and Human
Services (HHS), and Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), to help ensure that schools remain among the
safest places in our communities and to provide students the supports
they need to succeed. In response to Now is the Time, the Department's
Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS), in collaboration with HHS,
DOJ, FEMA, and DHS, OSHS developed a ``Guide for Developing High-
Quality Emergency Operations Plan for Institutions of Higher
Education.'' OSHS also represents ED on DHS' Higher Education Academic
Advisory Council, which provides advice and recommendations to DHS
senior leadership on matters related to homeland security and the
academic community. In addition, OSHS is active with the National
Security Council's Combatting Violent Extremism and Active Shooter
Preparedness sub-Interagency Policy Committee which considers roles and
responsibilities, guiding principles, and how best to coordinate and
synchronize efforts across government. OSHS also supports two technical
assistance centers offering training and technical assistance to
colleges and universities: The Readiness and Emergency Management for
Schools Technical Assistance Center, which supports schools and IHEs
with the development and implementation of high-quality emergency
operations plans, and the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning
Environments, which provides training and support to IHEs around issues
such as harassment, violence, substance abuse prevention, and hazing.
office of the inspector general
Question. Mr. Secretary, I know you appreciate the important role
that the Inspector General plays in identifying issues in the
Department's programs and operations, and helping ensure that taxpayer
dollars are not wasted. There are a number of open recommendations that
your Department has not yet fully implemented. Would you please
describe your plan for completing timely actions on these
recommendations?
Answer. We believe independent oversight is a critical tool to help
the Department achieve our program goals. We consider the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) to be a key partner in helping the Department
identify challenges and strengthen our operations. We also take great
pride in the progress we have made implementing OIG recommendations to
improve our work and the work of our grantees:
--Through sustained efforts over several years, the Department has
successfully eliminated the backlog of overdue internal audits
of our operations. As of the end of April 2015, we have no
overdue unresolved OIG audits.
--We continue to make progress addressing key management challenges.
In 2013, the Department successfully remediated two material
weaknesses relating to the large-scale information technology
system conversion in Federal Student Aid. In addition, while
grant monitoring at the State and local levels remains a
challenge, the OIG's 2014 report on the Race to the Top program
reflects some of our good progress.
--The Department also made great strides reducing the backlog of
overdue external audits of our grantees. As of the end of April
2015, we have only 11 overdue unresolved OIG audits. That is a
substantial reduction from the number of overdue audits the
Department has carried in prior years. In addition, the
Department closed 23 audits for Federal Student Aid programs
during the first 6 months of fiscal year 2015, including an
audit that had been open for 17 years.
This progress is the direct result of the Department making audit
follow up a top management priority and implementing several key
efforts to help ensure timely corrective action:
--We ensure accountability and measure progress through a key metric
in our Strategic Plan as well as annual performance metrics for
each office. These metrics establish targets for audit
resolution and corrective action implementation.
--We use monthly dashboards to monitor progress as well as identify
and address challenges to resolution and closure of audits.
--We established an internal governance panel, including an advisory
representative from the OIG, to help identify and address key
audit challenges and process improvements.
--We made strategic hiring decisions to staff audit follow up work
and have taken other steps to strengthen the audit follow up
process and speed corrective action, including more proactive
engagement with the OIG in areas of disagreement.
administrative data sets for program evaluation and improvement
Question. Congressman Paul Ryan and I have proposed a commission
that would make recommendations about how to better utilize
administrative data in the evaluation and improvement of Federal
programs. Would you please describe work currently being done by
agencies of your Department to harness the power of administrative data
sets for program evaluation and improvement? Also, please describe
efforts in this area proposed or planned for fiscal year 2016.
Answer. The Department of Education routinely uses administrative
data for a wide range of statistical purposes to inform planning and
policymaking, including evaluations to track student and teacher
outcomes and to estimate the impacts of programs and interventions
supported by Federal investments. Administrative data has many
advantages: it is often less costly and burdensome to collect, and it
captures a wider group of students more accurately than self-reported
data, enabling policymakers to draw stronger conclusions about a
population.
Most often, the administrative data used in the Department's
evaluations are from State or district longitudinal data systems. Some
data used in these studies are obtained directly through a Memorandum
of Understanding with States or districts participating in an
evaluation, while some data are obtained from the Department's
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) or the EDFacts
database, which includes datasets from the Common Core of Data (CCD),
the Consolidated State Performance Reports (CSPR), and the Civil Rights
Data Collection (CRDC).
In 2010, in response to growing recognition across the Department
that administrative data are critical assets for the Department and the
public, the Department established a Data Strategy Team (DST), composed
of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the Office of
Management, and the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy. Since
its inception, the DST has improved internal coordination and
communication, initiated new data documentation procedures within a
consolidated data inventory, and established a Department of Education
Disclosure Review Board to ensure that privacy in administrative data
files is protected. In addition to creating the DST, the Department has
taken a number of actions that support the increased use of
administrative data for evaluation and other statistical purposes,
including creating and making publically accessible an Education Data
Inventory (EDI), which is a centralized, searchable catalog of the
metadata collected by the Department, and exploring how NCES's data
resources can be better utilized within the collections and operations
of other Departmental entities.
In recent years, the Department has used administrative data to
examine topics as varied as changes in the inclusion of students with
disabilities in State accountability systems, the distribution of
effective teaching, and the impact on student achievement of different
certification pathways to teaching, as described below. During fiscal
year 2016, the Department plans to continue using administrative data
in many studies, including the impact study of the Teacher Incentive
Fund and the study of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
(SOAR) Act. The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2016
also includes increased funding for NCES to allow for more frequent
collection of student financial aid administrative data and enrollment
records, as well as an increase for the Statewide longitudinal data
systems program, which would enable States to promote the effective use
of high quality administrative data to improve education and workforce
outcomes.
Examples of recent or ongoing Department activities that have used
administrative data are:
--Alternative routes to teacher certification.--Data from the CCD
were used to supplement a congressionally-mandated data
collection on the number of highly qualified teachers who are
currently enrolled in alternative routes. The use of the CCD
data allowed the Department to simplify the data collection and
reduce burden on States.
--Descriptive study of distribution of effective teaching.--This
study used entirely administrative data from 29 school
districts to examine whether economically disadvantaged
students had systematically less access to effective teachers.
See the report at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144010/
index.asp.)
--Educator equity profiles.--CRDC data were used in the preparation
of State-level educator equity profiles that include
information on teacher experience, certification, absenteeism,
and average salary. The profiles compared these teacher
characteristics in high- and low-poverty schools, and in
schools with high and low concentrations of minority students,
in each State. The profiles were intended to provide States
with an example of how to analyze and display data related to
gaps in teacher equity in the State as a whole and in specific
districts.
--The National Assessment of Career and Technical Education
(NACTE).--The final report for this congressionally-mandated
study included analyses of extant data from State performance
reports as well as from NCES longitudinal and cross-sectional
studies. For example, the analysis of State performance report
data examined math and English/language arts proficiency rates
and graduation rates for CTE concentrators as well as for all
students.
--National Postsecondary Study Aid Study (NPSAS).--This study,
conducted with the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), helps
to fulfill the NCES mandate to collect, analyze, and publish
education-related statistics and is the primary source of
information to analyze student financial aid and inform
programs such as the Pell grants and Stafford loans. NCES
successfully expanded the use of administrative data to improve
data quality, reduce burden on respondents, and promote
administrative efficiency.
--Priority schools and focus schools.--CSPR and CCD data were used to
examine identification of priority schools and focus schools
and support provided under ESEA Flexibility. The Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education is using the findings to
target technical assistance to States, and the Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development is using them to
inform recommendations for ESEA reauthorization.
--Study of the impact of Teach for America and The New Teacher
Project (TNTP) on secondary math achievement.--This study used
student test scores and other information from administrative
data to examine whether achievement of students who were taught
by teachers from Teach for America or TNTP was greater than
students taught by teachers from other routes. This has
provided important information on whether alternative
certification pathways are a viable option for bringing new
teachers to the profession. See the brief at: http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20134015/pdf/20134021.pdf.
--Study of inclusion of students with disabilities (SWD) in
accountability systems.--This study used EDFacts data for 44
States and the District of Columbia to examine changes in the
percentages of schools that were accountable for the SWD
subgroup, the types of schools that were accountable, and the
percentage of accountable schools that were identified for
school improvement. See the report at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
pubs/20134017/.
Examples of planned or proposed Department activities that will use
administrative data in fiscal year 2016 are:
--Evaluation of the Pell Grant Experiments under the Experimental
Sites Initiative.--This evaluation will determine the impact of
providing Pell grants to income-eligible students engaged in
shorter-term training than current allowed under Federal
financial aid rules. To keep evaluation costs very low, all of
the data on student characteristics and outcomes comes from
administrative records, such as participating colleges'
electronic transcripts, the Department's internal financial aid
records, and employment and earnings information through a
match with the Social Security Administration's files. See the
study at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/
pathways_pell.asp.
--Improving the quality and use of performance data.--Through the
Data Quality Initiative (DQI), the Department is documenting
requirements and rationales for administrative data collected
by elementary and secondary programs and has also conducted
analyses of longitudinal ESEA Title III grantee data to inform
improvements to performance measures and targets.
--Impact Evaluation of Support for Principals.--This study will
examine the impact of providing professional development for
principals on teacher retention, the effectiveness of
instructional staff, and student achievement. Beginning in
fiscal year 2016, the study will collect administrative records
on student outcomes including achievement, behavior, and
attendance as well as teacher outcomes (retention of effective
teachers and quality of newly hired teachers). See the study at
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/tq_principals.asp.
--Impact Evaluation of Teacher and Leader Evaluation Systems.--This
study uses student administrative records in concert with other
study administered surveys and observations to assess the
impact of using educator performance measures to provide
systematic feedback to guide instructional improvement. This
study would not have been feasible without access to
administrative records and the cooperation of the participating
districts. See the study at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/
evaluation/tq_performance.asp.
--Impact evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund.--Key questions in
this set of studies are whether performance bonuses impact
student achievement and teacher mobility and retention. Use of
student administrative records eliminated the need to conduct
additional student testing, both economizing on data collection
costs as well as minimizing burden on participating schools and
students. Educator administrative records have allowed the
evaluation to look at the impact of the program on teacher
performance and teacher mobility within the district. This
study will continue to collect administrative data in 2016. See
the study at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/
tq_incentive.asp.
--Impact evaluation of the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results
(SOAR) Act.--This evaluation uses administrative data on
characteristics of students and schools. See the study at:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/choice_
soar.asp.
--National Longitudinal Transition Study, 2012 (NLTS, 2012).--This
study is examining the characteristics, experiences, and
outcomes of youth with disabilities. In addition to surveys
administered while students were in high school, the study will
obtain data from high school transcripts (courses, attendance,
completion), the National Student Clearinghouse (college
enrollment and persistence), internal Department financial aid
records (financial aid application and receipt), and the Social
Security Administration (vocational rehabilitation services,
employment, earnings). See the study at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
projects/evaluation/disabilities_ideatrans.asp.
--Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS).--In fiscal year 2015,
the Department will award grants to States to support the
collection and use of administrative data within their SLDS to
improve education and workforce outcomes. An increase for the
SLDS program was requested in the Administration's fiscal year
2016 budget to support new grant awards in 2016.
--Study of the Distribution of Effective Teaching.--This study is
solely based on student administrative records and is examining
the equitable distribution of teachers across schools within
districts. See the study at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/
evaluation/tq_distribution.asp.
--Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound.--This study is
assessing the effectiveness of a low-cost, college advising
approach designed to improve college fit and persistence among
Upward Bound participants. The study relies on records provided
to the Department by Upward Bound programs as part of their
Annual Performance Reporting (student participation and
characteristics), the National Student Clearinghouse database
(college enrollment and persistence), and the Department's
internal financial aid records (FAFSA completion and aid
receipt). See the study at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/
evaluation/pathways_upward.asp.
In addition, the Department, in conjunction with the Department of
Labor, recently published joint draft regulations for implementing the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act including provisions that
would expand the use of and improve the quality of administrative data
for managing performance and conducting evaluations. A key concept in
the proposed regulations is the importance of leveraging administrative
data and sharing or exchanging data across partner programs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
response to request to discharge federal student loan debt of
corinthian students
Question. On December 9, 2014, I joined Senator Elizabeth Warren
and others in writing to you about defenses to repayment for Corinthian
students. The letter, echoed recently by 10 State Attorneys General,
asked the Department to use its existing authority to discharge Federal
student loan debt for Corinthian students and to establish a procedure
for students to assert a defense to repayment. When can we expect a
response to that letter?
Answer. We are in the process of responding to your letter. We have
been working to develop a process for addressing the large influx of
borrower defense claims. Our goal is to provide a simple, transparent
system to ensure that borrowers receive all relief to which they are
entitled. Our delay in responding to your letter is due to our desire
to be able to give a more complete answer to your question.
number of corinthian students requesting discharge
Question. More recently, it is my understanding, that the
Department has received hundreds of defense to repayment applications
from former Corinthian students. I ask the Department to provide data
about the number of applications for defense to repayment from
Corinthian students that it receives and accepts, leading to a
discharge.
Answer. As of May 8, 2015, the Department has received
approximately 1,000 applications for defense to repayment from
Corinthian students. As noted in response to the previous question, we
are working to develop a process for addressing these claims.
federal student loan discharge for heald students
Question. On April 14, 2015, the Department took enforcement action
against Corinthian's Heald brand schools. Given the Department's
findings of misrepresentation by the schools, are current or former
Heald students eligible for Federal student loan discharge and what
process will the Department use to provide it to them?
Answer. Students who were enrolled in a school that closed abruptly
are eligible for discharge. Closed school discharge is listed with
other discharges in statute (20 U.S.C. 1087(c)). Those students who
were enrolled in the school or withdrew within 120 days of the closing
without completing their program automatically qualify for discharge.
The regulation requires that the Department mail an application for
closed school discharge to all students who appear to have been
enrolled within 120 days if their address is known, and to attempt to
reach students whose address is not known. In addition, the Department
has reached out to those students to inform them of their rights and
options, and has instructed servicers to proactively contact students
as well.
As discussed above, other than a discharge, many students may have
a defense to repayment of their loan available. While the specifics of
that process are not finalized, borrowers may at any time assert such a
claim.
title iv funds to corinthian colleges
Question. Between the signing of an Operating Agreement with
Corinthian Colleges, Incorporated on July 8, 2014 and the acquisition
of 53 Everest and WyoTech campuses by ECMC on February 2, 2015, how
much Title IV money was disbursed to Corinthian Colleges, Incorporated?
How much in loans? How much in Pell Grants?
Answer. Approximately $576.2 million in Title IV funding was
disbursed to Corinthian Colleges between July 8, 2014 and February 2,
2015. Of this amount, $376.4 million was in Direct Loans and $195.9
million was in Pell Grants, with the remaining amount in other Title IV
programs.
number of students enrolled in corinthian colleges
Question. Between the signing of an Operating Agreement with
Corinthian Colleges, Incorporated on July 8, 2014 and the acquisition
of 53 Everest and WyoTech campuses by ECMC on February 2, 2015, how
many new students were enrolled by Corinthian Colleges, Incorporated?
Answer. According to information reported to the Department through
the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), 25,164 students had a
first aid-reported enrollment in a Corinthian Colleges, Incorporated
institution between July 8, 2015 and February 2, 2015. NSLDS receives
information for Title IV aid recipients only; therefore, a student must
have received Title IV aid in order to be included in the results. The
counts provided do not imply current enrollment.
corinthian colleges' receipt of title iv funds since february 2015
Question. Since the February 2, 2015, acquisition of 53 Everest and
WyoTech campuses by ECMC, how much Title IV money has been disbursed to
schools remaining under the ownership of Corinthian Colleges,
Incorporated?
Answer. Approximately $57.7 million, of which $44 million was in
Direct Loans and $13.2 million was in Pell Grants and the remainder in
other Title IV programs, has been disbursed to schools remaining under
the ownership of Corinthian Colleges, Incorporated, between February 2,
2015 and April 24, 2015.
corinthian colleges' student enrollment since february 2015
Question. Since the February 2, 2015, acquisition of 53 Everest and
WyoTech campuses by ECMC, how many students have been enrolled at
schools remaining under the ownership of Corinthian Colleges,
Incorporated?
Answer. According to information reported to the Department through
the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS), 804 students had a first
aid-reported enrollment in an institution remaining under Corinthian
Colleges, Incorporated ownership since February 2, 2015. NSLDS receives
information for Title IV aid recipients only; therefore, a student must
have received Title IV aid in order to be included in the results. The
counts provided do not imply current enrollment.
oversight of for-profit colleges
Question. Is the Department concerned that other major for-profit
colleges are in danger of failing and repeating the Corinthian
experience? What new steps are you taking to improve oversight to catch
violations or financial problems earlier in the future?
Answer. The Department is concerned about a repeat of what happened
in the Corinthian case, and more broadly, about ensuring that borrowers
are protected earlier in the process from unscrupulous institutions and
deceptive practices. This is why we are looking into various ways to
improve oversight of institutions and to better evaluate the risks they
pose. Those efforts include strategies for enhancing interagency
collaboration on oversight efforts, including State authorizing
agencies that are in many ways the front-line of defense against
dishonest programs and institutions.
interagency task force on for-profit colleges
Question. In October 30, 2014, the Department announced it would
establish an interagency task-force on for-profit colleges based on the
Proprietary Education Oversight Coordination Improvement Act. Can you
please provide an update on the status of that group and when it will
hold its first formal meeting as a group?
Answer. As we seek to make the best use of scarce resources and
better protect the interests of students and taxpayers, the Department
is actively engaged in preparations to formalize an interagency task
force to help ensure proper oversight of for-profit institutions of
higher education. Building on collaborative enforcement, consumer
protection, and compliance work that has been underway among our
agencies for over a year, the Department is already taking care to
conduct meetings with agency partners to explore plans and
opportunities for this significant, expanded work together. Examining a
variety of resources, we are also in the process of developing an
initial framework for leveraging resources and expertise across task
force participants, as well as scoping implementation activities. Our
goal is to hold the initial formal meeting of the task force this
spring.
federal student loan programs data
Question. On March 20, 2015, an article entitled ``We're
Frighteningly in the Dark About Student Debt'' by Susan Dynarski
appeared on the New York Time's website highlighting the frustrating
lack of data available on the Federal student loan program. Please
provide your reaction to this article and any steps the Department is
taking to better collect, analyze, and publish data on the Federal
student loan program.
Answer. The Department strives to make reliable and useful data and
information available to a wide range of users while maintaining
appropriate privacy safeguards. We are fully cognizant of the fact that
different consumers may value different elements of college choice,
student outcomes, and loan portfolio performance differently, so we try
to make data available for them to evaluate those elements for
themselves. Since 2009, the Department has proactively posted
information about the Title IV programs to the FSA Data Center,
available at www.FSADataCenter.ed.gov. FSA's Data Center currently
offers robust information about applications for Federal student aid,
disbursements, and the outstanding loan portfolio in addition to school
compliance reports and relevant contract information. The Department
continues to look for opportunities to expand the data made available
on the FSA Data Center while protecting the privacy of our customers.
As part of its fiscal year 2016 budget request, the Administration
sought $11.6 million for the Enterprise Data Warehouse and Analytics
project (``EDW&A''). EDW&A is an initiative to create an enterprise
capability that provides timely, accurate, and consistent access to FSA
lifecycle data. This will be achieved through a multi-phase approach
with various vendor support for requirements documentation,
development, and deployment. During fiscal year 2015, phase 1 of EDW&A
will include creation of an enterprise data warehouse containing major
FSA lifecycle data and the architecture to support the robust reporting
and analytical tools. The benefits of the EDW&A initiative will improve
reporting analysis by decreasing resource constraints currently placed
on NSLDS and other operation systems. The 2016 request includes $1.6
million to support continual operations and maintenance for phase 1 and
$10 million for development work, including efforts to incorporate
additional student aid life cycle and external data to better inform
analytical efforts and responsibly make student aid data more
accessible for large scale research by external stakeholders.
improve protection for student loan borrowers
Question. Last month, the President issued a memorandum directing
the Department, Treasury, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
to improve protections for student borrowers, touching on servicing,
debt collection, and bankruptcy. Can you discuss progress you've made
implementing the memo thus far?
Answer. We are in the process of developing an Enterprise Complaint
System to address the student feedback system referred to in the
Student Aid Bill of Rights. We are currently developing detailed
requirements for the system and expect to begin building the system in
the fall. The system is expected to be phased into production for
customers starting in 2016.
central point of access for federal student loan borrowers
Question. What is your estimated timeline to ``establish a
centralized point of access for all Federal student loan borrowers in
repayment, including a central location for account information and
payment processing for all Federal student loan servicing, regardless
of the specific servicer'' as required by the memo?
Answer. Regarding a single point of access for all Federal student
loan borrowers in repayment, the Department is in the early stages of
an acquisition to re-compete its student loan servicing contracts. A
request for information was issued in December 2014, responses to which
are currently under review. Detailed procurement plans are still under
development but the next steps in the process are expected to begin
later in 2015, with new awards likely to occur in 2016. The single
point of contact will be one of the requirements of these new awards
and will be rolled out as the new vendor or vendors come on line.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
equity and effective school library programs
Question. The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) collects critical data
on resource equity in our public schools. This data collection requires
schools and school districts to report on expenditures and staffing for
school libraries. At the same time, the Department has not appeared to
provide support, guidance, or encouragement across its programs to
build State and local capacity for implementing effective school
library programs. The Administration has consistently recommended
eliminating Federal funding for programs that support school libraries,
and then took several months to post the results on its website of the
grants awarded under the Innovative Approaches to Literacy program,
which is an appropriated fund for school library and literacy
initiatives.
What specific actions can and will the Department take to ensure
that students in high need schools have access to effective school
library programs?
Answer. The Department supports an approach to teaching and
learning that will prepare all students for the demands of the 21st
Century. In many cases, this means promoting innovative ways to access
all types of reading materials. Further, the Department recognizes that
school libraries are in transition during the Internet-enabled digital
age, and that States, school districts, schools, and communities are
adopting a wide range of strategies to best meet local needs. Our
proposed fiscal year 2016 budget includes programs that explicitly
support literacy instruction (such as Striving Readers), programs that
aim to support effective integration and use of technology that can be
used to access virtual libraries and other valuable resources for
learning, (such as E2T2 or Ready-to-Learn), and various funding sources
that could support school personnel librarians or media specialists.
teacher equity plans
Question. In the fiscal year 2013 Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, the Department was required to report to the Labor, HHS,
and Education Appropriations Subcommittee the extent to which students
in certain categories are taught by teachers deemed highly qualified
pursuant to 34 CFR 200.56(a)2(ii) by State and local educational
agencies. This report is now more than 1 year overdue. In the meantime,
the Department has asked States to submit State educator equity plans
by June of this year. These plans will not be informed by the data from
the long-overdue report. Furthermore, in the guidance that the
Department has provided to States regarding the development of their
equity plans, the Department encourages them to define ``inexperienced
teacher'' as a teacher in his or her first year. Current law defines
``beginning teacher'' as a teacher who has taught ``for less than a
total of 3 complete school years.'' The Department's action seems to
lower the standard for equity.
When will the required report on the distribution of teachers
deemed highly qualified be available? Why is the Department not
encouraging States to use the data from this report in the development
of State educator equity plans? And why is the Department recommending
lower standards for teacher experience, which could result in less
equitable access to experienced teachers for disadvantaged students?
Answer. We expect to release the report in spring 2015. In recent
guidance, we said that each State should use a wide range of data in
developing its plan to ensure equitable access to excellent educators.
For example, the Department encouraged each State to carefully review
the data submitted by its school districts for the Civil Rights Data
Collection, district level per-pupil expenditures the State has
submitted to the National Center for Education Statistics via the F-33
survey, as well as data that the State has submitted to EDFacts
regarding classes that are taught by highly qualified teachers, and any
other data that are high-quality, recent, and relevant. In particular,
we said that States would likely have additional data, including data
on teacher and principal turnover rates or effectiveness ratings, based
on the significant work in most States over the past few years to
create and update longitudinal data systems. This guidance is available
at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/eafaq2014.doc.
value added measures
Question. As part of Race to the Top and as a requirement for NCLB
waivers, the Department has required States to include ``student growth
as a significant factor'' in educator evaluations. The Department is
also proposing to require student growth measures to evaluate teacher
preparation programs. The implementation of this requirement has
resulted in the broad use of value-added measures, which are the
primary method for measuring student growth, in educator evaluation
systems. Research has shown the challenges with using value-added or
student growth measures for high stakes decisions. The measures are
unstable and often biased or inaccurate for teachers that teach certain
groups of students. The value-added results show correlation and not
causation. They do not provide formative feedback to educators, and
they could trigger unintended consequences such as more intensive test
preparation rather than well-rounded instruction.
Given the evidence-base and the potential for negative
consequences, why has the Department approved grants and waivers to
support these policies? Does the Department plan to advise States to
reduce the potential for the negative consequences, and if so, how?
Answer. Race to the Top (RTT) and other ED initiatives have
encouraged the field to go further in designing and implementing
teacher and school leader evaluation and support systems that use
multiple measures, including student growth as a significant factor,
and that provide clear, timely, and useful feedback, including feedback
that identifies needs and guides professional development. States and
districts have had discretion to adopt their own method of calculating
student growth and to determine what is ``significant.'' They have also
have discretion to determine what additional multiple measures to use.
For instance, States include measures such as lesson plan preparation,
student surveys, family engagement, professional growth activities, and
strategies to instruct students with diverse needs.
Developing and implementing educator evaluation and support systems
is critical but challenging work. The Department has provided guidance
to help States and districts ensure that these systems provide
accurate, reliable, and useful information to support improved
instruction. For example, in ``Measuring Teacher Effectiveness Using
Growth Models: A Primer,'' the Department's Reform Support Network
discussed important differences between student growth models and
highlighted that selecting a model involves thinking carefully about
what types of decisions will be made with the results and what model
will provide the best information for these decisions. This guidance is
available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-
unit/tech-assist/measuring-teaching-matters.pdf.
We have consistently required States and districts to engage
stakeholders and communities in the development of all of its policies,
including the development of teacher and leader evaluation and support
systems. Finally, we have encouraged States and districts to engage in
a process of continuous improvement that leads to refinements in their
evaluation and support systems.
adult education
Question. In the budget justification documents, the Department
makes a very strong case for the need to increase investment in adult
education. Yet, the budget request includes only level funding for the
State formula grant program. Under the Administration's request the
program would be funded $27 million below its funding level in fiscal
year 2011 and far below the $622 million authorized for fiscal year
2016 under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act that was signed
into law last year. How does the Department plan to address the growing
need for adult education with dwindling resources for the basic State
grant program?
Answer. In addition to maintaining funding for the formula grant
program, the Budget's proposed increase under the Adult Education
National Leadership Activities would support activities that would lead
to greater efficiency in the provision of services to adult learners,
allowing both Federal and State investments to go further.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act requires that Unified
State Plans describe how the State will align content standards for
Adult Education with State standards under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. The budget includes funding to help States meet this
requirement, which should lead to the more efficient delivery of
services by local providers to help adult learners become ready for
employment, economically self-sufficient, and more engaged as citizens.
The Administration has also proposed additional support for States
in their collection and reporting of data. This would allow States to
redirect scarce resources toward other administrative improvements and
State leadership activities such as professional development and
technical assistance to local providers.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
high quality stem activites and after school programs
Question. What programs has the Department of Education created, or
supported, to put structures in place that support afterschool program
providers to offer high quality STEM programs that engage students in
STEM fields and build STEM-relevant skills and proficiencies for the
21st century workforce?
Answer. High-quality afterschool STEM activities can reach young
people, especially if they give students exciting opportunities that
connect to learning during the school day. We have supported
afterschool STEM projects primarily under the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program and through related national
activities. For example, our online professional learning and technical
assistance for 21st CCLC projects (https://www.y4y.ed.gov/) includes a
broad range of ready-to-use and customizable resources for local 21st
CCLC providers to learn about and launch STEM programs and coordinate
with school-day partners.
In addition, with national activities funds, the Department is
collaborating with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the National
Park Service (NPS), to provide models and carry out descriptive studies
of high-quality afterschool STEM program implementation while bringing
STEM content and interactions with STEM professionals to students
outside of the regular school day. These efforts engage children and
youth in STEM experiences by providing authentic content and
opportunities to interact with STEM professionals. They also introduce
students to new concepts and skills and help students see real-life
applications of what students are learning in school. For examples,
please see information about the ED-NASA initiative, including videos
of student projects, online at http://www.ed.gov/blog/2014/01/working-
together-to-build-tomorrows-stem-workforce/. These interagency
collaborations also support STEM education goals established by the
Administration's Committee for STEM Education (CoSTEM).
education technology state grants
Question. I understand that your budget request proposes $200
million for Education Technology State Grants. How do you envision this
proposed program differing from the funds that were cut from the
Enhancing Education Through Technology program? I also have concerns
that the budget proposal would encourage States to provide competitive
subgrants to districts that can serve as ``model districts.'' How do
you propose ensuring that all school districts can share in the
benefits of such opportunities?
Answer. The Administration's ConnectED Initiative, which includes
investments by the Federal Communications Commission as well as private
sector contributions, aims to significantly expand access to the
Internet in the Nation's schools. The fiscal year 2016 request for
Educational Technology State Grants would support a simultaneous effort
to help ensure that teachers and leaders are prepared to use the
technology to improve professional learning and deliver personalized
instruction.
Based on the Department's experience implementing this program when
it was previously funded, the Administration is seeking appropriations
language to make important programmatic improvements. In particular,
the new appropriations language would: (1) require SEAs to award 100
percent of subgrant funds competitively; (2) target subgrant awards to
applicants with existing technology capacity, including connectivity
and devices; (3) promote evidence-based practices; (4) limit local
spending on hardware and instead focus on supporting teacher
professional development and coaching; and (5) ensure that all States
are able to reserve sufficient funds to support meaningful State-level
activities.
The Administration's request will help State leaders create more
models of effective technology use in their districts while also
promoting efforts to share effective practices statewide. Under the new
appropriations language, States would make competitive subgrants to
districts that have basic technology infrastructure and that commit to
using evidence-based strategies where possible. The requested funding
would also build State capacity to identify and scale up effective
strategies from model districts to all districts in the State. This is
critical to help ensure that new infrastructure is used in a way that
will be meaningful for students and educators.
student aid bill of rights
Question. As you may know, earlier this year, I reintroduced the
Simplifying Access to Student Loan Information Act. My legislation
would incorporate private student loan debt information into the
National Student Loan Data System, which currently contains information
about a borrower's Federal student loan debt. Further, I know that in
the Presidential Memorandum issued in March establishing a ``Student
Aid Bill of Rights,'' the President calls for a ``centralized point of
access for all Federal student loan borrowers in repayment.'' I
understand that Congressional action will be necessary to enact a
change to include private student loans in the system, but am curious
if your Department has explored pathways that the agency can take, such
as a study to examine what capacity might be needed to make such a
change, for the benefit of borrowers, especially as you develop plans
related to the President's memoranda?
Answer. The Department has not conducted a study to examine the
capacity needed to make a change to NSLDS in order to maintain data on
all private borrowers. However, the Department currently collects
private loan data for students in Gainful Employment programs who are
receiving Title IV aid. Based on our experience in this collection, we
believe it would be feasible to implement these changes if the Congress
were to pursue statutory change to enable us to collect private student
loan data for all students, not just students who receive Title IV aid.
borrowers ability to choose loan servicer
Question. I remain concerned by the Department's decision not to
allow the Not-for-Profit Servicers to make and service consolidation
loans. This action forces student and parent borrowers interested in
obtaining a consolidation loan to switch to one of the four TIVAS that
they have had little or no contact with, even if they are happy with
the performance of their NFP servicer.
Could you please explain the rationale for denying borrowers the
choice to remain with their current servicer, if that happens to be an
NFP servicer, if they so choose? Will the Department reexamine this
policy?
Answer. The responsibility for most elements of originating and
servicing new consolidation loans was competitively awarded to the four
Title IV Additional Servicers (TIVAS) in fiscal year 2013 as part of
the transition from the expiring Common Services for Borrowers
contract. As this contractual arrangement is already in place and
provides sufficient capacity to provide the required services for all
estimated consolidation volume over that period, we do not plan to
award additional contracts to service new consolidations at this time.
To do so would incur additional expense, create additional risk, and
add operational complexity.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Blunt. The subcommittee will stand in recess. We
will leave the record open for 1 week for additional questions.
[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., Thursday, April 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
April 23.]