    [Senate Hearing 114-680]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
              RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Blunt, Cochran, Alexander, Cassidy,
    Capito, Lankford, Murray, Reed, Merkley, Schatz, and Baldwin.

                            DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. KING, JR., ACTING 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, Education, and Related Agencies will
    come to order.
        Mr. Secretary, we are glad you are here this morning and
    appearing before the committee. You and I just visited and
    discovered that we both started our post-college careers as
    social studies teachers. So it is great to have you here and
    understand that you embody so much about the education system.
    I think both your parents were teachers. You were a teacher.
    And I am glad to have you here as Acting Secretary. And Senator
    Alexander is doing everything he can to remove the ``acting''
    designation, and the Senate will be voting on that I think
    before too long.
        This is your first time in this position before the
    subcommittee, and we look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Also, I think I would be remiss if I did not mention that
    Tom Skelly--this is his last appearance before the
    subcommittee. He is retiring this month from the Department of
    Education after 41 years, including 19 years as the Budget
    Director. The committee, Tom, thanks you for your years of
    service and particularly for the technical expertise and
    responsiveness that you have provided to this committee over
    that 19 years of doing the job you are doing now. So we are
    glad you are here.
        The Department, of course, funds many critical activities
    to help students get into college and through college and
    prepares the next generation of workers for the jobs and
    careers of the future.
        The fiscal year 2017 discretionary budget request for the
    Department has an increase of 2 percent. I think this is
    particularly concerning in an overall discretionary budget that
    increases by $40 million. The Department's request increases by
    $1.3 billion. A lot of that is because there is some reducing
    of discretionary funding in other areas that are within the cap
    of this committee, like a billion dollar increase in NIH
    (National Institutes for Health) research. I do not think that
    will happen, but we had a chance to talk about it with
    Secretary Burwell the other day.
        Of course, we have lots of shared priorities. I hope we can
    work together on those priorities.
        I am pleased to see your increase in charter schools. I
    look forward to what you may have to say about that later this
    morning, knowing that you have some experience there as well.
        The significant funding increases for Title I and special
    education were maintained.
        And finally, a Pell Grant increase from $5,815 to $5,935. I
    am sure we will talk about Pell Grants some, including the
    potential for year-round Pell.
        I was disappointed, given the increase in the Department's
    request, that actually, once again, the budget suggests cutting
    funds for Impact Aid payments to schools that have significant
    federally owned land in the school district which, of course,
    then comes off the tax rolls.
        I also continue to question how the Department is managing
    the servicing of Federal student loans. Specifically, I am
    concerned how the Department allocates new loans to student
    loan servicers and appears not to take into account the metrics
    that the Department has put together regarding the success rate
    that some servicers have over others.
        I am concerned about the Department's increasingly heavy
    hand in regulating institutions of higher education. We have
    built a great higher education system in the country, in large
    part, because the Federal Government, while it has been very
    supportive of higher education, has until recently never
    purported to want to control higher education.
        Last year, we helped convince the Department to abandon its
    misguided college rating system. I was glad to see the
    Department move away from that. However, the Department still
    continues to move forward with several proposals that would
    exert unprecedented control over higher education.
        The gainful employment regulation has the Department
    unilaterally establishing significant policy that will impact
    hundreds of thousands of students. This regulation uses one
    single metric to measure the quality of higher education
    programs and will shut down good programs with the bad. You
    know, we should not judge our education system based purely or
    even largely on how much a student earns. It is almost
    antithetical to the idea of higher education. The size of the
    paycheck does not reflect the quality of education or the
    contribution to community. Certainly if that were the case, you
    and I would not have initially been social studies teachers.
        Getting these policies right is difficult. We want to work
    with you on these policies. I respect the skills and background
    you bring to the job, and I think we are all eager to work hard
    to find the things we can do together and talk through the
    things that we do not agree on. And that is what Senator Murray
    and I try to do as well.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
        Good morning. Thank you, Acting Secretary King, for appearing
    before the Subcommittee today to discuss the Department of Education's
    fiscal year 2017 budget request. There are few people who embody what
    our education system can mean to children and young adults better than
    you. This is your first time before the Subcommittee and we look
    forward to hearing your testimony.
        I would be remiss if I didn't mention this is Mr. Tom Skelly's last
    time appearing before this Subcommittee. He is retiring this month from
    the Department of Education after 41 years, including the last 19 as
    budget director. The Committee thanks you for your years of service and
    for the technical expertise you have provided this Subcommittee in
    particular.
        The Department of Education funds many critical activities to help
    students get into and through college, and prepare the next generation
    of workers for the jobs and careers of the future.
        The fiscal year 2017 discretionary budget request for the
    Department of Education is $69.4 billion, a $1.3 billion, or 2 percent
    increase above fiscal year 2016.
        My overreaching concern with this request is that the increase of
    $1.3 billion for the Department of Education dwarfs the total increase
    for all of non-defense discretionary spending--which is $40 million.
    Further, this increase is only made possible by budget gimmicks within
    the Department of Health and Human Services budget request, including
    cutting discretionary funding for the National Institutes of Health by
    $1 billion.
        We have many shared priorities reflected in the budget request. It
    is my hope we can work together to identify priorities and find common
    ground while adhering to budget caps.
        I was pleased to see an increase for charter schools, which have
    been a critical component to ensuring children have access to high
    quality elementary and secondary schools regardless of where they live.
    Last year's significant funding increases for Title I and special
    education were maintained. Finally, the maximum Pell grant will
    increase from $5,815 this coming school-year to an estimated $5,935
    next year.
        However, I am disappointed, given the large increase in the
    Department's request that the budget once again cuts funding for the
    Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property program. That program, like
    all of Impact Aid, represents a core aspect of the Federal Government's
    commitment to the parts of the country impacted by the presence of
    federally-owned land. The Subcommittee has rejected this proposal
    repeatedly in the past and I am certain we will again.
        I also continue to question how the Department is managing the
    servicing of Federal student loans. Specifically I'm concerned with how
    the Department allocates new loans to student loan servicers. We should
    do more to ensure student borrowers have access to the best service
    possible. I hope we can work together on this issue going forward.
        Finally, I remain concerned about the Department's consistently
    heavy hand in regulating institutions of higher education. We have
    built a great higher education system in this country, in large part,
    because the Federal Government has supported it, without trying to
    control it.
        Last year we helped convince the Department to abandon its
    misguided college ratings system. This was the right decision. However,
    the Department still continues to move forward with several proposals
    that exert unprecedented control over higher education.
        For example, with the Gainful Employment regulation, the Department
    is unilaterally
        establishing significant policy that will impact hundreds of
    thousands of students. This regulation is a blunt tool that uses one
    single metric to measure the quality of a higher education program, and
    will shut down good programs with the bad. We shouldn't judge our
    education system based purely on how much a student earns when they
    graduate. That's almost antithetical to higher education.
        Getting these policies right is difficult. That is why they should
    be addressed through the legislative process, and not by the Department
    shoehorning significant changes into longstanding law that never meant
    to address this specific issue.
        Dr. King, while there are clearly issues on which we disagree, I
    know we both share a strong desire to fund programs that benefit all
    students and support increased educational opportunities in every
    State. I look forward to working with you during your first full year
    at the helm at the Department.
        Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. I am pleased to recognize Senator Murray for
    her opening statement.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Acting Secretary King, thank you for being here today and
    for your work to improve our Nation's education system.
        Education is such an important part of building our economy
    that grows from the middle out, not from the top down. And that
    is what makes investments in education some of the most
    important we can make. So I look forward to your testimony and
    the discussion about the Department's funding needs for fiscal
    year 2017.
        Mr. Skelly, welcome to you as well. I too add my
    congratulations to you and best wishes, and thank you for all
    of your service to all of us for so many years.
        The Department's budget proposal for programs within this
    subcommittee's jurisdiction totals almost $69.4 billion. That
    is an increase of $1.3 billion over last year. This increase is
    really important considering the need to support effective
    implementation of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and
    to make college more affordable and reduce the crushing burden
    of student debt that is weighing on so many of our families
    today. This is a critical moment for K-12 education as schools,
    districts, and States now transition from the broken No Child
    Left Behind law to our bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act
    that the President signed into law late last year. I was very
    proud to work with Senator Alexander, who is here as well, to
    find a bipartisan path to make sure all of our students have
    access to a quality education.
        However, our work is not done. The Department needs to use
    its full authority under the Every Student Succeeds Act to now
    hold States and schools accountable, reduce the reliance on
    redundant and unnecessary testing, and expand access to high
    quality preschool. And Congress needs to provide adequate
    funding to support the new law, starting with adequate
    investment in Title I grants, the foundation of our education
    law.
        Half of our Nation's schools and eight out of ten school
    districts rely on Title I investments. I was very glad that
    last year, working with Chairman Blunt, we were able to
    increase Title I funding by $500 million in the 2016 omnibus.
    But that increase only brought Title I funding back to its
    previous level before the across-the-board sequestration cuts
    of 2013. So, Acting Secretary King, I am pleased to see your
    budget proposes a further increase of $450 million in Title I.
        However, I am concerned about the budget's proposal to
    allocate $175 million of this amount outside of the authorized
    Title I formulas. Inadequate funding in Title I could mean
    thousands of school districts across the country would receive
    less funding than they did in the prior year. I believe schools
    can only truly help every student succeed when they have
    adequate funding.
        There are other areas I am interested in hearing more about
    today, including investments to help students who too often
    fall through the cracks. More than 35,000 public school
    students were homeless last school year in my home State of
    Washington. That is up almost 63 percent since the 2009-2010
    school year. I am pleased this budget proposes an increase of
    $15 million to help address the education needs of homeless
    students, bringing the total to $85 million.
        I am also pleased the budget includes $190 million for the
    comprehensive literacy development program that I created in
    the Every Student Succeeds Act.
        From higher education, I hear from so many students and
    families who are struggling with the rising cost of college and
    student debt. So I am really pleased the budget will increase
    investments in the Pell Grant program, and it would reinstate
    the year-round Pell Grants and establish a $300 Pell bonus for
    students who are on track to complete their degree program.
        It is important to remember the 2-year budget agreement
    rolled back the automatic cuts and allowed us to restore some
    key investments, but it did not go as far as many of us had
    hoped. That means, as it often does, that difficult choices
    will be unavoidable in 2017. They will just be tougher than
    last year.
        Even so, I believe that this subcommittee can find a way to
    write a bipartisan bill once again, but doing so depends on
    this subcommittee getting an allocation that will allow us to
    make the needed investments in education and medical research
    and drug treatments, support for working families, and so much
    more.
        I know that Chairman Blunt would like to work on this bill
    in a bipartisan manner as well, as we have in the past, and
    build on the progress we have made. So I look forward to
    working with you, Acting Secretary King, and all of our
    colleagues here today in the coming weeks and months. So thank
    you very much.
        And I will turn it back over, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Murray.
        Dr. King, we are ready for your testimony. I am glad you
    are here.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. KING, JR.

        Dr. King. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
    committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the
    Department's 2017 budget, the first under the new Every Student
    Succeeds Act. I look forward to building on our bipartisan
    collaboration as we implement ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act)
    and working to address our biggest challenges in education.

                               BUDGET PRINCIPLES

        Increasing equity and excellence in public education has
    been my life's work. Before joining the Department, I led the
    New York State Department of Education and served with Uncommon
    Schools, a network of high-achieving charter schools. I began
    my career as a high school social studies teacher and co-
    founded one of the highest performing urban middle schools in
    Massachusetts. I am also the proud parent of two public school
    students. These experiences inform and inspire every decision I
    make at the Department.
        This year, the Agency is focused on three principles, which
    reflect the themes in our budget. First, ensuring every child
    has the opportunity to access a quality education. Second,
    supporting our Nation's teachers and elevating the teaching
    profession. And third, improving access, affordability, and
    completion in higher education. Allow me to take each of these
    in turn.
        The budget invests in programs to increase educational
    equity, so all children, regardless of background, native
    language, ZIP code, or disability, can achieve their full
    potential. For example, the budget ensures our youngest
    learners get a strong start in school through President Obama's
    landmark Preschool for All initiative. In addition, the HHS
    (Department of Health and Human Services) budget increases
    funding for the jointly administered Preschool Development
    Grants program.
        To help close opportunity gaps, the request provides $15.4
    billion for Title I grants, the cornerstone of the Federal
    effort to ensure all students, especially our most vulnerable,
    graduate from high school prepared for college and careers.
        The Computer Science for All grant proposals in the budget
    would advance comprehensive State and local efforts to offer
    rigorous coursework to all students with a focus on those who
    have been under-represented in the STEM (science, technology,
    engineering, and math) fields.
        The budget would also increase support for community
    efforts to improve the educational and life outcomes for
    children and youth by increasing funding for the Promise
    Neighborhoods program, and through the Stronger Together
    program, we would help local leaders create more high-achieving
    socioeconomically diverse classrooms and schools.
        Recognizing that educators are nation-builders and vital to
    our children's success, the budget invests to recruit, develop,
    support, and retain outstanding teachers and school leaders.
    The Teacher and Principal Pathways program would strengthen our
    pipeline of effective educators, while Teach to Lead grants
    would capitalize on teachers' leadership, helping them realize
    their ideas for education improvement. And to help educators
    advance through every phase of their careers, the budget
    supports innovations in human capital management systems for
    districts and schools in through the Teacher and School Leader
    Incentive Fund.
        We also are proposing RESPECT: Best Job in the World to
    rethink the best ways to structure teaching in high-need
    schools to attract and retain effective teachers where we need
    them most.

                    MAKING HIGHER EDUCATION MORE AFFORDABLE

        The programs in our 2017 budget also would make higher
    education more affordable and help additional students earn
    degrees. America's College Promise would make 2 years of
    community college free for responsible students, an idea that
    is proving its potential in communities from Tennessee to Long
    Beach, California.
        This budget would also drive innovations in Pell Grants by
    supporting students who take classes year-round, rewarding
    those who take at least 15 credits per semester and rewarding
    institutions with high enrollment and completion rates for Pell
    Grant recipients.
        While this budget is focused on helping to meet challenges
    in education, I also want to acknowledge our country's
    remarkable gains. High school graduation rates are at an all-
    time high and dropout rates are decreasing. We have seen the
    largest and most diverse class completing higher education in
    our history. And the numbers of African American and Latino
    students enrolling in college are up by more than a million
    since 2008.
        This budget leverages local leadership, the source of
    strength for our Nation's education system, to help more
    students thrive from preschool through college. We are
    committed to using and developing evidence and data to maximize
    results for students and taxpayers. To accomplish this, we
    propose significant investments in evidence-based and
    innovative initiatives, including the Education Innovation and
    Research program, First in the World, and an HBCU and MSI
    Completion Innovation Fund.
        I have met countless students who know that thanks to the
    educators in their lives, their destiny will not be determined
    by where or the circumstances into which they were born. The
    Department's 2017 budget would support local and State-led
    efforts to ensure in every community and in every school,
    students know that their education can provide them with the
    knowledge and skills to achieve their greatest aspirations.
        I look forward to discussing these ideas with you in more
    detail and would be glad to answer your questions. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Hon. John B. King, Jr.
        Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the
    Subcommittee: I am pleased to testify today on behalf of the
    President's 2017 budget request for the Department of Education. The
    overall discretionary request for the Department is $69.4 billion, an
    increase of $1.3 billion, or 2 percent, over 2016. The 2017 Budget
    builds on our progress and reflects key developments over the past
    year, most significantly, enactment of the bipartisan Every Student
    Succeeds Act (ESSA).
                                  introduction
        As this is my first appearance before this Subcommittee, please
    allow me to introduce myself. I have dedicated my life to education
    largely because education saved my life. Both of my parents were career
    New York City public school educators. To this day, they inspire me to
    serve, but I lost them both by the time I was 12. As I have said
    before, my life could have easily taken a wrong turn at that point.
    Instead, New York City public school teachers gave me hope and purpose.
    They set me on the path to where I am today.
        Prior to joining the Department in 2015, and becoming Acting
    Secretary this year, I served as Commissioner of the New York State
    Department of Education. Before that, I was a Managing Director of
    Uncommon Schools, which today manages public charter schools serving
    low-income students in Boston, Newark, Camden, Brooklyn, Rochester, New
    York City and Troy, New York. I also was a co-founder and principal of
    Roxbury Preparatory Charter School in Boston, which became one of the
    highest-performing urban middle schools in Massachusetts. And, I began
    my career as a high school social studies teacher in San Juan, Puerto
    Rico and Boston, Massachusetts.
                     president obama's 2017 budget request
        This 2017 Budget Request focuses on three major priorities: (1)
    advancing equity and excellence for all students; (2) expanding support
    for teachers and school leaders; and (3) improving access,
    affordability, and student outcomes in postsecondary education. The
    Department also makes a commitment throughout the budget to promoting
    greater use of evidence and data to maximize results for students and
    taxpayers.
                   support for the every student succeeds act
        With the enactment of the ESSA in mid-December, the Administration
    worked hard to align the 2017 Budget with the reauthorized ESEA and to
    allocate resources to support the new law's focus on education equity,
    support for teachers, and well-rounded instruction. We are pleased that
    the ESSA embraces many reforms the Administration has long supported,
    including State-defined college- and career-ready standards,
    accountability for the success of all students, innovation in
    education, and expansion of high-quality preschool. The Budget provides
    robust funding for core components of the reauthorized ESEA to advance
    equity and excellence and support great teachers and school leaders.
                advancing equity and excellence for all students
        The first major priority in the 2017 request is to ensure all of
    our young people, and particularly students from low-income families
    and students of color and those in high-poverty schools who are the
    focus of the ESSA, have the chance to learn and achieve. While we have
    made significant progress in increasing overall graduation rates, gaps
    for students from low-income families and students of color continue to
    persist. We must close these gaps, and one way to do so is to increase
    resources for key programs that support students who need the most help
    to meet challenging State academic standards. To help close our current
    resource and opportunity gaps, the 2017 request provides $15.4 billion
    for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)--the
    cornerstone of the Federal effort to ensure that all students--
    including students from low-income students, students of color,
    students with disabilities, and English Learners--graduate from high
    school prepared for college and careers.
        The request provides $12.8 billion for Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Formula Grant Programs, to assist
    States in providing high-quality early intervention services to infants
    ages birth through 3 and their families, and help States cover the
    excess costs of providing special education and related services to
    children with disabilities ages 3 through 21. This includes a combined
    increase of $80 million over 2016 enacted levels for IDEA Preschool
    Grants (Part B, Section 619) and Grants for Infants and Families (Part
    C).
        The President's Budget also supports expanded access to high-
    quality preschool for all children from low- and middle-income families
    by providing $1.3 billion in mandatory funding in 2017 and $75 billion
    over 10 years for the President's landmark Preschool for All proposal,
    along with $350 million for the reauthorized Preschool Development
    Grants program, an increase of $100 million over the 2016 level, in the
    Department of Health and Human Services request and jointly
    administered with the Department of Education. We also would
    significantly increase support for State and local efforts to meet the
    educational needs of English Learners in public schools through an $800
    million request for English Language Acquisition formula grants.
        I am proud that our 2017 budget also includes new resources for
    school districts ready to take bold action to address equity gaps in
    their schools and communities. First, we are asking for $120 million to
    fund a new Stronger Together program that would support voluntary
    efforts by one or more school districts, guided by strong community
    input, to increase socioeconomic diversity in their schools. Research
    shows that States with more socioeconomic segregation in schools tend
    to have larger achievement gaps between low- and higher-income
    students, and socioeconomically diverse schools can lead to improved
    outcomes for students. Stronger Together would provide resources to
    communities that want to explore options for putting research into
    practice. Such plans could incorporate ongoing efforts of this
    Administration to invest in diverse, high-quality magnet and charter
    schools, as highlighted in the budget proposal. Several school
    districts and communities are already developing innovative diversity
    initiatives to improve student achievement, and with additional
    resources, these efforts could be scaled up and serve as models.
        The Budget would include $128 million--a $55 million increase--for
    Promise Neighborhoods. This increase would support up to 15 new awards
    to local partnerships to implement comprehensive, neighborhood-based
    plans for meeting the cradle-to-career educational, health, and social
    service needs of children and families in high-poverty communities.
        Another groundbreaking proposal is our Computer Science for All
    initiative. This proposal-- $2 billion in mandatory funding in fiscal
    year 2017 and $4 billion over 3 years--would support efforts in all 50
    states to expand access for all students to computer science
    instruction and programs of study. The budget also includes $100
    million in discretionary grants for Computer Science for All
    Development Grants for school districts that recognize the power of
    computer science to engage students in preschool through grade 12 in
    real-world computer programming and related skills in conjunction with
    other rigorous coursework, including STEM fields in which students from
    low-income families and students of color traditionally are
    underrepresented. Every year, increasing numbers of STEM-related jobs
    are created that require workers with backgrounds in computer science
    education, but too few school districts offer these courses, especially
    in high-poverty schools. The grants proposed in our Budget would focus
    on identifying and testing computer science instructional models that
    expand access to these opportunities for all students, but particularly
    for high school students in underserved communities, including in urban
    and rural areas.
        In addition, the Budget includes a proposal for Next Generation
    High Schools, which would promote the whole-school transformation of
    the high school experience in order to provide students with
    challenging and relevant academic and career-related learning
    experiences that prepare them to transition to postsecondary education
    and careers. This program would provide students with the academic
    foundation and skills they need to be successful, ensuring that all
    students in redesigned high schools participate in project- or problem-
    based learning and have the opportunity to earn early college credit,
    and engage in experiences or postsecondary learning opportunities that
    build career-ready competencies. Accomplishing these goals will help
    improve longer-term outcomes for high school students, including
    increased high school graduation rates, higher rates of enrollment in
    postsecondary studies without the need to take remedial courses, higher
    postsecondary completion rates, and higher rates of completion of
    industry-recognized credentials and certifications.
        The Budget also includes $138 million, an increase of $31 million
    over the 2016 enacted level, for more vigorous enforcement of our
    Nation's civil rights laws by the Department's Office for Civil Rights,
    which ensures equal access to education. The Office of Civil Rights has
    been actively protecting the rights of all students through
    comprehensive strategies that include, among others, efforts to
    eliminate racial disparities in school disciplinary practices and
    procedures, and the enforcement of protections against bullying and
    harassment and sexual assault on college campuses.
        Finally, the Budget includes $500 million for the newly authorized
    Student Support and Academic Enrichment block grant, nearly twice the
    amount appropriated in 2016 for the antecedent programs. These funds
    can help expand course offerings across a range of areas, such as STEM
    and the arts, and bolster student achievement through such activities
    as mentoring or school counseling and expanding digital learning
    opportunities. Within the discretionary caps, we were unable to fund
    this new block grant at the fully authorized level, and thus have
    proposed that States have broader flexibility in how to target these
    funds to ensure that the funds provided to LEAs are robust enough to
    make a meaningful impact on students.
               expanding support for teachers and school leaders
        A second area of focus in our 2017 request is to provide support
    for teachers and leaders who are doing the daily work of implementing
    new college- and career-ready standards and aligned assessments, and
    turning around our lowest-performing schools. If we want all students
    to succeed, we must provide teachers with the preparation, support,
    opportunities for leadership, and autonomy they need to be effective in
    the classroom and to want to remain in the field. And we need to
    prepare, attract, and keep school leaders of diverse backgrounds who
    can create school cultures that bring out the best of students and
    staff in a climate that supports growth and learning for all.
        Our 2017 request proposes significant new resources to help ensure
    that all students have access to effective teachers and leaders and new
    opportunities for teachers to shape our approaches to improving student
    outcomes. First, our $1 billion mandatory RESPECT: Best Job in the
    World program would support the redesign of an estimated 200 high-need
    schools to create models that transform these schools into the best
    places to advance a career in education and thereby attract and retain
    talented and effective teachers and school leaders. For new and
    continuing competitive grant programs for teachers and leaders that
    span preparation, development, and retention, we request $525 million,
    an increase of $142 million over 2016. For example, the budget includes
    $250 million for the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants
    program--the reauthorized version of the Teacher Incentive Fund--to
    support continued innovation in the area of robust human capital
    management systems that help school districts and schools recruit,
    develop, support, retain, and advance teachers through every phase of
    their careers. We also would strengthen the pipeline of effective
    teachers and principals through a new $125 million Teacher and
    Principal Pathways program, which would make competitive grants to
    institutions of higher education and other nonprofit entities to
    support the creation and expansion of high-quality teacher and
    principal preparation programs. In addition we fund Title II-A at $2.25
    billion in formula funds. Finally, to attract the next generation of
    talented educators, we propose to streamline and expand the current
    postsecondary assistance available to teachers into one program that
    will provide up to $25,000 in loan forgiveness for serving in a high-
    needs school.
       improving access, affordability, and completion in postsecondary
                                   education
        Higher education is one of the clearest paths to the middle class.
    At a time when jobs can go anywhere in the world, skills and education
    will determine success for individuals and for nations. Yet, far too
    many students do not go to college, or never complete their degree; we
    used to be first in the world in college completion, and now we are
    13th. Our budget request builds on the Administration's efforts to make
    college more affordable and accessible while putting forward important
    new initiatives to promote college completion. We must shift incentives
    at every level to focus on student success, not just on access.
    Students who do not complete their degrees are less likely to succeed
    in the workforce and have student loan default rates that are, on
    average, three times higher than those who graduate. Further, we know
    that taking a full course load helps students finish on time, at a
    lower cost and likely with less student debt, saving them both time and
    money.
        The request dedicates $188 billion to Federal student aid in fiscal
    year 2017, including $31 billion to Pell Grants and over $155 billion
    to student loans, benefiting more than 12 million students. The request
    expands the Administration's signature initiative, America's College
    Promise, which would support 2 years of free community college for
    responsible students, who get good grades and stay on track to
    graduate, as well as up to providing 2 years of college at zero or
    significantly reduced tuition to first-time, low-income students at 4-
    year Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority-
    Serving Institutions (MSIs). We are also proposing a new $30 million
    HBCU/MSI Innovation for Completion Fund competitive grant program to
    foster innovative and evidence-based, student-centered strategies and
    interventions to increase the number of low-income students completing
    degree programs.
        The Budget proposes two initiatives totaling $2 billion in Pell
    Grants for the 2017-2018 award year to help students accelerate
    progress toward their degrees by attending school year-round and
    encouraging students to take more credits per term, increasing their
    likelihood of on-time completion. The first initiative, Pell for
    Accelerated Completion, would allow full-time students the opportunity
    to earn a third semester of Pell Grants in an academic year, enabling
    them to finish faster by taking additional courses year-round and
    better meeting the diverse needs of today's students. The second
    initiative, On-Track Pell Bonus, would create an incentive for students
    to stay on track or accelerate their progress towards a degree through
    a $300 bonus, effectively increasing the Pell Grant maximum award to
    $6,235, for students who take 15 or more credits per semester in an
    academic year, which is the course load typically needed for on-time
    completion.
        Research published in 2013 from the RAND Corporation suggests that
    inmates who participate in correctional education programs are not only
    43 percent less likely to recidivate but also 13 percent more likely to
    obtain employment post-release. Accordingly, we propose expanding
    postsecondary opportunity to incarcerated individuals eligible for
    release through the Second Chance Pell proposal that would restore
    their Pell eligibility with the goals of helping them get jobs, support
    their families, turn their lives around, and strengthen their
    communities.
        Finally, the Administration is re-proposing other key initiatives,
    including rewarding colleges that successfully enroll and graduate a
    significant number of low-income students on time; further simplifying
    the FAFSA; permanently extending inflationary increases of the maximum
    Pell grant award; redirecting campus-based programs to target
    institutions that offer affordable and quality education and training;
    reforming and streamlining income-driven repayment plans to simplify
    borrowers' experience and allow for easier selection of a repayment
    plan, while reducing program complexity and better targeting of
    benefits; strengthening teacher loan forgiveness; and protecting
    students and taxpayers from predatory colleges that are not delivering
    the high-quality education that students--and taxpayers--deserve.
                   promoting greater use of evidence and data
        Over the last 7 years, we have pioneered efforts that encourage
    grantees and practitioners to use evidence of what works in education
    in ways that can improve student outcomes. Programs such as Education
    Innovation and Research and First in the World (FITW), which includes a
    30 percent set-aside for HBCUs and MSIs, will continue to scale up the
    use of evidence-based grant-making. Further, a focus on evidence and
    data also can be a powerful tool to advance equity. For example, under
    our new Federal education law, the ESSA, States will establish new
    accountability systems that will include indicators of success that
    reflect a broad picture of how schools are serving all children, and
    not just in academics. States could decide to look at information about
    students' socioemotional growth, for instance, and whether schools are
    helping children develop skills like resilience and the ability to
    effectively collaborate with peers.
        This Budget continues that commitment to improving student outcomes
    by increasing funding for programs that provide additional resources
    for interventions that either are based on evidence of success, or help
    build evidence of what works in education. The Budget strongly funds
    the infrastructure for evaluation within the Institute of Education
    Sciences, requesting $209 million for the Research, Development, and
    Dissemination program, $125 million for the Statistics program, and $81
    million for the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program, with a
    particular focus on using data at the local level. These requests will
    enable the collection of critical information, and help us disseminate
    this evidence of what works to policymakers and practitioners to
    empower them to improve student learning and narrow achievement gaps.
        Our request also includes $15 million to support InformED, which
    builds on the success of the new College Scorecard by making the
    Department's data and research across the education spectrum, including
    data and research on a wide range of issue areas for students at the
    Pre-K through college levels, more available--and actionable--for
    internal users and for the public. The 2017 Budget will help build new
    infrastructure to manage the collection, quality, release, and analysis
    of these data in innovative and effective ways.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, our 2017 request reflects the President's
    determination to make the investments necessary to expand educational
    opportunity, position our children for success, and promote economic
    growth and global competiveness. I look forward to working with the
    Subcommittee to secure support for the President's 2017 Budget for
    education, and I look forward to your questions.

        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        We have votes scheduled at 11:30. I think if we all stay
    close to a 5-minute round of questions, we can get that done by
    11:30.
        The order I have, after Senator Murray and me, are Cochran,
    Baldwin, Alexander, Schatz, Lankford, Merkley, Cassidy, and
    Capito, and then whoever comes in. And we will probably have
    other people attend.

                      RESOURCES FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

        Mr. Secretary, on mental health services, we were able to
    put money in the 2016 budget that gives you and the Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration some
    opportunities to look at areas like Baltimore and Ferguson,
    Missouri, that had substantial community unrest and look for
    what we might do additionally in the school building itself to
    provide some mental health assistance. How is that beginning
    to--what path forward are you seeing happen there with you and
    SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration)?
        Dr. King. I appreciate the question. It is very important
    that we provide additional resources in schools where students
    are struggling with the impact of events like those in Ferguson
    and Baltimore. We are in the early stages of developing the
    grant process that will allow us to award funds to communities
    that have had these challenges. We also want to work with those
    communities to provide technical assistance so that they can
    leverage existing funding streams, like Titles I and IV, to
    support the sort of school-based counseling and mental health
    services that are essential for those students.
        Senator Blunt. Well, as you know, kids who are victims of
    violence, witnesses of violent acts, surrounded by violence,
    and have lots of things going on that make it hard to focus on
    the things that they otherwise would hopefully be focused in
    school. So I am very interested, and I know the committee is,
    on what you are doing there and the framework you are putting
    together to create this new opportunity.

                                CHARTER SCHOOLS

        On charter schools, you have had a lot of experience with
    charter schools. You were the Managing Director of Uncommon
    Schools, a charter management organization in New York, New
    Jersey, and Massachusetts. Also, you have public school
    experience. What do you think charter schools add to the public
    school opportunities?
        Dr. King. We think charters are an important part of the
    public education landscape. Certainly the schools that I was
    associated with are demonstrating that with the right set of
    supports, high-needs, low-income students can excel. We see all
    over the country examples of high-performing charters that are
    implementing strategies like a longer school day, more
    intensive professional development for teachers, wraparound
    services, and other strategies to try and support their
    students' success.
        We worry, on the other hand, that there are charters that
    are under-performing, and I think one of the critical elements
    in the success of the charter effort is quality authorizing.
    And so the Charter School Grant program is a very important
    part of that, helping authorizers continue to improve their
    practice so that they are replicating high-performing charters
    and taking action to close charters that are not fulfilling the
    responsibilities of their charter agreements.
        Senator Blunt. You know, in St. Louis and Kansas City,
    both, we have a significant number of charter schools. We had a
    few of those schools that did not perform at a level that they
    needed to. But generally, the schools that have performed have
    more and more competition of people who want to be part of the
    lottery to get in.

                                   IMPACT AID

        On the Impact Aid topic, I am not going to say a lot about
    that, but where there is substantial Federal land in a school
    district, usually that means you have longer bus routes, you
    have lots of things going on because of the geography that you
    have to deal with that is under Federal control. And you also
    clearly take all of that land off the tax rolls. Cutting
    funding to Impact Aid is an annual submission on the part of
    the Department, and it is an annual rejection by the committee.
    We are not going to cut funding this year. And maybe that is
    all that needs to be said there.

                             STUDENT LOAN SERVICING

        On student loan servicing, talk to me about this a little
    bit. I know you have gone to great detail to put metrics
    together, to look at which servicers appear to have fewer
    students who are not able to pay back loans the way we had
    hoped students would be able to. But that does not seem to have
    anything to do with how you allocate new loans to be serviced
    by organizations.
        Dr. King. As was required in the 2016 budget, we actually
    have a new allocation for the servicers, the TIVAs, and the
    not-for-profits for the next few months, through September
    based on our existing metrics.
        But our key concern is to make sure that servicers are
    doing a good job by students. We do have some concerns that our
    existing metrics do not necessarily account for the difference
    in the types of loans that have been managed by the TIVAs as
    opposed to the not-for-profits. And so as we move towards
    September, we are working to try and refine those metrics and
    certainly will be eager to get input from all of you and from
    your staff and from the private sector on how we ensure that
    the metrics are as fair as possible to borrowers. We want to
    make sure that the loans are distributed in a way that reflects
    best service to borrowers.
        Senator Blunt. Borrowers, taxpayers, and future students
    who benefit from those revolving funds all need to be
    considered here. I think you are telling me that you are
    looking at the metrics you have now put together. You are
    looking at the loans that are behind those metrics, and
    hopefully the metrics will matter. And maybe your loan mix is
    something you want to look at.
        Senator Murray.

                         REFUNDS TO MILITARY BORROWERS

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. King, I, as you know, have been pushing the Department
    for some time now to make sure that the Federal student loan
    servicing quality reaches the highest standards of customer
    service and complies with the law.
        Last week, as you know, in response to a review I and other
    Senators requested, the Inspector General reported that the
    Department's review of servicers' compliance with the SCRA
    (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act) followed a deeply flawed
    methodology and papered over mistreatment of military
    borrowers.
        Now, we talked about this, and I am really pleased the
    Department has committed to refund all of those military
    borrowers for the money that they were overcharged, correcting
    the most disturbing finding in that IG's (Inspector General)
    report, but remain troubled that they occurred in the first
    place and that a valid review of compliance with the SCRA still
    has not been conducted. Our veterans, our students, our
    families deserve better.
        And I wanted to ask you what is now the timeline for
    issuing those refunds to our military borrowers.
        Dr. King. I share your concern about this issue. I want to
    make sure that we protect our military borrowers.
        As you indicated, since 2014, we have used a data match
    system from the Department of Defense that has allowed us to
    provide the benefit to all eligible borrowers. We have acted
    now to have the servicers go back and apply that data match
    system to all borrowers from 2008 to 2014 to ensure that any
    borrower who would have benefited from this benefit has that
    opportunity, whether they applied for it or not.
        Our next step is to conduct a new review, informed by the
    findings of the Inspector General's report. We will launch that
    new review shortly, guided by the Inspector General's
    recommendations on methodology. And that review will then help
    us decide next steps with the servicers with respect to what
    happened prior to 2014.
        Senator Murray. So when do you actually expect those
    refunds to be issued to the borrowers themselves?
        Dr. King. So we expect the refunds to come quite quickly.
    We will go year by year, working with the Department of
    Defense, on this data match. So we hope that that will happen
    in short order, and then we will conduct this additional review
    as well.
        Senator Murray. Well, going forward, you and I are going to
    have many discussions about how we make sure that student loan
    borrowers are well served and this does not happen again and
    benefits are not denied to our military or anyone.

                            LOAN SERVICING OVERSIGHT

        But I wanted to ask you, following up on the chairman's
    question. Earlier this year, the Office of Federal Student Aid
    established a new student aid enforcement unit to carry out,
    among other duties, loan servicing oversight. Your budget
    requests additional resources for that new unit, and I
    understand you are planning to announce a major recompetition
    of the Federal loan servicing contracts soon.
        Can you tell me how loan servicing oversight will work
    better under the new servicing contracts and actually when you
    plan to announce that?
        Dr. King. We expect to announce the first stage of the new
    loan servicing procurement hopefully by the end of the month,
    perhaps early next month.
        Our hope with that procurement is to build in best practice
    in servicing. We have spent a significant amount of time
    gathering information from other agencies, gathering input from
    stakeholders to try to ensure that the expectations for the
    servicers reflect the highest standard for service to borrowers
    and also to make sure that the procurement process protects the
    interests of taxpayers.
        We expect to launch that shortly. I think it will result in
    improved servicer quality, but also we take very seriously our
    responsibility to conduct servicer oversight. That is an
    important function of the Department, and we have got to make
    sure that the servicers hold to the requirements of the new
    contracts.

                             COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY

        Senator Murray. Switching topics really fast. College
    affordability, an issue I hear from absolutely everyone. And I
    have actually used my HELP website now to ask for stories from
    students and families about their struggles to pay for college.
    I have been overwhelmed by the stories that have come to me.
        I had a young man named Brian from my State. He said he had
    to help pay for college. He applied for scholarships. He found
    part-time jobs, and of course, he had to take on student debt.
    He is now a high school teacher. He is struggling. He told me
    he makes the minimum payment only on his loans, and he, quote,
    lives with a daunting umbrella of student debt weighing on him.
        You know, the yearly costs of tuition and room and board at
    public 4-year institutions is now actually five and a half
    times what it was in the early 1980s.
        So the Pell Grant maximum award now only covers 30 percent
    of the average college costs and overall nearly 42 million
    Americans hold more than $1.3 trillion in student loan debt.
        I wanted to ask you how your budget proposal actually helps
    strengthen the Pell Grant program for the long term and help us
    improve access to college.
        Dr. King. Yes. This is a hugely important issue. We worry
    tremendously about the student debt crisis.
        One of the key factors driving the debt crisis for
    students--or two of the key factors. One is managing their
    debt. Two is folks who have debt but do not actually have a
    degree because they started school but did not finish, and then
    they are trapped in a cycle where they cannot pay back their
    debt because they do not have a good job, because they do not
    have a degree, and they cannot go back to school.
        Our budget proposal focuses on both issues. We call for
    streamlining the income-based repayment programs so that we can
    make sure that folks can manage their debt effectively and cap
    their payments at 10 percent of their discretionary income.
        We call for improvements to Pell, including allowing
    students to access summer Pell and year-round Pell so that
    students can stay on track to graduation. There is good
    evidence that that helps students stay on track.
        We include Pell bonus that incentivizes and rewards
    students who take 15 or more credits each semester because
    there is good evidence from around the country that higher
    education institutions that have focused on 15 credits per
    semester have seen significant improvements in their completion
    rates.
        We build in an incentive for institutions because we think
    it is important that institutions see completion as their
    responsibility, and we want to reward institutions that are
    doing a good job for completion for Pell students.
        We call for indexing Pell to inflation beyond 2017. We
    think that is hugely important.

                           AMERICA'S COLLEGE PROMISE

        And the President's America's College Promise proposal,
    which focuses on 2 years of community college tuition for
    responsible students, does so in a way that would require
    significant State investment. I think one of the key factors
    driving the change in cost for students is that many States
    have disinvested from public higher education. The America's
    College Promise program is designed in a way that would
    incentivize State investment.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        I have gone way over my time. I apologize.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you.
        The chairman of the full committee, Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to welcome
    the distinguished Acting Secretary to be here today to talk
    about his plans for carrying out legislation that Congress has
    recently adopted at the request of Senator Alexander, who has
    spent a lot of time on evidence-based strategies to improve
    student outcomes.
        What is your reaction to this framework of Federal
    suggestions, in effect, to meet the challenges that are
    presented to our underserved and smaller school districts that
    are scattered around States like mine where most of the people
    ride the buses to school? ``Busing'' is not a bad word. If it
    were not for busing, I do not know what our schools would do.
    But we want to be sure that we do attract the best teachers and
    we encourage students in the most cost-effective way to get a
    good education and to help contribute to continued growth in
    our economy and the quality of life of our American citizens.

               OPTIMISM REGARDING THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT

        Dr. King. Absolutely. We are very optimistic about
    implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act. We think it
    strikes the right balance, allowing State and local flexibility
    while maintaining important Federal civil rights guardrails. We
    think there is an opportunity for States and districts to do a
    better job leveraging evidence to drive their interventions
    when schools are struggling.
        There is an opportunity for schools to broaden the
    definition of school quality. One of the challenges of the No
    Child Left Behind Act you often saw was a narrowing of the
    definition of school quality to just English and math
    performance. English and math performance are hugely important,
    but so too are science and social studies and access to art and
    music and access to advanced placement courses. And so we are
    optimistic about the work ahead.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Schatz.

                             COLLEGE ACCREDITATION

        Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary King, glad to have you here.
        I wanted to ask you about the accreditation process for
    higher education institutions. As you know, in 2014, there was
    a GAO (Government Accountability Office) study that showed that
    around 1 percent of those who were going through the
    accreditation process actually lost accreditation. You know the
    data, but I will just give you a quick data point. We have at
    least $10 billion going to for-profit institutions that have
    graduation rates of less than 10 percent.
        And I am wondering whether you think we are accrediting the
    right percentage of institutions or whether--I mean, it seems
    to me that given what the DOE (Department of Education) is
    doing in the space of cracking down on malfeasance, that there
    is another part of the Department of Education that does not
    seem to be caught up with your overall policy on this, and that
    is accreditation.
        Now, I think some of it is the ecosystem that we have set
    up over time where the accreditation agencies are actually
    overseen by boards of directors that are populated by the heads
    of the institutions that are subject to the accreditation. I
    think there are a number of statutory and sort of institutional
    process things that need to change over time.
        But I want you to tell me what you think is happening on
    the accreditation side and what needs to happen next.
        Dr. King. I appreciate the question. We are very worried
    about accreditors. You know, my predecessor, Secretary Duncan,
    I think referred to them as the watch dog that does not bite.
    Accreditors have not, in our view, done enough to ensure that
    higher education institutions are serving their students well
    and getting their students to graduation with a degree that
    allows them to be successful in the 21st century economy.
        We have a number of initiatives around increasing
    transparency around accreditors and showing that they share
    with the public more of the information about the process that
    they have in place. We have asked accreditors a series of
    questions around their practices, particularly with respect to
    schools that have very poor graduation rates and poor student
    outcomes.
        We are committed to using our existing authority to try to
    strengthen the process, but we think there is a need for a
    statutory change here as well. And we would be happy to work
    with you and your staff on that. We think it would be better if
    there were a clearer line from accreditors to the Department on
    issues of accountability for student outcomes.
        Senator Schatz. Well, we will work with you on legislation.
    I know it will not be easy and it will not be instantaneous.
    And I think if you can keep the push--continue to push on your
    side within the existing statutory authorities, we will be able
    to work together on this.

                             PELL GRANT INCENTIVES

        I wanted to ask you about this bonus for taking 15 credits.
    The University of Hawaii has a great program, 15 to Finish. And
    their metrics are incredibly encouraging over a relatively
    short period of time. So I like the idea. I am not persuaded
    that a $300 bonus is sufficient to incentivize somebody to make
    the right set of choices, and I am not persuaded that if you
    are 18 years old and you are told you get the full Pell Grant
    amount for 12 credits, that you are not just going to go ahead
    and take the 12 credits and pull down the full amount. And very
    few college counselors are actually telling the kid, by the
    way, if you do the 12 credits, you are in for 6 years.
        And so I wanted you to articulate, first of all, what the
    overall problem is, but I am more interested in whether you
    actually think that this 300 bucks is going to make a
    difference.
        Dr. King. I appreciate the question.
        The University of Hawaii's work on this is excellent. And I
    think what you see at the University of Hawaii is two things.
    One is focusing the students on the benefits of taking 15
    credits, but also the institutional focus that has allowed them
    to look at questions like whether or not students can take all
    of the classes that they need to for their majors the way their
    schedule is currently structured. So I think it is really an
    institutional culture question as well as a matter of
    incentives for students.
        We do think the $300 will help focus students' attention,
    but we do not think that alone is enough. That is why we also
    propose the institutional bonus for completion rates because we
    think higher education institutions need skin in the game
    around completion outcomes.
        It is also why we proposed funding for First in the World,
    $100 million to continue a competitive grant program that is
    focused on building an evidence base around the kinds of
    supports that help institutions of higher education improve
    graduation rates.
        Your point about counseling is exactly right. What we are
    seeing with the First in the World grantees is where schools
    put in place high-quality counseling, helping students navigate
    which credits to take, which classes, how to use their time,
    what to do when they are struggling in a class, we see improved
    completion outcomes.
        Senator Schatz. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you.
        Dr. King. Mr. Skelly, I remember seeing you at the
    Department when I was Secretary. I think we worked together
    some years ago. Congratulations on your service.

                            RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

        Dr. King, following up on Senator Schatz's point, 3 years
    ago Senators Mikulski and Bennet and Burr and I asked a broad
    group of higher education people to give us specific
    recommendations about how we could cut through the so-called
    jungle of red tape that unnecessarily interferes with the wise
    use of the money they have. And they gave us a really good
    report. Working with Senator Murray on our committee, we are
    trying to identify maybe 3 dozen of those that might be a part
    of a reauthorization of higher education or some version of it.
    But the leaders of that committee, Chancellor Kirwan,
    Chancellor Zeppos from Maryland and Vanderbilt met with Arne
    Duncan and gave him a list of several ideas, some of which
    among the top 10 of the 59.
        Now, I want to ask you about one of those, which is not
    something you can do, but relates to Senator Schatz's question.
    One of the recommendations was that we allow accreditors--and
    this will take a change in law--to spend more time on a for-
    profit school with problems and less time on Harvard or UCLA in
    their accrediting process, in other words, risk-adjusted
    approach. Does that not just make common sense?
        Dr. King. We would certainly be happy to work with you on a
    risk management strategy for accreditors.
        Senator Alexander. But they have 6,000 institutions to
    accredit. It does not make any sense to me that you would spend
    the same amount of time on a well functioning university that
    everybody regards and the same amount of time on an institution
    that is in a lot of trouble and everybody knows that too. So
    you may be able to effect that. We may be able to effect that
    through legislation.

                              FAFSA SIMPLIFICATION

        Here is another suggestion they made. This is the
    application form that 20 million families fill out every year
    for student aid, 108 questions, very intimidating, discourages
    a lot of students. Senator Bennet and I and Booker and Burr
    suggested it be two questions because that is the testimony we
    heard from almost everybody. The President has said that he
    likes going from 108 questions to as close to 2 questions as we
    can. His budget for the last 2 years has said there are 30
    questions that he could take off that 108. Can you tell us--not
    today, but will you tell us what those 30 questions are so we
    can at least go from 108 to 78 and then go more rapidly toward
    two as we can?
        Dr. King. Absolutely. And one promising step, as you know,
    is that we are allowing, beginning next year, folks to use the
    prior year tax information, which both satisfies the report and
    also will simplify this process.
        Senator Alexander. That is part of our legislation and it
    is part of the report. And I applaud you for doing that.

                          THREE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

        Now, there are three provisions in that report--and I will
    not ask you to get into them today. But I am going to ask you
    will you commit to try to do these three that are in the top 10
    of the report by the end of the year.
        One is the return of Title IV funds, an overly complex,
    200-paragraph regulatory text about just the question of a
    student returning money to the Federal Government when they
    withdraw from school.
        Number two, financial responsibility standards. These are
    regulations written in the 1990s that are so complex that
    Georgetown University got a near failing grade on a recent
    financial test, which is absurd.
        And three, on the reporting of data to the Department. They
    say there are 11 different annual surveys. At Vanderbilt, one
    survey required 1,000 person-hours to complete. Surely that
    could be simplified.
        Will you please work on those three that are in the top 10
    and see if they can be accomplished by the end of the year?
        Dr. King. I am certainly committed to working with you and
    your staff to see what progress we can make on these.

                          CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IN ESSA

        Senator Alexander. Now, a last question, and it is more of
    a comment. We are looking for signals about how well you are
    going to follow the impulse of Congress in this new elementary
    and secondary education law. We had a consensus that it needed
    to be fixed, and our consensus was, while we wanted the
    reporting requirements on test results, we wanted the decisions
    about what to do about the results of those tests back with
    States, classroom teachers, et cetera. It was not just
    Republicans. It was not just Governors. It was teachers. It was
    almost everybody, which is why we got 85 votes in the Senate
    for the bill.
        Yet, your budget recommends $5.3 billion for six new
    elementary and secondary programs that we did not authorize and
    only $500 million for the $1.65 billion block grant that we did
    authorize. A lot of Senators wanted some new programs and they
    did not get them because we eliminated 49 programs. So why
    would you be recommending new programs that we did not
    authorize just this past December and not funding properly the
    block grant that we did authorize?

                          TITLE IV BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

        Dr. King. Well, let me start with the Title IV programs. We
    think Title IV is very important. We think the priorities in
    Title IV around a well-rounded education or an arts education,
    school counseling, safe and supportive school climates are all
    very important.
        The prior Title IV programs had about $278 million of
    funding. We have proposed taking that to $500 million, a $222
    million increase for the Title IV batch of programs.
        But we were trying in this budget to both advance the
    President's priorities and stay within the caps on
    discretionary spending. We are certainly open to working
    together with you on this committee to look at how we move
    forward in a way that acknowledges those priorities and makes
    the important investments that we all believe in.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Merkley.

                                  PROJECT SERV

        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary King. I appreciate so much the
    Department's support for Umpqua Community College where we had
    a terrible tragedy this past year. One of the ways the Federal
    Government has been supportive is through the SERV grants, the
    School Emergency Response to Violence. UCC has not been able to
    take full advantage of those funds because the flexibility is
    limited specifically, for example, for help with the equipment
    like security cameras and door locks.
        Can you work with us to expand the flexibility so when a
    school goes through a tragedy, they can pursue the best
    strategies without running into significant grant hurdles?
        Dr. King. I am certainly happy to talk with you and your
    staff about that and figure out where there is flexibility
    under the statutory language.
        Senator Merkley. I am glad you will talk with us, but
    hopefully we can do more than talk.
        Dr. King. Yes, sir. Again, I think we will have to look at
    what flexibility we have at the Department. But as you know, we
    have been in constant communication with the school from the
    outset and want to make sure that we are as supportive of the
    school and the students as possible.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.

                             STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT

        Second, I wanted to turn to an act I introduced, the AFFORD
    Act, which takes the strategy income-based repayment so that
    students are not saddled with debt that way exceeds what their
    discretionary income could possibly pay. This was a boutique
    program. Your administration, the team Obama, proceeded to
    elevate it in the regulations to make it more prominent.
        But we need to anchor it into law so that it is a prominent
    option from the beginning so we can tell people in seventh and
    eighth grade that there is an affordable repayment strategy
    that will not leave them on a monthly basis weighted down with
    a millstone around their neck because that very fear--I mean,
    not only are we talking about the effect of college debt when
    it occurs. We are talking about the effect of college debt on
    students' aspirations way back into junior high school. And so
    I would like to encourage your team to help advocate for taking
    the concept that you all have elevated in the regulations,
    working with Congress to make it a permanent part of the law so
    we can go to those seventh graders and say there is an income-
    based repayment option so that you will not be drowning in
    month-to-month debt repayment.
        Dr. King. I absolutely would love to work with you on that.
    I also think that the America's College Promise idea and the
    notion that we will be able to say to all students--if you are
    hardworking, if you are responsible, you will be able to get 2
    years of community college tuition for free--would also have
    that powerful incentive effect.

                         PREDATORY FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES

        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Third, I want to turn to a letter that my colleague from
    Washington State, Senator Murray, led and I believe about 3
    dozen Senators signed, and it is really related to the
    situation that students are in when they have been victims of
    predatory tactics by some bad actors within our for-profit
    college community.
        And I want to clarify. Not all for-profits are predatory,
    but there are a few that have been very misleading in the way
    they appeal to students. And when that happens--this letter,
    which Senator Murray propagated, lays out several things.
        One is streamlining the process so there is automatic
    relief to groups of students who have been the victims of
    predatory practices, rather than them having to go through a
    complicated application process. Remember, many of these
    students have moved multiple times. It is hard for the mail to
    catch up to them. They may never even get the application. They
    may never know they are even eligible. So being aggressive in
    providing relief would be a much better position to be in.
        And it should not be dependent upon Federal recovery of
    funds from the schools.
        And students should not be subject to arbitration
    agreements. That should just be a disqualifier right from the
    beginning. Any school that wants to deny its students a fair
    hearing as a predicate to being signed up and it is hidden in
    the fine print should be a high suspicion from day one. And you
    all can make a difference on that.
        And finally, the 2-year statute of limitations is simply
    not sufficient for students to be able to respond.
        So please clear the path to make it a much stronger, wider,
    flatter avenue for students to get fair treatment in these
    situations.
        Dr. King. The encouraging news I can share is that I think
    the borrowers defense regulations that are currently being
    negotiated will simplify the process, will streamline the
    process, and will make it easier for students to get relief.
    Importantly, we also want to prevent students from being
    victimized in the first place, and I think the victory in the
    appeals court on gainful employment regulations suggest that we
    will have a new set of tools there. And our new enforcement
    unit will be very focused on ensuring that all institutions
    protect their students.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I appreciate all of that. That is
    the right direction, but there are several additional items
    that I have just mentioned that I think could even take you in
    a much stronger position and better position for our students.
        Dr. King. I look forward to working with you on this.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Lankford.

                   DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTERS AND OTHER GUIDANCE

        Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning. Good to be able to see you again and get a
    chance to visit with you.
        We have talked about before--I chair the Regulatory Affairs
    Committee here in the Senate which deals with how we actually
    promulgate rules and regulations and the process of that. There
    is a separate issue of whether each regulation is a good idea
    or bad idea, but there is a clear legal standard for how we do
    regulations.
        You also know I have serious issues with the Department of
    Education, how they have promulgated some of the guidance
    documents, which are called ``Dear Colleague'' letters. They
    appear to be policy documents, and they appear to be
    regulations more than they are just clarifications in the
    process. This process started long before you got there, so
    this is not about you and the months that you have been there
    at this point. But my concern is it seems to continue at this
    point.
        So let me just highlight a couple things that I have shared
    with the Department of Education that you know well on this.
        In 2010 and 2011, there were ``Dear Colleague'' letters
    that were put out dealing with the Office for Civil Rights,
    which by the way has a terrific mission and I am very
    supportive of the mission that they have. The issue is the
    process of how it is actually coming out.
        One of the ``Dear Colleague'' letters interpreting Title IX
    forecloses all standards of proof using disciplinary
    proceedings except for preponderance of evidence. And now in
    our conversation and from the letter that I received back from
    my letter, the statement was there were two letters of findings
    from Georgetown and from Evergreen State that were the basis
    for that.
        So here is my question. Do letters of finding form a legal
    precedent? Do other people have to be able to follow a letter
    of finding from a different university? Is that a legal
    precedent?
        Dr. King. No. As we have talked about, we do not view those
    findings as setting precedent.
        Senator Lankford. So let me ask you this. So another school
    should not have to rely on compliance to a different school's
    letter of finding.
        Dr. King. That is right.
        Senator Lankford. Same with the guidance documents? They
    are nonbinding as well. Is that correct?
        Dr. King. That is right. The institutions are accountable
    to the law and regulations. The guidance is intended to provide
    clarity and examples of best practices.

                     INTERPRETATION OF NONBINDING GUIDANCE

        Senator Lankford. So let me just follow through on that
    because this becomes a struggle as I deal with universities
    around the country. So if schools were to ignore the letters of
    findings and the guidance documents, which are all nonbinding,
    rely on their own good faith interpretation of the Title IX
    language, this equitable resolution, if they were to rely on
    their good judgment on that, their own legal counsel on that,
    then are they okay on that? Instead of preponderance of the
    evidence, if they rely on clear and convincing evidence, are
    they okay? Are they within their bounds to do that?
        Dr. King. As we discussed, our interpretation of equitable
    resolution is that that requires the preponderance of evidence
    standard. And our goal with the guidance is to convey our
    interpretation of the law, but an institution has the
    opportunity to go to a hearing or, beyond that, to go to court
    to challenge a potential finding from the Department.
        Senator Lankford. So what I am trying to determine here is
    if there was a letter of finding that you say this is the
    precedent for it, that they cannot use clear and convincing
    evidence, they now have to use preponderance of evidence and
    they have to shift to that, why that is not a regulatory
    decision that is made because if I look at the phrase from the
    law that says ``equitable resolution,'' I am not going to
    immediately look at that and say that is preponderance of the
    evidence. You are saying it is not legally binding. They do not
    have to go by a letter of finding. They do not have to go by a
    guidance. But if they do not, we are going to take them to a
    hearing and to court.
        Dr. King. We believe, based on the Department's
    longstanding--as we discussed, this is a longstanding
    interpretation of equitable resolution that predates this
    administration--longstanding interpretation that equitable
    resolution would mean preponderance of the evidence. So it
    would be the civil standard as well.
        Senator Lankford. It did not at Yale. It did not at
    Harvard. It did not at Princeton. It did not at UVA. It did not
    at Ohio State. And I could keep going through a lot
    universities that all use clear and convincing evidence that
    now had to shift to a new form of that because of a guidance
    document, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, that came out to them
    that they felt compelled to be able to shift from one or the
    other. So you can say it is longstanding. It was longstanding
    in some institutions. It was clearly not longstanding in all of
    them.
        I am not getting at whether that is the right or wrong
    evidence which, by the way, I think preponderance of evidence
    is not a high enough standard. That is irrelevant. The issue is
    this came out from a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, not from
    regulation. There was not an open conversation on this. It did
    not go through the process. It was a new interpretation of
    equitable resolution that outside entities did not have the
    opportunity to be able to participate in, which is the law.

                              EQUITABLE RESOLUTION

        So what I am pushing is when the Department of Education
    promulgates a new rule, promulgate a rule, go through the legal
    process. Do not send out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter and say we
    had a letter of finding from two other schools, and so that is
    the basis now for a ``Dear Colleague,'' which would create a
    new guidance which universities have to shift all their
    policies, add a tremendous number of staff, change all their
    procedures on something that was not a regulation.
        Dr. King. Senator, as I indicated, I appreciate the
    concern. I think our view is that in cases that came to the
    Department, prior to this administration, prior to the
    guidance, the standard that we applied was our interpretation
    of equitable resolution as preponderance of the evidence.
        But I appreciate the distinction you are making, and I
    think we are happy to work with you and your staff to look at
    whether there are ways that we can more clearly communicate to
    higher education institutions.
        Senator Lankford. Which I would be glad to do. Kent
    Talbert, who is the lawyer, used to be the general counsel at
    the Department of Education. When he saw the letter that came
    back from your office, he used the phrase ``glossed over'' the
    question whether the Department is obligated to use a formal
    rulemaking process. We are saying two different things. I am
    saying there is a formal rulemaking process. You are saying we
    had some prior stuff. We have the grounds to do it. This is a
    legal question more than it is anything else. I do want to
    continue this. I am looking forward to your response to the
    next letter on this. But when a former counsel from the
    Department of Education says I am being glossed over, I think I
    am being glossed over in this. And I want us to be able to
    resolve this, the process of actually how we put our guidance.
        I am way over time. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. There will be a little time for a second
    round of questions too if you want to finish up.
        Senator Cassidy.

                         FUNDING FOR DYSLEXIA SERVICES

        Senator Cassidy. Nice to see you again.
        One of the things I have been interested in in these
    hearings is dyslexia. You got a budget. If you include Pell
    Grants north of $60 billion, are you all doing anything
    specifically for dyslexics?
        And just to put this into context, about 20 percent of
    children are dyslexic. It is identifiable by first grade, and
    it will remain with the child throughout his or her career
    unless addressed. And right now, we have heard in previous
    testimony that no school district in the Nation screens for it.
    It is just amazing. Not a single one addresses or screens for
    the most common learning disability that is identifiable in
    first grade. So it is something we should be concerned about.
        To what degree does your budget attempt to address this
    issue?
        And by the way, just for the record, I would like to, Mr.
    Chair, submit an article for the record from the ``Journal of
    Pediatrics'' which speaks of both the prevalence of dyslexia
    and the fact that it is identifiable in first grade and that
    this defect persists throughout the child's education.
        Senator Blunt. Without objection.
        [The article follows:]

        Dr. King. Thanks, Senator. I appreciate the question. As we
    talked about, I saw firsthand as a teacher and a principal the
    impact that dyslexia has on students and the power of high-
    quality services being provided to dyslexic students, giving
    them access to reading and language and unleashing their
    academic potential in a way that would not have happened if
    they had not gotten those high-quality interventions. So I
    share your commitment on this issue.
        In the 2016 Budget, there was funding, $1.5 million, for
    launching a technical assistance center focused on dyslexia. We
    are moving forward with that process and will certainly update
    you on that as that moves along.
        We are working with 30-plus States in our results-driven
    accountability work on IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities
    Education Act) implementation, providing technical assistance
    on literacy-related disabilities, including dyslexia in
    particular. We have done a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, a
    guidance letter to districts on dyslexia, and resources that
    they can tap into on supporting their students with dyslexia.
    And certainly many of our discretionary grant programs on the
    IDEA side are supporting literacy-related disabilities.
        [The letter follows:]

        This letter clarifies that there is nothing in the IDEA that would
    prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in
    IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations or IEP documents. See:
    http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-
    dyslexia-10-2015.pdf.

        Dr. King. But you are exactly right. There is more that we
    need to do as a country for children with dyslexia. However, it
    is inaccurate to say that no school district in the Nation
    screens for dyslexia. Again, I refer to the Department's Dear
    Colleague previously cited that there is nothing in the IDEA
    that would prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, dyscalculia,
    and dysgraphia in IDEA evaluation, eligibility determinations
    or IEP documents. I think this technical assistance center will
    help us and States and districts identify ways that we can make
    progress.
        Senator Cassidy. You are putting a 40 percent overhead on
    that technical assistance center. It seems like a pretty steep
    overhead on that. Obviously, we would rather less be spent upon
    administrative costs and more actually coming up with best
    practices as to how to intervene in the child's life.
        By the way, just for the record, just for consequences,
    there is a study out of Texas showing that 48 percent of
    inmates are dyslexic. And my work as a physician with those who
    are incarcerated, illiteracy, the absence of a father figure,
    and drugs are the unholy trinity that is so common. And again,
    this establishes 48 percent of the children are dyslexic. I
    would like to submit that for the record too.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Cassidy. So I would say $1.5 million--it is a
    start, but in a budget of $66 billion, it is kind of a leaky
    faucet. And so I would encourage a little bit more.
        Dr. King. Yes. I want to note that the Budget request
    includes nearly $12 billion for the Grants to States program,
    which can be used and is used for the provision special
    education and related services, including child find and
    evaluation, for students with disabilities including those with
    dyslexia at the discretion of States, districts, and the IEP
    teams.
        Also, the award for the technical assistance center to be
    made in fiscal year 2016 does not yet have an indirect cost
    rate associated with it since there has not been a grantee
    selected through the Department's competitive award process.

                        FUNDING LEVELS FOR BLOCK GRANTS

        Senator Cassidy. Secondly, just to follow up on what
    Senator Alexander spoke of, it is kind of crazy. On a
    bipartisan basis we proposed increasing block grants, and you
    all do not. And we proposed closing programs and you all expand
    them.
        Now, let me just come back to what Senator Alexander asked.
    It really seems since Senator Alexander advocated for you being
    appointed so that we could follow through on the clear intent
    of the Congress in terms of implementation of the law, right
    out of gates, it looks like you are kind of ignoring the clear
    intent of Congress, which was to give block grants and to
    decrease individual programs. As an example, clearly the block
    grant funding is not sufficient. In your budget, you actually
    allow States to allow school districts on a competitive basis
    to apply for this money. Yet, we intended for there to be
    enough money that the State could do the applications and then
    filter the money down to the district levels.
        Just going back to this, we want you to give a block grant.
    That was the clear intent of the law. Why not? It is just kind
    of a question that has to be asked.
        Dr. King. Two points on that.
        As I indicated earlier, the programs that were folded into
    Title IV last year received $278 million in funding. We have
    proposed $500 million in funding, so a $222 million increase.
        Senator Cassidy. So we wanted to back that off. You have
    doubled. So that kind of proves my point that the clear intent
    was----
        Dr. King. No, no. Sorry if I was unclear. Those four
    programs are now all folded into a single Title IV grant
    program. We have actually taken what was $278 million in four
    programs and put $500 million--a $222 million increase--into
    the Title IV grant program. So that is consistent. Certainly we
    are open to conversation about whether that number can be
    increased, along with other priorities within the discretionary
    spending caps.
        The other point I would make is that we propose allowing
    States the option of distributing the grants on a competitive
    basis because we worry that, as currently constructed, you
    would have districts that could receive as little as $10,000,
    which seems too small to meaningfully impact arts education,
    well-rounded education, school counseling, and safe and
    supportive school climates. So we propose allowing States to
    award the grant competitively with a $50,000 floor.
        But again, I am open to conversation about both the level
    of funding and the methodology. We just want to make sure
    schools are able to have enough funding to make a difference.

            ABILITY OF RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO COMPETE FOR FUNDING

        Senator Cassidy. As regards competitive grants--just 30
    seconds more--that, if you will, is a little bit prejudice
    towards more urban districts. If you go to a rural district,
    they may not have the ability to apply for a grant. I just met
    with a gentleman from Winn Parish, Louisiana yesterday, and
    they are a rural community very much trying to keep it together
    as a population and their industry has evacuated. So when you
    put in a rule like that, I will just say that there is a
    certain prejudice against those smaller districts.
        Dr. King. We have tried in our competitive grants at the
    Department to include a rural priority, and so you see that
    play out, for example, in the program that now would be the
    Education Innovation and Research Program. Twenty-six percent
    of the dollars are going to rural communities because of the
    rural priority in that grant program. States, if they chose
    this option of awarding the grants competitively under Title
    IV, could also include a rural priority or a set-aside. So
    there could be different approaches on distribution, and we are
    certainly open to talking about that.
        Senator Cassidy. I yield back. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Reed.

                               LITERACY PROGRAMS

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary King, for being here today.
        Because of the great leadership of Senator Alexander and
    Senator Murray, we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act. Thank
    you very much. Part of that was the innovative approaches to
    the Literacy grant program, which I am very pleased to see.
        Can you give us an idea of how the Department is going to
    provide the guidance and the technical assistance to encourage
    and support States and the school districts to implement the
    school library provisions? We talked yesterday about the
    criticality of school libraries.
        Dr. King. Yes. We are excited about both the Comprehensive
    Literacy Development Grant program and the Innovative
    Approaches Literacy program, and we look forward to running
    those grant competitions this year for new awardees under both.
    We are trying to build on lessons learned from prior grantees
    and from our Education Innovation and Research grantees. I am
    certainly happy to follow up with you or your staff as that
    process moves forward.
        Senator Reed. I would very much appreciate that. Again, as
    we talked, school libraries are such a multiplier in terms of
    their benefits not just to the students but the community. And
    then when you link them to public libraries and you link them
    to university libraries that might be in your thought process
    also.
        Dr. King. Absolutely. As we talked about, I am a very
    strong supporter of school libraries and have seen firsthand as
    a student, as a parent, and as a teacher the benefits that
    school libraries have.

                               STUDENT LOAN DEBT

        Senator Reed. Now, shifting to the issue of higher
    education, this is an issue that we all have spent a lot of
    time trying to deal with the huge overhang of debt. One
    approach that I have talked to my colleagues about for several
    years now has been forcing the institutions and the lenders to
    put skin in the game, to actually have a monetary interest in
    seeing that students do not over-borrow, that students are
    prepared for real work and get real jobs. And it seems there is
    a very cost-effective and efficient way to do it. It is an
    incentivization structure that would operate almost
    automatically. This is a real different process than check off
    the boxes and you are fine.
        I would like to work with you to establish this type of
    requirement in the student loan programs if you could do it
    administratively. We have legislative proposals. But I think
    there is not just one solution. There are many solutions. But
    this could be a big part of dealing with the issue.

            INCENTIVES TO INSTITUTIONS WITH STRONG COMPLETION RATES

        Dr. King. Absolutely. Eager to work with you on this. I
    think the current incentive structure really rewards
    enrollment, not completion. And we have got to shift that. The
    President proposes in the budget an incentive fund that would
    reward institutions with strong completion rates for Pell-
    eligible students. But we are open to working with you and the
    committee on different strategies to achieve skin in the game.
        Senator Reed. Again, a complex subject, but my sense from a
    macro perspective is there is sort of a 40 percent threshold.
    If you go past that, you are out of the program. But it easily
    managed I think or it is managed. It has to be and I think
    several years in a row. And I would think if you could look at
    your regulations even, if that could be tightened up because as
    it exists today, there is really no incentive to ensure
    students can finish, ensure they take courses that are
    adequate, ensure that they get the right advice about
    borrowing. And as I said on the phone, it is eerily reminiscent
    of the mortgage crisis where nobody had any incentive except to
    sign the papers and take the money and run. So I would hope we
    could work together on that.
        Dr. King. Yes, and we would like to use every tool that we
    have available under current law to try and ensure
    accountability for higher education institutions, but also
    would look forward to working with you and others on the
    committee on the budget priorities that might incentivize
    institutions to focus on completion and ideally working with
    Congress on a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Reed.
        Senator Baldwin.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Murray.
        Thank you, Dr. King, for your testimony today.

                             TITLE IV BLOCK GRANTS

        I understand during the time I needed to step out that you
    received a number of questions about the level of proposed
    funding for the new Student Support and Academic Enrichment
    Grant under Title IV. I am not going to ask you to repeat your
    answers. But I wanted to add my voice to those who expressed
    strong concern about the very low level of funding proposed.
        This grant program provides States and school districts
    with the flexibility to invest in a wide range of programs,
    things like educational technology, physical education, school
    counseling, foreign language arts, arts, advanced placement.
        And Congress authorized--I also serve on the HELP
    Committee. So I am very much focused on adequate funding there.
    We authorized $1.65 billion. Your testimony indicated that the
    administration's request, the Department's request, reflects
    the very difficult choices that you had to make, given the
    caps. However, you have given further explanation.
        I just want to state and underscore how extremely important
    I believe this program is. And I do not think we will
    successfully achieve the intent of the Congress of the United
    States at the current funding level. So I look forward to
    working with my chairman and ranking member on this very high
    priority issue.

                           AMERICA'S COLLEGE PROMISE

        I want to move now to the budget request for America's
    College Promise. I know you have also been asked questions
    about that. It is a commitment to making 2 years of community
    or technical college tuition free for eligible students while
    also, and importantly, incentivizing educational reforms that I
    think will improve student outcomes.
        As you know well, I am proud to be the lead sponsor in the
    United States Senate of the bill, America's College Promise.
        So some talk about the cost of this plan, but I really
    think that it is a crucial investment that both increases
    access to higher education and prepares the workforce of the
    future.
        I would like you to address for a moment what the
    Department sees, what you see as the economic benefits of the
    legislation and how it would help us ensure that we have the
    workforces that our businesses are demanding, that our
    employers are demanding.
        Dr. King. Thanks. Very grateful for your leadership on
    America's College Promise.
        We think that students having access to 2 years of
    community college will do a few things. One is it will make
    clear to all students that college is accessible to them. Too
    many students today think college is unavailable to them. Being
    able to communicate clearly that if you work hard, if you are
    responsible, you will be able to get 2 years of community
    college for free I think it is a powerful message to young
    people about their future.
        Two, we know that community colleges are a key economic
    driver throughout the country. They are often the place where
    first generation college students get their first access to
    higher education and pathway to work. They are often very
    strong partners to employers in providing job training and job
    skills for their future workforce. And they are a source of
    what some people would call stackable credentials, places where
    you might go get some initial credits towards job training,
    then come back, get your associate's degree, then come back,
    get some additional training, and then head on to a 4-year
    program. They are a linchpin, we think, to the ladder of
    opportunity, that is, the American dream. So we think America's
    College Promise should not be viewed as an expense but rather
    as an investment.
        Senator Baldwin. I appreciate those comments. When we spoke
    earlier, I noted that there are several community colleges and
    technical colleges in the State of Wisconsin that are
    endeavoring to make a college promise to students in their
    area, even without this legislation. We know several States,
    Tennessee and Oregon, have taken steps in that direction.
        Of course, I restate my invitation for you to come back and
    join us at one of these Wisconsin campuses. I am going to be
    doing so tomorrow in an attempt to urge the first group
    eligible to fill out their FAFSA (Free Application for Federal
    Student Aid) by March 15th in order to be eligible for the
    first year of one of those programs.

                         CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

        Let me just conclude by taking a moment to note that the
    budget request includes funding for two other major priorities
    of mine and I know others on this committee, the Carl D.
    Perkins CTE (Career and Technical Education) Act and Next
    Generation High Schools. I am co-chair of the bipartisan CTE
    Caucus in the Senate, and I am really pleased to see the
    request build on our commitment to Perkins CTE. I also note
    that the budget seeks $80 million for the Next Generation High
    Schools program, an idea that I championed during the ESSA
    process.
        So these are both programs that can help keep our high
    school students better--help them better obtain the education
    and skills that they need to succeed in college and a career
    beyond. And I look forward to working with fellow members of
    the committee on those issues.
        Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
        We have a little time for a few more questions I think.

                               COMMUNITY COLLEGES

        On the community college issue, I think community colleges
    are the best buy in higher education. We have a robust system
    in our State. There is no community college in Missouri that if
    you qualify for full Pell, you cannot pay all the tuition, all
    the fees, all the books, and have some money left over. And I
    do not think we have any student outside of the reasonable
    reach of a community college now in our State. So just for the
    record, on that needs-based Pell, we have community college
    paid for now if you meet the needs-based requirement to have it
    paid for.

                             TITLE IV BLOCK GRANTS

        On the Title IV issue, I want to go a different direction
    with Title IV. But Title IV--the authorized money in the bill
    we just passed is a 500 percent increase over what we have been
    spending. You asked for essentially double what we have been
    spending. So I just want to be sure that we are not suggesting
    here that somehow anybody is stepping back from the traditional
    commitment to programs now funded by Title IV. Last year it was
    $278 million, which is about what it was the year before, a
    little more I think than the year before that. You are asking
    for $500 million. You know, the authorizers did approve in the
    ESSA bill $1.65 billion, but you are still asking for twice as
    much as we have been spending on those areas.

                               GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT

        On gainful employment, I think actually Title IV is a good
    backdrop to talk about gainful employment. Arts education,
    physical education, music education, all are an important part
    of education. They are not necessarily the things that add the
    most to a paycheck. Now, I am not offended by a significant
    number of art history majors in the country today. All of them
    might have made more money if they would have decided to become
    business finance majors or brain surgeons. But then we would
    have no art history majors.
        I just am concerned, John, that this gainful employment
    concept, a phrase that has been in the law for 50 years--and
    has never been fully defined--is too focused on the amount of
    money a person makes versus their loan versus what they have
    decided to do. My belief is if you apply the gainful employment
    standard in the direction it is headed to the not-for-profits--
    and I was a university president for 4 years. Senator Alexander
    was a university president. The not-for-profits would not stack
    up all that well either when you look at all their students.
        Now, if you look at whether people are current on their
    loan or not, no matter how much they make, there are other
    factors here that I think we should think about. And I am very
    concerned that we are monetizing the value of higher education
    in a way that has not been in the traditions of the country.
    And I would be glad to hear your response.
        Dr. King. Look, I appreciate the concern. We do not want to
    send a signal to students that pursuing studying the humanities
    is a bad thing. Lots of great, creative, successful people
    began their studies in areas that were not necessarily work-
    related.
        That said, ``gainful'' is intended to apply to our for-
    profit colleges and our career preparation programs at other
    institutions. And to say if the promise on which the student is
    enrolling is that this experience is going to lead to gainful
    employment, we have got to make sure that that promise is
    delivered. And we know that there are institutions where
    students are told, come to this program, when you leave this
    program, you are going to get a great job. But then hardly
    anyone gets a good job at the end of that program. And so we
    see ``gainful'' as a way to make sure that we are protecting
    the consumers and the taxpayers as well because we want to make
    sure that taxpayers are getting the benefit of the investment
    in those educational services.
        Senator Blunt. Well, people that are the first person in
    their family to go to college often have a different concept of
    what is available for them to do, what they decide to major in.
    I think at some point in fairness you have to look at higher
    education generally. You cannot just decide that the for-
    profits must be there for a bad purpose and the not-for-profits
    do not need standards. We will talk more about that later.
        Senator Murray.

                                   PRESCHOOL

        Senator Murray. Dr. King, as you know, the bipartisan Every
    Student Succeeds Act marks the first time that our Nation's
    primary education law authorized dedicated funding to improve
    access to preschool for children from low-income and
    disadvantaged families.
        Although the program is now going to be funded at HHS
    (Health and Human Services), the program will be jointly
    administered by HHS and the Department of Education. The
    Department of Education has done great work, in collaboration
    with HHS, to help our States develop and sustain strong early
    learning systems. I wanted to ask you today how do you plan to
    work with HHS to leverage your Department's expertise in this
    arena so we can make sure we are getting high-quality early
    learning.
        Dr. King. Thanks. I appreciate the question.
        You know, we have worked very closely with HHS on
    implementation of the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge
    and then the Preschool Development Grant program. So we have a
    good track record of close collaboration.
        We have already been talking with them about execution of
    the new program under ESSA and think we will be able to work
    together very productively, ensure we are providing good
    technical assistance to States and districts and providers and
    that we are lifting up best practices because we know that the
    return on investment for high-quality pre-K is at eight to one,
    nine to one, but we have to make sure it is high quality. And
    so we will be focused on technical assistance, on quality
    issues, and also on transition issues. We have to make sure
    that students are able to transition smoothly from preschool
    into the K-12 system.
        Senator Murray. I really appreciate that. And anything I
    can do to be helpful, let me know.
        Dr. King. Thank you.

                             CAMPUS SEXUAL VIOLENCE

        Senator Murray. I wanted to ask you about the Office for
    Civil Rights. I have been impressed with this administration's
    work over the years to protect civil rights, including
    promoting educational opportunities for students of color,
    women and girls, students with disabilities, LGBT students. And
    I look forward to continuing to work with you on those issues.
        But there is one specific issue I want to raise here today.
    Campus sexual assault and violence is a growing national
    crisis. Depending on the survey that you look at, we know that
    at least one in five women are being sexually assaulted while
    on college campus, and that is the lowest of the estimates out
    there. That is really appalling and it is unacceptable. And I
    hear over and over again from students, administrators, and
    survivor groups and schools and others about the important work
    the Office for Civil Rights does to enforce Title IX.
        The Office for Civil Rights has taken critical action to
    ensure that our college campuses have the tools and the
    resources necessary to comply with Title IX and keep our
    campuses safe.
        Can you talk with us today about the importance of having
    safe campuses and your Department's commitment to addressing
    this?
        Dr. King. You know, I think it has to be a top priority for
    our country to tackle this. When you look at the impact on the
    victims of sexual assault, whether it is female victims or male
    victims, it is devastating, a devastating life impact, and it
    makes campuses unsafe places for everyone.
        Our goal at the Office for Civil Rights has been to ensure
    that institutions are doing all they can to protect students.
    We want them to respect due process. And we have tried in our
    guidance to make clear what it will take for higher education
    institutions to comply with the law and regulations, and also
    we have tried to establish for them examples of best practices
    from around the country. You know, there was a task force on
    sexual assault and sexual violence that held dozens of
    meetings, gathered input from around the country on these
    issues.
        We think we have made significant progress. The
    institutions that have reached agreements with our Office for
    Civil Rights have made their policies and practices better, and
    students are safer as a result. And we want to continue to do
    that work.
        We worry that capacity is a challenge in our Office for
    Civil Rights. We had around 7,000 complaints in 2010 because we
    have shown that we are going to enforce civil rights. We expect
    we will probably have 11,000 complaints this year.
        Senator Murray. Yes. I understand the workload has
    increased 45 percent since 2010?
        Dr. King. That is right.
        Senator Murray. No additional resources? And I am worried
    about that because the number of cases that remain unresolved
    for more than 180 days has increased from 315 at the end of
    fiscal year 2009 to 1,311 at the end of fiscal year 2015. That
    is a fourfold increase in the number of cases that are
    unresolved. And as you just referred to, an unresolved case
    means the student that drops out, does not finish college--you
    know, it has a lifetime impact. And our students and our
    families really rely on the Office for Civil Rights for
    enforcement. So I am assuming you are as concerned as I am
    about that delay in justice.
        Dr. King. Absolutely, and that is why we have asked for an
    increase in funding for the Department's budget so that we can
    add staff in the Office for Civil Rights.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Alexander.

                      OVERREACH VIA DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTERS

        Senator Alexander. Dr. King, the Kirwan-Zeppos task force
    report on higher education said that our 6,000 colleges and
    universities get on the average of one communication each
    workday from the U.S. Department of Education, whether it is a
    guidance or a memo or news about a new regulation. Is it
    correct that if that communication is simply a ``Dear
    Colleague'' letter, that it is not legally binding?
        Dr. King. That is right. The institutions are responsible
    to the law and the regulations. The guidance is intended to
    share our interpretation of the law and regulations.
        Senator Alexander. And if it is a guidance, it is not
    legally binding.
        Dr. King. That is right. Now, the institution, of course,
    needs to be aware that we are sharing our interpretation of the
    law and regulations which are binding.
        Senator Alexander. What?
        Dr. King. That we are sharing our interpretation of the law
    and regulations, that we are communicating through the
    guidance----
        Senator Alexander. Well, now, let us think about that a
    minute. So you are making the law?
        Dr. King. No. We are providing our interpretation and how
    we interpret what their responsibility is under the law and
    regulations.
        Senator Alexander. I had a visit with Mr. Donovan, the head
    of the Office of Management and Budget, and he was very clear
    that it was the Obama administration's policy that guidances
    and ``Dear Colleague'' letters are what you just said, not
    legally binding, and that when something is to be legally
    binding, it needs either to be a law or it needs to be a
    regulation that goes through the process of notice and all
    that.
        Dr. King. That is right.
        Senator Alexander. Then who is going to tell Ms. Lhamon
    that, the Assistant Secretary who is in charge of Title IX?
    Because when I asked at a hearing, do you expect colleges to
    comply with your guidance, she says, yes, sir, we do.
        Dr. King. I think what she intended to convey is the point
    that I was making, that the guidance shares our interpretation
    of the law and regulations.
        Senator Alexander. Yes, but if I am at a small college out
    in Texas and I see that, I think she is making the law. And I
    do not dare not do what you want. And I think that goes back to
    Senator Lankford's questions about the 2011 guidance about
    these very difficult instances of alleged sexual assault, which
    are for every campus administrator probably the most difficult
    and terrible problem to deal with, as well as for the alleged
    victim and in some cases the alleged perpetrator.
        And in 2011, the Department put out a guidance and
    basically said equitable resolution cannot mean either clear
    and convincing evidence or preponderance of the evidence. It
    has got to mean preponderance of the evidence. So that would
    mean to me that the U.S. Department of Education could today
    initiate an action and say to a school you are violating Title
    IX if you use the standard of clear and convincing evidence. Is
    that correct?

       GUIDANCE CONVEYS DEPARTMENT INTERPRETATION OF LAW AND REGULATIONS

        Dr. King. Let me first reassure you that in our
    communication with Senator Lankford, Assistant Secretary Lhamon
    made very clear that we do not believe the guidance has the
    force of law. The guidance is intended to convey our
    interpretation of the law and regulations.
        We do believe that equitable resolution means preponderance
    of the evidence.
        Senator Alexander. Well, who gave you the right to believe
    that? I mean, we were all elected, and that is not easy to do
    these days, or maybe even before these days. And that is an
    enormously important decision to make in the lives of students
    and universities.
        So the Congress specifically said equitable resolution and
    left that to university administrators and boards and others to
    resolve. And you have come along and not in a regulation but
    just in a guidance, which is not binding, you have changed the
    law for 6,000 colleges and universities. And when you say
    preponderance of the evidence, that introduces a whole series
    of concerns about due process, which you also have not
    addressed and which, if addressed, we should be doing, not you.
        Dr. King. As I indicated to Senator Lankford, the
    interpretation of equitable resolution means preponderance of
    the evidence is longstanding.
        Senator Alexander. Where is that written? Where is that
    written?
        Dr. King. That has been the longstanding policy of the
    Department.
        Senator Alexander. No, it has not. In 2011, a university
    could use either clear and convincing evidence or preponderance
    of the evidence. In 2011, you changed that by guidance and now
    you are, in effect, making every university do that because
    they might fear an action from your Department based upon that
    legislating by the Department.
        Dr. King. We believe the guidance merely clarified what had
    been the longstanding interpretation. When the Department
    investigated a complaint on a Title IX issue, the Department's
    approach, predating this administration, was to evaluate
    equitable resolution through the preponderance of the evidence.
        Senator Alexander. But do you not believe that if Congress
    had wanted to make that important a decision about the level of
    the evidence required, that Congress would have written that
    out. You know, we can spell. We can write. We are very clear in
    what we seek to do. So I think I would strongly disagree with
    your interpretation of that.
        My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit some
    of my questions for the record.
        Again, Dr. King, I really do appreciate the work you are
    doing on these many issues.
        And, Mr. Skelly, we wish you the best.
        Senator Blunt. And, Mr. Skelly, do you have anything you
    would like to say?
        Mr. Skelly. It has been a great run. It has been an honor
    and privilege to work for the U.S. Department of Education. We
    have done many good things for many students and teachers. I am
    glad to work with you and hope we did a good job.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Blunt. Well, thank you for your service.
        The record will stay open for 1 week for additional
    questions.
        [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
                            mental health in schools
        Question. The Department of Education and the Substance Abuse and
    Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have been working
    together for a number of years to improve the capacity of State
    educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools to
    address the mental health needs of students exposed to violence and
    other traumatic events. What have we learned from the activities and
    the partnership with SAMHSA about the capacity of schools to address
    the mental health needs of students?
        Answer. We believe that the capacity of school districts and
    schools to use instructional staff to provide effective low-intensity
    mental health services is increasing, in part because school districts
    and schools are using more evidence-based programs that help staff
    recognize the early warning signs of mental health issues. However,
    districts and schools generally do not have the capacity to provide
    intensive individual mental health services to the roughly 5 percent of
    students who generate 70 percent of all disciplinary referrals. To fill
    this gap, school districts and schools need to improve their ability to
    access the various Federal, State, and local mental health funding
    streams that can support the provision of these services both in the
    school and in the community. In addition, many school districts and
    schools struggle to find the resources needed to support a sufficient
    number of mental health professionals in schools, such as school
    counselors and social workers. The President's request for first-time
    funding of the Title IV, Part A Student Support and Academic Enrichment
    Grants would help meet this need.
      partnership between the departments of education and the substance
                abuse and mental health services administration
        Question. The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus included new funding at the
    Department of Education and SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Services Administration) for school-based programs to specifically
    address the behavioral and mental health needs of students in
    communities experiencing significant episodes of civil unrest, such as
    in Ferguson, Missouri. How does the Department plan to work with SAMHSA
    in this effort, and improve access to school-based mental health
    services for students in those communities?
        Answer. We greatly appreciate the additional resources provided by
    Congress to help students who may be struggling with the impact of
    events like those in Ferguson and Baltimore. We currently are engaged
    in discussions with SAMHSA about how best to coordinate our efforts to
    improve access to school-based mental health services while also
    providing other supports for students in such communities. The
    Department also is considering how to provide technical assistance
    related to the use of existing formula grant funds, such as Title I
    Grants to Local Educational Agencies, as well as possible funding under
    the newly authorized Title IV, Part A Student Support and Academic
    Enrichment Grant program, to help affected students overcome the
    potentially negative impact of civil unrest on educational outcomes. We
    anticipate making awards in time for projects to begin providing
    services in the 2016-2017 school year.
                             student loan servicing
        Question. Under current common performance metrics established by
    the Department, some servicers perform significantly better than
    others. Why shouldn't the Department allocate more loans to servicers
    who have demonstrated they can both manage their loans better and serve
    student borrowers better?
        Answer. Under the Department's existing performance-based servicing
    contracts, new borrower accounts have always been allocated based on
    servicers' success in helping borrowers avoid delinquency and default,
    as well as on their scores on customer satisfaction surveys. Because we
    believe that the significant variation in the composition of the loan
    portfolios between the Title IV Additional Servicers (TIVAS) and Not-
    for-Profit (NFP) servicers prevents an optimal comparison of their
    performance using the existing contractually established common
    metrics, prior to March 1, 2016, each group of servicers competed
    within separate allocation pools. Within each pool, accounts were
    allocated among servicers based on their performance.
        In the recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016,
    Congress included a provision requiring that the Department ``no later
    than March 1, 2016, allocate new student loan borrower accounts to
    eligible student loan servicers on the basis of their performance
    compared to all loan servicers utilizing established common metrics,
    and on the basis of the capacity of each servicer to process new and
    existing accounts.'' Currently, the TIVAS and NFP servicer contracts
    contain provisions that govern the allocation of new loan volume on the
    basis of the common performance metrics established in the contracts.
    We interpret this statutory requirement and deadline to prohibit the
    Department from using the contractually established common metrics as
    we have been, that is, by comparing the performance of the TIVAS and
    NFP servicers separately, and, instead, to require the Department to
    use the established common metrics to compare, by March 1, 2016,
    servicer performance among ``all loan servicers,'' without regard to
    their status as a TIVAS or NFP servicer. Accordingly, new allocation
    percentages were implemented for all servicers on March 1, 2016; these
    allocations reflect the results of a comparison of performance scores
    across all servicers using established metrics. Details regarding the
    March 1, 2016, allocation are available at: https://studentaid.ed.gov/
    sa/about/data-center/business-info/contracts/loan-servicing/servicer-
    performance#12312015.
        Because we continue to believe that variation in the composition of
    the TIVAS and NFP portfolios prevents an optimal comparison of their
    performance, we plan to develop and implement adjustment factors or new
    common metrics not later than June 30, 2016. Those metrics will account
    for variations in the composition of the TIVAS' and NFPs' loan
    portfolios.
                      loan portfolios of service providers
        Question. How specifically do differences in the loan portfolios of
    the different servicers impact how they perform on the common metrics
    established by the Department?
        Answer. The portfolios managed by the NFP servicers are
    overwhelmingly made up of accounts received from the Direct Loan
    Servicing Center in 2011-2012. These loans were already in repayment
    and current at the time they were selected for transfer to the NFPs. As
    a result, the loans are more stable and mature than the portfolios of
    the other Federal loan servicers. The TIVAS portfolios have high
    volumes of new borrowers who are more likely to enter and exit
    delinquency. These four Federal loan servicers also service Federal
    Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans purchased through the
    Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA), Public
    Law 110-227 and loans of all statuses received from the Direct Loan
    Servicing Center. Although the NFP members of the Federal loan servicer
    team began receiving new borrowers in early 2015, most of those loans
    are still in an in-school status and therefore do not require payments
    to be made at this time.
                       current common performance metrics
        Question. If, as the Department believes, the current common
    metrics cannot be used to compare all servicers, why didn't the
    Department account for differences in portfolios when they originally
    developed common metrics?
        Answer. The Department accounted for differences in portfolios by
    establishing separate allocation pools for the TIVAS and NFP servicers.
    This approach was no longer available with the enactment of the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016; as a result, we are now
    developing an alternative approach to address the portfolio variation.
                       adjustments to the current metrics
        Question. What specific adjustments to the current metrics, or new
    metrics, is the Department considering to account for differences in
    portfolios, and how and when does the Department plan to implement
    them?
        Answer. We have not completed the process of determining what
    adjustments or changes to the current metrics will be made. As we
    continue developing these adjustments or changes, we are consulting
    with all Federal loan servicers for their input on how best to control
    for such variation and how to optimally compare their performance. We
    will post publicly our calculations and the results of both our initial
    and subsequent allocations, as has been our standard practice with
    previous results and allocations.
                           current allocation period
        Question. Why did the Department shorten the current allocation
    period from 6 months to 4 months, and when was this decision made?
        Answer. The statutory language related to servicing allocations
    requires the Department to take into consideration the capacity of each
    servicer to manage and process new and existing borrower accounts. We
    have experience working with each of our servicers and are already
    familiar with their systems and capabilities. Regardless, we have
    requested, received, and conducted an initial review of capacity plans
    from all of our servicers to assess the reasonability and risk of each
    servicer's staffing, training, system, and other resource planning.
    Based on our experience and our initial assessment of the capacity
    plans, we are confident that all of our servicers can manage and
    process projected borrower account allocations for the next few months,
    while the volume of new accounts is relatively low. While we continue
    the process of completing and documenting our capacity assessment, we
    will monitor each servicer's performance closely and can modify or
    discontinue allocations on short notice if any issues arise. Our plan
    is to complete and document the capacity review, as well as any
    adjustments or changes to the metrics, by June 30, 2016. The current
    allocation period was shortened to allow us to reflect the results of
    these actions prior to the beginning of the new academic year on July
    1, 2016. This decision was made in February 2016 after it became
    apparent that we would need additional time beyond March 1, 2016, to
    complete our analyses and documentation.
                 release of preliminary competition information
        Question. When does the Department plan to release preliminary
    competition information for the new student loan servicing contract?
    What requirements, if any, will the Department include for an
    organization to be eligible to compete for the new contract?
        Answer. We expect to post a request for proposals for new loan
    servicing contracts in the near future. Until that time, we cannot
    share information on the requirements or selection criteria as that
    information is procurement-sensitive.
             complexity of measuring the value of higher education
        Question. Given the complexity of measuring the value of higher
    education, why has the Department settled on one single metric student
    loan debt compared to earnings a year or 2 after completion--to
    determine if program prepares a student for gainful employment? Why not
    consider longer term earnings data? Why not consider whether a borrower
    is current on their loan payment, or any other measures?
        Answer. The Gainful Employment regulations measure whether a
    student is able to earn enough income to be able to pay back their
    loans after completion of a program. We believe the debt to earnings
    metric (D/E) is an appropriate approach to measure this. For a full
    discussion of the debt-to-earning metric and why the Department
    believes it is appropriate and our responses to the comments received,
    please see the final rule, which can be found at: https://
    www.Federalregister.gov/articles/2014/10/31/2014-25594/program-
    integrity-gainful-employment.
        The accountability framework of the regulations is based on
    discouraging institutions from saddling students with unmanageable
    amounts of debt and thus focuses on whether students who attend GE
    programs will be able to manage their debt. As we discussed in the
    NPRM, the gainful employment requirements are tied to Congress'
    historic concern that vocational and career training offered by
    programs for which students require loans should equip students to earn
    enough to repay their loans. Allowing students to borrow was expected
    to neither unduly burden the students nor pose ``a poor financial
    risk'' to taxpayers. In authorizing federally backed student lending,
    Congress considered expert assurances that vocational training would
    enable graduates to earn wages that would not pose a ``poor financial
    risk'' of default.
        Congress' decision in this area is supported by research that shows
    that high levels of debt and default on student loans can lead to
    negative consequence for borrowers. We believe that the D/E rates
    measure achieves the objectives of these regulations because it
    assesses earnings in the context of whether they are at a level that
    would allow borrowers to service their debt without serious risk of
    financial or emotional harm to students and loss to taxpayers. Our
    analyses indicate an association between ultimate repayment outcomes,
    including default, and D/E rates. Based on the best data available to
    the Department, graduates of programs with D/E rates above the passing
    thresholds have higher default rates and lower repayment rates than
    programs below the thresholds. Although many other factors may
    contribute to default outcomes, we believe high D/E rates are an
    important indicator of financial risk and possibility of default on
    student loans. In addition to addressing Congress' concern of ensuring
    that students' earnings would be adequate to manage their debt,
    research also indicates that debt-to-earnings is an effective indicator
    of unmanageable debt burden.
                department of education's report of student data
        Question. Colleges and universities submitted preliminary data
    required by this regulation to the Department in July. The Department
    planned to provide data back to schools a list of students who had
    completed the program in the covered years by the end of last year but
    has not done so yet. What is causing this delay at the Department? When
    is the first time that schools, and the public, will be able to see how
    programs perform under this regulation?
        Answer. Institutions were required to report retrospective data on
    their GE programs to the Department by July 2015 and for the most
    recently completed award year, by October 2015. There has been a delay
    in setting up the system for institutions to correct reported data. We
    expect to release completers lists in the next few months once we
    resolve any remaining issues with the correction and challenge system.
    We will continue to conduct pilot tests of our systems with several
    institutions in order to ensure that the completers list correction
    process runs as smoothly as possible for all institutions. We look
    forward to sharing the final rates with the public as soon as possible.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                            awarding research grants
        Question. In Mississippi, 91 percent of school districts are
    considered rural by the Department of Education, and they serve more
    than 50 percent of our students. However, a vast majority of your
    Department's research is conducted in urban and suburban communities.
    The Every Student Succeeds Act requires that schools implement
    evidence-based strategies to improve student outcomes. In awarding
    research grants, does the Department consider the geographic
    distribution of research projects and geographic disparities in
    education research funding? How does this budget ensure that funding is
    available to research institutions located in under-researched and
    underserved areas?
        Answer. Discretionary research grants are awarded on a competitive
    basis through a rigorous peer review process, and a large percentage of
    these awards are field-initiated. Funding opportunities are open to all
    eligible entities, regardless of geographic area. In addition, the
    budget invests significant funding in evidence-building programs, in
    particular the new Education Innovation and Research program, the
    successor to Investing in Innovation (i3). Over the past few years, the
    Department has placed a priority within i3 on supporting and evaluating
    innovative strategies to improve student outcomes in rural areas. As
    these strategies are evaluated, they will play a significant role in
    building a knowledge base of effective practices for rural schools.
        Much of the Department's research efforts happen through the
    Institute of Education Sciences (IES). IES research grant programs at
    the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and National Center
    for Special Education Research (NCSER) are highly competitive; only a
    small percentage of fundable applications receive awards. Like other
    grant-making offices of the Department, IES strives to increase the
    number and quality of discretionary grant applicants from traditionally
    underserved and underrepresented communities, including rural areas.
    For example, program officials conduct targeted outreach and widely
    distribute application packages to maximize diversity of applicant
    pools. Additionally, IES programs utilize a variety of strategies to
    help build capacity for institutions from traditionally underserved
    areas, including: conducting pre-application workshops and webinars to
    provide technical assistance to applicants from rural and other
    underserved areas that may be preparing proposals for research grants
    or other discretionary grant competitions that include research
    activities; highlighting research opportunities related to rural needs
    in notices announcing competitions; and providing targeted follow-up
    after peer review panel scoring to discuss individual application
    strengths and weaknesses and to identify ways for applicants to
    strengthen future submissions. One such program, the Regional Education
    Labs (RELs), partners with school districts, State educational
    agencies, and others to use data and research to improve academic
    outcomes for students, especially those in underserved areas.
        To further support institutions in under-researched and underserved
    areas, the Department has proposed funding for a number of longer-term
    strategies in this Budget: promoting postsecondary access and
    completion within community colleges, MSIs, HBCUs, and other post-
    secondary institutions with high percentages of Pell recipients many of
    which are located in rural areas; supporting high quality, affordable
    education programs at all levels; conducting research, model
    demonstrations, and other activities to promote effective teaching
    practices in elementary schools including schools in rural areas. In
    addition, the Secretary supports the use of competitive preference
    priorities that award additional points to applications from eligible
    entities in rural areas, as well as those that address rural themes or
    establish partnerships with rural entities. Importantly, the 2017
    request also outlines investments in research specifically focused on
    improving rural education, including the evaluation of technologies to
    support teaching and learning in rural schools, and the development and
    evaluation of strategies to help rural high school students
    successfully transition to work or college.
                     equitable access to effective teachers
        Question. Across the Nation, equitable access to effective teachers
    remains an issue. Rural schools, especially, often struggle to recruit
    and retain talented teachers and school leaders. The Transition-to-
    Teaching program provided for scholarships for teacher preparation
    programs to meet the needs of schools with demonstrated teacher
    shortages. In Mississippi, Transition-to-Teaching grants have led to
    the successful licensure of more than 200 of new teachers in the past 5
    years, addressing the needs of rural schools. The proposed budget
    includes funding for loan forgiveness through Teacher Education
    Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) grants but does not
    explicitly create scholarship programs to serve as incentives for new
    teachers. Please discuss how you envision this Committee should address
    inequitable distribution of resources to support effective teachers,
    particularly in rural areas.
        Answer. The re-authorized ESEA does not include continued authority
    for the Transition to Teaching program, but does provide increased
    flexibility in the use of Federal formula grant funds by State and
    local educational agencies (LEAs) to support activities that most meet
    their needs. For example, our request includes $2.25 billion for the
    Title II, Part A Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program,
    which allows States to use funds to improve equitable access to
    effective teachers and to carry out programs that establish, expand, or
    improve alternative routes for State certification of teachers. Most
    Title II, Part A funds are distributed to LEAs by formula, but States
    have discretion to use up to 8 percent of their allocations for
    activities to improve access to effective teaching and school
    leadership, and to target such activities to areas with the greatest
    needs, including rural districts and schools.
        The Administration is committed to ensuring that all students,
    especially those in high-need schools, have access to effective
    teachers. To meet this commitment, we must attract more talented people
    into the teaching profession and reward them for the hard, daily work
    of improving student learning outcomes in our lowest-performing
    schools. The budget proposes to expand and increase teacher loan
    forgiveness, starting in 2021. This proposal would simplify existing
    postsecondary assistance available to teachers, such as TEACH grants
    and the current teacher loan forgiveness program, by consolidating them
    into a single, more generous loan forgiveness program, incentivizing
    more individuals to teach in our neediest schools and encouraging them
    to stay on the job.
        Our request also includes $30 million, a $13.6 million increase
    from 2016, for the reauthorized School Leader Recruitment and Support
    program, which would help improve the recruitment and retention of
    principals and other school leaders in high-need schools, i.e., those
    with large concentrations of students in poverty. These funds will be
    competitively awarded to eligible entities, which include LEAs with
    high-need schools, and the Secretary is required to ensure that, to the
    extent practicable, grants are distributed among eligible entities that
    will serve geographically diverse areas, including urban, suburban, and
    rural areas.
        Finally, we have requested $10 million for the STEM Master Teacher
    Corps program, which would provide funds to recognize, reward, attract,
    and retain outstanding science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics teachers, particularly in high-need and rural schools.
        Support for these programs will help ensure that schools, including
    schools in rural areas, have the effective teachers and school leaders
    needed to improve student achievement.
       lessons learned implementing comprehensive programs in rural areas
        Question. The Promise Neighborhoods program attempts to transform
    education by encouraging collaboration among schools and other
    community services to address education throughout students'
    matriculation. A few of the Promise Neighborhood grants, including one
    in Mississippi, have been located in rural communities. The fiscal year
    2016 Appropriations Bill included a $15 million increase for the
    Promise Neighborhoods program. The Department's budget requests another
    $55 million increase on top of that. What have you learned about
    implementing comprehensive, coordinated programs in rural communities,
    and what can our Committee do to sustain the progress they have made?
        Answer. The Administration recognizes that rural communities face
    unique challenges. In order to ensure that every child has an equal
    chance at succeeding academically and in life, we think it is crucial
    that students and their families in rural communities receive
    appropriate support. Over the past few years, Department staff has
    visited rural Promise Neighborhood grantees, including one grantee in
    Indianola, Mississippi, to learn more about the specific obstacles they
    face. Through these experiences we have learned a great deal about the
    challenges of implementing place-based solutions in rural settings,
    including the dispersal of resources across long distances, limited
    access to essential services, and fewer ``anchor institutions'' that
    can serve as hubs for supporting the myriad needs of families in rural
    communities, particularly those living in poverty.
        We appreciate your support for and commitment to this program, and
    note that one common challenge all Promise Neighborhoods grantees face
    is how to sustain their good work after the period of Federal funding
    ends. While we endeavor to support each grantee throughout its project,
    we think that Promise Neighborhoods grantees must cultivate strong
    relationships with their partners in order to sustain the impact their
    work has on the lives of children and families in their communities.
    The Promise Neighborhoods program provides seed money to its grantees
    with the expectation that each project will ultimately be able to
    sustain itself beyond the life of the Federal award. The authorization
    for Promise Neighborhoods in the Every Student Succeeds Act included a
    provision helpful to communities, and particularly rural communities,
    which may face challenges in finding high-quality partners to help them
    sustain their work. Under the new law, which goes into effect for this
    program on October 1, 2016, the Department has the discretion to extend
    by 2 years the life of Promise Neighborhoods projects, when
    appropriate, allowing the grantees more time and funding to get on
    their feet. In addition, current grantees, including those that will be
    awarded in fiscal year 2016, can request no-cost extensions at the end
    of their projects. While we cannot provide current grantees with
    additional funding, we find that, due to project implementation
    challenges that can arise naturally during the life of a Federal grant,
    many grantees would find value in having additional time to spend their
    existing funds.
                assurance that programs serve rural communities
        Question. What is the Department doing to ensure this program
    reaches rural communities, and addresses the unique challenges facing
    children and families living in rural communities?
        Answer. Since its creation, the Promise Neighborhoods program has
    considered carefully the needs of rural communities. Through Promise
    Neighborhoods grant competitions held in 2010, 2011, and 2012 all of
    which specifically incentivized rural applicants the Department has
    ensured that applicants in rural areas can successfully compete for
    Federal funding. To date, the Department has awarded eight Promise
    Neighborhoods grants to six rural communities (two communities
    Indianola, Mississippi and Berea, Kentucky have received both a
    planning and implementation grant). Through these investments, Promise
    Neighborhoods is creating comprehensive models to address the academic
    and developmental outcomes for children, youth, and their families in
    rural communities. For example, the Delta Promise Neighborhood in
    Indianola has worked to coordinate and align the efforts of 28
    providers in early childhood education, resulting in more high-quality
    early childhood opportunities. One such effort encourages early
    literacy by mailing free books to more than 900 children per month and
    teaching families the importance of reading to children. In addition,
    the grantee has worked with key public health and economic development
    partners to better coordinate the delivery of services such as prenatal
    care, housing support, and financial literacy training.
        Looking ahead, under ESSA, the Promise Neighborhoods and Full-
    service Community Schools programs will use at least 15 percent of
    available funds to support rural communities. The Administration's
    requested increase for the Promise Neighborhoods program in 2017 would
    help to ensure that this 15 percent set-aside has maximum impact.
                        impact of ready-to-learn program
        Question. In this day and age, children are spending more time
    watching television and using digital media outside of school.
    Educational opportunities for students outside the classroom are
    increasingly important. 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. Children, particularly children in high-poverty settings,
    spend large amounts of time watching television and using digital
    media. Researchers in many fields have looked carefully at whether and
    how television viewing might contribute to the ``literacy gap,'' and,
    conversely, whether and how television and digital media can be used as
    a tool to promote literacy development. Recent research suggests that
    television and transmedia can have a positive impact on children's
    literacy and learning, provided certain conditions are in place.
    Producers and developers must understand how children learn, and how
    programming content can facilitate such learning. Individual episodes
    should reflect what research tells us about effective educational
    programming. For example, programs that succeed in helping children
    learn tend to help children understand how to watch and make sense of
    what they see. Such programs also develop familiarity by using
    recurring characters and situations, repeat key tasks and information,
    link knowledge to what children already know, and are carefully paced
    to keep children cognitively engaged throughout each episode.
        Early childhood, preschool, and elementary school curricula
    typically emphasize basic skills in math and reading. Ready-to-Learn
    (RTL) content is specifically designed to reinforce young children's
    literacy skills, emphasizing letter recognition, vocabulary, fluency,
    rhyming, and comprehension. Through targeted outreach and marketing
    campaigns, grantees actively reach out to parents and caregivers,
    particularly in high-poverty rural and urban communities, to encourage
    the use of RTL programming to support the skills that children need to
    succeed in school.
        The Department is very interested in learning about the positive
    impact that effective educational programming can have on student
    academic achievement. Therefore, one of the Department's performance
    measures for the RTL program looks at the percentage of summative
    experimental or quasi-experimental research studies that demonstrate
    positive and statistically significant gains in math or literacy skills
    when RTL transmedia properties are compared to similar non-RTL-funded
    digital properties or to other more traditional educational materials.
    The results have been overwhelmingly positive for the 2010 cohort of
    grantees. Of the nine total studies that have been submitted, eight (or
    89 percent) found that children using RTL-produced products
    demonstrated statistically significant gains when compared to similar,
    non-RTL-produced products.
                    career and technical education teachers
        Question. Secretary King has brought to my attention the importance
    of reauthorizing the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act
    of 2006. Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs in secondary
    classrooms are only as good as the quality of the teachers who lead
    them. How do teacher education provisions in the Department's proposed
    budget provide support or incentives for individuals to become CTE
    teachers?
        Answer. It is imperative that we invest in innovative ways to
    recruit, develop and retain the teachers our schools and our students
    need. Our Perkins reauthorization proposal would strengthen provisions
    for CTE teacher and leader preparation and would require States to
    include in their plans a description of how they will provide pre-
    service and in-service professional development. States would be
    encouraged to enhance their recruitment and professional development
    activities for CTE educators, for example, by developing talented
    teachers and faculty through alternative licensing policies that
    support mid-career professionals in becoming CTE teachers. States also
    could work in collaboration with industry associations to ensure that
    CTE teachers and faculty have opportunities to refresh their knowledge
    of industry and of effective instructional practices for students of
    diverse backgrounds and needs, including English learners and students
    with disabilities.
        In addition, the 2017 request includes other significant new
    resources to support teachers, including CTE instructors, through pre-
    service training and in-service professional development. For example,
    we are proposing $125 million for a Teacher and Principal Pathways
    program, which would make competitive grants to institutions of higher
    education and other nonprofit entities to support the creation and
    expansion of high-quality teacher and principal preparation programs.
    This investment would significantly expand the diversity and number of
    new teachers and principals who have high-quality, evidence-based
    training and preparation for their important roles in high-need
    districts. These pathways are particularly important for CTE teachers,
    many of whom come from industry.
          career and technical education programs in rural communities
        Question. Many schools prioritize CTE for 21st century
    technologies, but in rural States agricultural and other traditional
    CTE programs remain important. How does your budget embrace new
    directions in CTE while also continuing to support agricultural and
    manufacturing programs important to rural States?
        Answer. Our Perkins reauthorization proposal includes a number of
    provisions that would support CTE programs in rural areas. First,
    States would be required to ensure that rural economic needs are
    considered in the creation of CTE programs and that rural students have
    access to high-quality CTE programs. In addition, rural districts would
    have to form consortia with postsecondary institutions, but would have
    flexibility to create such partnerships at a regional level.
    Furthermore, CTE programs would have to be aligned with labor market
    demands in the region, ensuring that rural districts support the
    employment needs of their community.
        The Administration's request for $4 billion in mandatory funding
    over 3 years for Computer Science for All State grants would also
    provide resources to rural areas and help students attain skills to
    succeed along their career pathways. The Computer Science for All
    program would support grants to stimulate and advance comprehensive
    State efforts to offer rigorous coursework to all students in preschool
    through grade 12, with a focus on serving students in under-resourced
    schools and communities (including in rural and urban areas) and
    improving participation by student groups historically underrepresented
    in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.
    Similarly, the request for $100 million in discretionary funding for
    the Computer Science for All Development Grants would support
    competitive grants to LEAs to help jump-start improving access to
    computer science and related STEM coursework in districts.
        In addition, the proposed $80 million Next Generation High Schools
    program would support the transformation of secondary education in
    order to create more challenging and relevant academic and career-
    related learning opportunities for youth. The purpose of the program is
    to help districts and their partners redesign the high school
    experience, with a priority on projects designed to improve readiness
    in STEM fields as well as projects that would serve areas with limited
    access to high-quality college and career opportunities, including
    rural LEAs. Accordingly, Next Generation projects could support rural
    programs with an agricultural or manufacturing focus.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
                         higher education de-regulation
        Question. Higher Ed Deregulation: What is the status of your
    implementation of the following three recommendations from the report
    of the Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education?
        1. Return of Title IV Funds
        2. Financial Responsibility Standards
        3. Reporting of Data to the Department
        The Task Force identified 59 specific burdensome regulations. Of
    the 59, they identified approximately a dozen which can be changed by
    the Secretary without Congressional action. 3 of these regulations are
    included in the Task Force's top 10 list of especially problematic
    regulations.
        Answer. Consistent with the recommendations in the Task Force
    report, the Administration has taken important steps to relieve
    institutional burden. In September, President Obama announced
    significant changes in the process for filing the Free Application for
    Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which would allow the use of ``prior-
    prior'' year income information, permitting families and students to
    apply for aid 3 months earlier. Both of these results of these change
    will streamline the student aid process and provide families with an
    earlier picture of their aid eligibility. Despite these improvements,
    we agree that more can be done to make it easier to apply for college.
    That is why the recent President's Budget called for additional and
    significant FAFSA simplification by removing questions regarding
    savings, investments, and net worth, which rarely affect the actual aid
    award but significantly lengthen the application for some families.
    Additionally, untaxed income and exclusions from income data that are
    not reported to the IRS would no longer be collected. To prevent
    resulting decreases of aid awards, the Budget also proposes adjustments
    to the Expected Family Contribution for certain categories of
    applicants.
        The 2017 President's Budget's also addressed another of the Task
    Force's recommendations by proposing streamlining and reforming income-
    driven repayment by creating a single, simple, and better targeted
    income-driven repayment plan.
        With respect to other recommendations in the report, including
    these three issues, we are in the process of identifying and
    prioritizing additional ways to alleviate institutional burden while
    still fulfilling our obligations to protect students and taxpayers. As
    you know, regulatory work under Title IV of the HEA requires negotiated
    rulemaking which is a time consuming and expensive, and we must
    prioritize and allocate limited resources.
        In addition, as Congress considers ways in which to reform or
    eliminate these institutional requirements, we remain committed to
    working with your office and others to achieve this balance.
                              fafsa simplification
        Question. Last year and this year, the Administration's education
    budget calls for simplifying the FAFSA by eliminating about 30-40
    questions. However, the Department has not yet provided specifics
    regarding what questions could be eliminated. What exactly are the
    questions that the Department feels can and should be eliminated from
    the FAFSA?
        Answer. The Department of Education has taken significant steps to
    improve the process of applying for Federal financial aid. These
    include providing an online version of the FAFSA that uses skip-logic
    to help students complete faster; permitting students and families to
    pull in tax information automatically through the IRS Data Retrieval
    tool; and, for the first time in the 2017-2018 award year, allowing
    applicants to apply earlier and to use their prior-prior year income
    information. For our last full FAFSA cycle, students completed the
    online FAFSA in an average of 20 minutes one-third the amount of time
    it took 7 years ago.
        However, the Department continues to believe that the FAFSA should
    be simpler for many applicants, some of whom are still asked to
    complete more than 100 questions, by removing data elements pertaining
    to assets and additional types of income, and by relying primarily on
    information readily available in Federal tax returns. That is why the
    President's 2016 and 2017 Budgets proposed additional and significant
    FAFSA simplification by removing questions regarding savings,
    investments, and net worth, which rarely affect the actual aid award
    but significantly lengthen the application for some families.
    Specifically, we propose removing questions related to:
      --Savings, investments, and net worth (including questions 41-43 and
            90-92);
      --Untaxed income and exclusions from income not reported to the IRS
            (including all items from the ``Additional Financial
            Information'' and ``Untaxed Income'' worksheetsquestions 44 [b,
            c e, and f], 45 [a, b, c, g, h, i, and j], 93 [b, c, e, and f],
            and 94 [a, b, c, g, h, and i]; and
      --Income earned from work [39, 40, 88, and 89]).
        To prevent resulting decreases of aid awards, the Budget also
    proposes adjustments to the Expected Family Contribution for certain
    categories of applicants. Overall, our FAFSA simplification proposal
    would eliminate approximately one-third of the questions on the FAFSA.
          borrower defenses provision within the higher education act
        Question. The Department announced a process for borrowers to claim
    the Borrower Defenses provision within the Higher Education Act. The
    Department has begun to process these requests and is currently
    conducting a rulemaking process to update and clarify the process under
    which borrowers may claim this relief. Recognizing the final policy is
    still in the works, what were the Department's preliminary estimates of
    potential cost to taxpayers related to this provision as it related to
    the situation involving Corinthian Colleges and the costs associated
    with other borrowers seeking potential claims unrelated to Corinthian?
        Answer. The investigation and findings of fraud involving
    Corinthian Colleges and subsequent closure demonstrated that the
    implementing regulations for the borrower defense discharge authority
    are highly burdensome for the Department and do not provide enough
    protections for students and taxpayers. The number of affected students
    from Corinthian schools is unprecedented and has been handled through a
    Special Master to create a fair, transparent, and efficient process to
    evaluate the borrower defense claims of affected borrowers. As of March
    16, 2016, the Department has processed 6,876 Corinthian closed school
    discharges totaling $90.6 million. For borrower defense claims, as
    noted in the Special Master's March 25th report, 2,048 borrower defense
    claims totaling $42.3 million have been approved, with 345 completed
    for $7.5 million. Additionally, 9,875 borrower defense claims are
    awaiting review.
        As the Special Master process has developed, it reinforced the need
    to revise and update the borrower defense regulation through negotiated
    rulemaking. As noted, the development of the regulation is ongoing and
    the Department is in the process of developing a cost estimate for this
    regulatory package that will be presented in the Regulatory Impact
    Analysis of the NPRM and the Final Rule. This is a complex regulation
    and we are continuing to look for data and information that will help
    us develop our estimates.
        As the Corinthian College situation is resolved and the borrower
    defense process is revised through regulation, the Department will
    continue to update and work with Congress to address abusive practices
    of institutional participants in Federal student loan programs and the
    borrower claims arising from such practices.
            case-by-case eligibility of borrower defenses provision
        Question. The statute is clear that the Borrower Defenses provision
    is designed for individual and case-by-case application, as the
    Department has traditionally observed; however, in its most recent
    actions, the Department has seemingly not applied this provision or
    established a process that resembles an individual, case-by-case
    eligibility. What is the legal rationale for allowing a cohort of
    students who attended a college, like Heald College for example, to be
    automatically qualified for relief?
        Answer. The Department has established a process for borrowers to
    obtain relief for injury due to placement rate misrepresentations by
    Heald College. This process requires each borrower to attest, on an
    individual basis, to facts that would make a case for relief for an
    individual under California law. Where the Department has found that
    Heald published an inflated placement rate for a particular program, a
    borrower who might have reasonably relied on such a rate to their
    injury must attest that he or she in fact did so rely. The Department
    does not believe, however, that the borrower defense provision in the
    HEA requires individual, case-by-case application by borrowers and is
    exploring options through the negotiated rulemaking by which the
    Department may assert borrower defense claims on behalf of borrowers
    whether on an individual basis or as a cohort.
           interagency task force focused on for-profit institutions
        Question. On November 17, 2015, I signed a letter to then Secretary
    Duncan inquiring about the Interagency Task Force focused on for-profit
    institutions. To date no reply has been received by this office. When
    can a reply to that letter be expected providing full details to each
    question contained in that letter?
        Answer. On January 28, 2016, Under Secretary Ted Mitchell wrote a
    response to your letter on behalf of Secretary Duncan and sent copies
    of the letter to the other co-signers of your letter. Copies of these
    responses are enclosed.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
                    federal student aid performance metrics
        Question. Last week, Federal Student Aid (FSA) announced that it
    was creating new performance metrics for loan allocation ``because of
    the significant variation in the composition of loan portfolios''
    between student loan servicers. What variation is FSA referring to? Why
    is the Department creating new performance metrics when it just
    completed such a process in 2014? What new performance metrics is the
    Department considering using going forward?
        Answer. The portfolios managed by the Not-for-Profit (NFP)
    servicers are overwhelmingly made up of accounts received from the
    Direct Loan Servicing Center in 2011-2012. These loans were already in
    repayment and current at the time they were selected for transfer to
    the NFPs. As a result, the loans are more stable and mature than the
    portfolios of the Title IV Additional Servicers (TIVAS), which have
    high volumes of new borrowers who are more likely to go in and out of
    delinquency. These four Federal loan servicers also service Federal
    Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program loans purchased through the
    Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (ECASLA), Public
    Law 110-227 and loans of all statuses received from the Direct Loan
    Servicing Center. Although the NFP members of the Federal loan servicer
    team began receiving new borrowers in early 2015, most of those loans
    are still in an in-school status.
        Because we believe these variations in the composition of the TIVAS
    and NFP portfolios prevent an optimal comparison of their performance,
    we plan to develop and implement adjustment factors or new common
    metrics not later than June 30, 2016, to take effect no later than July
    1, 2016. Those adjustments or metrics will account for variations in
    TIVAS' and NFPs' loan portfolios. We have not completed the process of
    determining what adjustments or changes to the current metrics will be
    made. As we continue the process of developing these adjustments or
    changes, we are consulting with all Federal loan servicers for their
    input on how best to control for such variation and how to optimally
    compare their performance. We will post publicly our calculations and
    the results of both our initial and subsequent allocations, as has been
    our standard practice with previous results and allocations.
      national non-profit and for-profit student loan servicing contracts
        Question. The contracts the Department has in place with the 10
    national nonprofit and for-profit servicers specify that servicer
    performance will be measured semi-annually in the areas of customer
    satisfaction and default prevention, and these results will determine
    future loan volume allocations every 6 months. What rationale is the
    Department using--and under authority is the Department using--to
    unilaterally reduce the allocation window from September to July?
        Answer. A provision of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016
    related to servicing allocations requires the Department to take into
    consideration the capacity of each servicer to manage and process new
    and existing borrower accounts. We have experience working with each of
    our servicers and are already familiar with their systems and
    capabilities. Regardless, we have requested, received, and conducted an
    initial review of capacity plans from all of our servicers to assess
    the reasonability and risk of each servicer's staffing, training,
    system, and other resource planning. Based on our experience and our
    initial assessment of the capacity plans, we are confident that all of
    our servicers can manage and process projected borrower account
    allocations for the next few months, while the volume of new accounts
    is relatively low. While we continue the process of completing and
    documenting our capacity assessment, we will monitor each servicer's
    performance closely and can modify or discontinue allocations on short
    notice if any issues arise. Our plan is to complete and document the
    capacity review, as well any adjustments or changes to the metrics, by
    June 30, 2016. The current allocation period was shortened to allow us
    to reflect the results of these actions prior to the beginning of the
    new academic year on July 1, 2016. This action, and other changes
    related to the allocation of borrower accounts, will be made under the
    Department's general authority to modify contract terms.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
             randomized order of students list of colleges on fafsa
        Question. The West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission
    (WVHEPC) has reached out to my office regarding a change on the FAFSA
    for the 2017-2018 academic year where the Department of Education will
    stop providing State agencies with the order in which students list
    colleges. States will continue to receive the full list of colleges
    that students share on the application, but the Education Department
    will first randomize the ordering of the institutions.
        WV and other States have found that students are most likely to
    attend the college they list first on the FAFSA. Without that
    information, they would need to develop a process to capture the
    correct institution they are attending. Currently, if they send the
    student award to the incorrect institution, they call or e-mail their
    office and they transfer the award, which is not too much of a burden
    because students generally attend the first institution they list.
    However, if the information was randomized as proposed they would
    instead have tens of thousands of students calling their office to have
    their award transferred, which will put a larger administrative burden
    on their and other State's small staffs. What precipitated this change?
        Answer. Most States administer their State need-based grant
    programs centrally, relying primarily on the information provided by
    FAFSA applicants to provide early notification of State grant awards to
    students for attendance at one or more of the institutions listed by
    the student on the FAFSA. As you may be aware, out of concern that some
    institutions were using the list of the students' FAFSA institutions
    for reasons unrelated to determining eligibility for student financial
    aid (e.g., admissions decisions, marketing, differentiated
    institutional award packages), we no longer provide an institution with
    information about the other institutions the student listed on the
    FAFSA beginning with the 2016-2017 FAFSA. As to State grant agencies,
    we continue to provide them with the full listing of the student's
    FAFSA listed institutions. However, in January the Department announced
    that, beginning with the 2017-2018 FAFSA, we would no longer provide
    the listing of institutions to State grant agencies in the order
    provided by the students. Instead, we will randomly re-order the list.
    This change was made to avoid any possible misunderstanding students
    may have about the implications of their listing of institutions may
    have, including, for example, any misunderstanding about whether they
    will be considered for State student financial aid by their State (and
    the amount) if the student does not list an institution located in the
    State in the first positions of the listing on the FAFSA form.
                similar concerns from other members of congress
        Question. Have you heard similar concerns from members of Congress
    and other higher education agencies in other States?
        Answer. We have heard similar concerns from members of Congress and
    other higher education agencies in other States. Prior to making our
    decision, however, we spoke with officials representing the National
    Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs about our concerns.
    As a result of our conversations, and from comments we received from
    others, we understand that our decision may impact some States' student
    financial aid award notification and budget processes, administrative
    systems, and student outreach and counseling efforts. Consequently, we
    announced our decision as soon as possible so that States have as much
    time as possible to begin making, funding, and implementing any
    necessary changes. For these same reasons, we opted to not implement
    the planned changes sooner, in the 2016-2017 FAFSA cycle. As an interim
    step, we did include in the 2016-2017 FAFSA additional State-specific
    information for applicants concerning their designation of institutions
    that they wish to receive FAFSA information, such as whether the order
    or type of institution they designate may affect their eligibility for,
    or notification of, State student financial aid. NASSGAP officials
    kindly offered to help us collect the information we needed from States
    to provide applicants with this information and we are grateful for
    their assistance.
                        consider not implementing change
        Question. Considering the time, resources and training which will
    be required for State higher education agencies and the potential for
    confusion for students would the Department consider not implementing
    this change?
        Answer. At this time, they are not considering not implementing
    this change. However, we are always open to hearing about the concerns
    Members of Congress, institutions of higher education, and State
    agencies may have about important issues affecting students' access to
    Federal student aid.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
                reduction in title i funding to eligible schools
        Question. Dr. King, I mentioned in my opening statement how pleased
    I was to see the increase proposed in your budget for Title I grant.
    This program provides funding to more than 80 percent of the Nation's
    school districts and is the core Federal program for our Nation's
    schools. However, I am concerned about the budget's proposal to
    designate a portion of the increase for use outside of the authorized
    Title I formulas that benefit all eligible school districts. This
    proposal would reduce funding for eligible school districts just as
    they are implementing the new law, with the result that many would see
    cuts to their Title I funding. What do you tell those school districts
    many of which face significant challenges that would see reductions in
    their Title I allocations?
        Answer. The Administration requests $15.4 billion for Title I
    Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) for fiscal year 2017. As
    you note, our request includes authority to allocate 50 percent of
    funds above the authorized funding level, or $174 million to States to
    support school improvement activities by LEAs consistent with section
    1003(b) of the amended law. The Administration believes that turning
    around the Nation's lowest-performing schools remains an especially
    urgent challenge and warrants prioritized funding. The portion of the
    requested increase that would be allocated for school improvement
    activities would buttress States' increased set-asides under section
    1003(a) of the reauthorized law and help ensure that LEAs can implement
    the rigorous interventions critical to turning around these schools.
    Under section 1003(a), States may make subgrants to LEAs competitively
    or by formula.
        Due to the reauthorized law's increased set-asides under 1003(a)
    and the suspension in fiscal year 2017 of the LEA-level hold-harmless
    provision, some LEAs may receive lower Title I allocations in fiscal
    year 2017 than in fiscal year 2016. The impact of the amended law on
    LEA allocations would be mitigated, however, if Congress enacts the
    Administration's request, which would make available to LEAs an
    estimated $160 million over the amount that would be available at the
    fiscal year 2017 authorized funding level.
                         newly authorized audit program
        Question. Dr. King, as you know, one of the priorities of our
    elementary and secondary education reauthorization bill was to reduce
    reliance on high-stakes testing, so teachers and students can spend
    less time on test prep and more time on learning. I heard from many
    around my home State of Washington about the need to replace this flaw
    in No Child Left Behind with having common sense testing policies. And,
    that's what we did. Your budget proposes $403 million, an increase of
    $25 million, to help pay for the cost of State tests. This amount
    includes $20 million for the newly-authorized audit program of testing
    in our schools. Can you comment about how these funds will help States
    and districts eliminate unnecessary testing so they can better focus on
    student learning? How would you allocate the $20 million proposed for
    the audit program?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2017, the $18.2 million will be awarded to
    approximately 12 States on a competitive basis. Awarding funds
    competitively rather than by formula will allow the Department to
    provide grants of sufficient size, consistent with the statutory
    requirement for a minimum annual award of $1.5 million per State, to
    ensure that States demonstrating the strongest commitment to meaningful
    assessment audits receive the additional support they need to be
    successful in conducting such audits and subsequently developing plans
    to improve their assessment systems based on the audit findings.
        Funds would be used for a variety of activities that would support
    eliminating unnecessary testing while promoting better use of
    assessments to support learning, consistent with the principles in the
    Administration's Testing Action Plan to help States and districts
    reduce redundant or low-quality assessments while protecting the vital
    role that good assessments play in measuring student progress each year
    and providing critical information to parents and teachers. States
    receiving these funds would have to review the purpose and educational
    benefit of the assessments they administer, as well as the legal
    authority for administering them. As part of this review, States would
    have to obtain feedback from stakeholders on a number of issues
    pertaining to the assessments, such as how assessment data are used to
    improve instruction; the timing and format for releasing assessment
    results; the amount of time teachers spend on assessment preparation
    and administration; and which assessments school personnel, parents,
    and students do and do not find useful. States would not only have to
    implement a plan to eliminate unnecessary or low-quality assessments at
    the State level; they would also be required to disseminate best
    practices for improving assessment quality and efficiency. Furthermore,
    these funds would also allow States to assist LEAs in examining and
    streamlining local assessment systems, as a portion of a State's award
    must be reserved to provide subgrants to LEAs, or consortia of LEAs, to
    improve assessment quality and use at the local level. Ultimately,
    these activities will help ensure that students only take tests that
    are that are of high quality, support good instruction, and help keep
    all students on track. These activities will also prevent tests from
    occupying too much classroom time, which crowds out teaching and
    learning.
        For fiscal year 2017, the $18.2 million will be awarded to
    approximately 12 States on a competitive basis. Awarding funds
    competitively rather than by formula will allow the Department to
    provide grants of sufficient size, consistent with the statutory
    requirement for a minimum annual award of $1.5 million per State, to
    ensure that States demonstrating the strongest commitment to meaningful
    assessment audits receive the additional support they need to be
    successful in conducting such audits and subsequently developing plans
    to improve their assessment systems at the State and local level based
    on the audit findings.
              dear colleagues letters and other guidance documents
        Question. According to the Department of Justice, 1 in 5 female
    undergraduates have experienced some type of sexual assault while in
    college.\1\ This data backs up a similar 2010 finding from the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention, National Intimate Partner and
    Sexual Violence Survey, which found that 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men
    will be raped at some point in their lifetime.\2\ These surveys join
    several others that have concluded a similar finding in the past
    year.\3\ These surveys validate a growing trend of gender-based
    violence on our college campuses. This is a growing public health
    epidemic across our schools.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Campus
    Climate Survey Validation Study Final Technical Report, available at:
    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf.
        \2\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Intimate
    Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, available at: http://www.cdc.gov/
    violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf.
        \3\ Association of American Universities, Report on the AAU Campus
    Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, available at:
    https://www.aau.edu/registration/public/PAdocs/Survey_Communication_9-
    18/Final_Report_9-18-15.pdf; Washington Post and Kaiser Family
    Foundation, ``1 in 5 College Women Say They Were Violated,'' http://
    www.washington
    post.com/sf/local/2015/06/12/1-in-5-women-say-they-were-violated/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. Yes. The Department has issued interpretive guidance
    throughout its 36-year history consistent with the Administrative
    Procedure Act (APA), which authorizes agencies to issue interpretative
    rules and policy statements ``to advise the public of the agency's
    construction of the statutes and rules which it administers.'' Shalala
    v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995). This was also
    true of the Department's predecessor, the Department of Health,
    Education, and Welfare.
                    department issued interpretive guidance
        Question. Can you tell me for the period of the past 10 years,
    covering a time when the Department was led by secretaries from both
    parties, how many times has your Department issued such interpretive
    guidance? What about the Office for Civil Rights? And, what prompted
    such guidance documents, were they requests from the regulated
    community or determined necessary for other reasons?
        Answer. The Department has published a list of the significant
    guidance documents in response to the U.S. Office of Management and
    Budget's Agency Good Guidance Practices (January 25, 2007), www.ed.gov/
    policy/gen/guid/significant-guidance.html. Significant guidance issued
    by OCR is listed on pages 5-8. The list was last updated November 4,
    2015. The list includes 20 significant guidance documents issued by OCR
    in the past 10 years. In December 2015, OCR issued an additional Dear
    Colleague Letter on Title IX's exemption for voluntary youth service
    organizations. The Department has also issued many other guidance
    documents that were not deemed significant.
        As you are aware, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 \4\
    is an important civil rights law that prohibits discrimination. The
    statute reads, ``No person in the United States shall, on the basis of
    sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
    be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity
    receiving Federal financial assistance''.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681.
        \5\ Public Law No. 92-318, tit. IX, Sec. 901, 86 Stat. 235, 373,
    codified at 20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1681-1688.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      title ix department issued guidance
        Question. As you are aware, Title IX of the Education Amendments of
    1972 \6\ is an important civil rights law that prohibits
    discrimination. The statute reads, ``No person in the United States
    shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be
    denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
    education program or activity receiving Federal financial
    assistance''.\7\ Since 1972 when Title IX was enacted into law, what
    regulations has the Department of Education released?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681.
        \7\ Public Law No. 92-318, tit. IX, Sec. 901, 86 Stat. 235, 373,
    codified at 20 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1681-1688.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. The Department first issued regulations implementing Title
    IX in 1975, using notice-and-comment procedures. Since then, the
    regulations have been revised several times. The regulations were most
    recently revised in 2006 to modify Title IX regulatory requirements
    pertaining to the provision of single-sex schools, classes, and
    extracurricular activities in elementary and secondary schools. The
    full current text of the Department's Title IX regulations is available
    online at www.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html.
                       sub-regulatory policy and guidance
        Question. What sub-regulatory policy and guidance has the
    Department of Education issued?
        Answer. The Department has issued many guidance documents
    interpreting Title IX and the Department's Title IX regulations. OCR's
    Title IX policy guidance documents are available in OCR's reading room:
    www.ed.gov/ocr/frontpage/faq/rr/policyguidance/sex.html.
                reasons the department issued title ix guidance
        Question. Why did the Department feel it was necessary to issue
    this guidance and take such steps?
        Answer. The Department's decision to issue each guidance document
    is fact-specific. Considerations include the volume of reports or
    complaints of noncompliance, questions that arise in OCR's
    investigation of complaints, questions received from stakeholders,
    legal developments in Federal courts' analysis of the laws enforced by
    the Department, and requests for guidance from the members of the
    public and Congress. For example, OCR issued its 2010 Dear Colleague
    Letter on Harassment and Bullying in response to reports that schools
    were responding to complaints of discriminatory harassment under
    bullying policies that did not take civil rights into consideration.
    Likewise, OCR's 2014 Question and Answer document on single-sex classes
    was issued because OCR observed confusion among recipients about when
    single-sex schools were permissible, leading to recipients being
    subjected to private litigation.
                      title ix schools under investigation
        Question. In May of 2014, the Department of Education released a
    list of the higher education institutions under investigation for
    possible violations of Federal law over the handling of sexual violence
    and harassment complaints.\8\ This original list had 55 schools. Why
    did the Department of Education make the list of schools with active
    Title IX investigations public? Had this list been public before?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-
    releases-list-higher-education-institutions-open-title-i.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. Consistent with our obligation to protect personal privacy
    and with our resource limitations, the Department strives to be open
    about matters of concern to the public to further the values of
    transparency embodied in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
        In May 2014, the Department began releasing a list of names of
    schools that have open and pending Title IX sexual violence
    investigations. The purpose of releasing this list is to (a) be
    responsive to the public's strong interest in knowing which schools are
    currently subject to government enforcement activities and (b) foster
    better public awareness of civil rights and institutions' awareness of
    civil rights obligations in order to spur community dialogue, increase
    safety and reduce discrimination on school campuses. The Department is
    committed to improving communication with survivors, parents, school
    administrators, faculty, and the public, by making our Title IX
    enforcement efforts more transparent. The Department made clear when it
    released the list that the fact that schools are being investigated
    does not mean that they have violated Title IX or any other Federal
    law.
                 transparency and accountability under title ix
        Question. What other steps has the Department of Education taken to
    ensure transparency and accountability for Title IX?
        Answer. The Department is focused on improving compliance with
    Federal laws by increasing transparency. OCR now posts nearly all
    recent resolution letters and agreements with recipients on our
    website, except those documents that raise individual privacy concerns.
    In addition, OCR has posted sexual violence resolution agreements and
    letters on NotAlone.gov to make them more accessible to students,
    parents, and community members. We hope that these agreements will be
    helpful for schools seeking to address similar problems. At the same
    time, we note that each agreement represents the resolution of a
    particular case, not OCR or Administration policy. Every school needs
    to take into account the circumstances on its own campus in adopting
    practices to comply with Title IX.
        The Department is also in the process of requiring both public
    school districts and colleges and universities to report the name and
    contact information of Title IX coordinators through two existing data
    collections, and we intend to make the collected information publicly
    available. Every school district and college and university is required
    by law to designate at least one Title IX coordinator, an employee
    charged with coordinating the school's Title IX responsibilities.
    Schools are required to notify students and employees of the name and
    contact information of the Title IX coordinator. However, there is
    currently no central, national repository of coordinator contact
    information. We hope these collections will make it easier for anyone
    to locate the name and contact information of a particular Title IX
    coordinator, and will allow Title IX coordinators to collaborate and
    share information with each other.
        After receiving almost 40 requests for all or some subset of
    documents related to schools' requests for religious exemptions from
    Title IX and OCR's response letters under the Freedom of Information
    Act (FOIA), OCR plans to produce these documents on its website.
            increased number of schools under title ix investigation
        Question. Since 2014, the list has grown. Why has the list grown?
        Answer. OCR has received and continues to receive an unprecedented
    volume of Title IX complaints involving allegations of sexual violence.
    OCR has negotiated resolutions of some of these complaints, but many
    remain under investigation or negotiation. OCR continues to vigorously
    enforce Title IX and negotiate robust resolutions where it finds
    violations.
                  schools initiative to combat sexual assault
        Question. What proactive response steps have schools, either on the
    original list or subsequently, taken to combat sexual harassment and
    violence on college campuses?
        Answer. OCR's release of its 2011 Dear Colleague Letter on Sexual
    Violence (DCL) and 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual
    Violence are widely credited with having sparked significant changes at
    schools as they worked to meet Title IX's requirements consistent with
    the DCL. The 2011 DCL discusses the proactive efforts schools can take
    to prevent sexual violence and to educate employees and students and
    provides examples of the types of remedies that schools and OCR may use
    to respond to sexual violence.
        OCR requires schools to properly address and prevent sexual
    violence through a wide range of school- and campus-specific remedies.
    Such remedies could include:
      --Requiring regular and mandatory sexual assault and harassment
            trainings for all students, faculty, staff, and administrators;
      --Mandating that a school conduct annual climate surveys to assess
            sexual harassment and other civil rights issues on campus;
      --Requiring a school to hire or designate Title IX coordinator;
      --Ensuring that a school obtains a consultant as an expert in sexual
            harassment prevention;
      --Instructing a school to seek input from the campus community,
            including from past complainants, in order to evaluate and
            improve the effectiveness of the school's implementation of its
            sexual harassment policies and practices; and
      --Ensuring that a school's students and employees are aware of their
            rights under Title IX.
      --During the course of OCR investigations and through contacts with
            the recipient community, OCR has learned of many proactive
            steps schools have taken, including for example:
      --Revising their nondiscrimination policies to fully satisfy Title IX
      --Taking steps to notify their student communities of allegations of
            sexual violence
      --Providing bystander and other training to school community members
      --Creating task forces to identify ways to better prevent and address
            sexual violence
      --Conducting climate surveys of students
      --Revising school disciplinary practices to better address sexual
            violence
      --Entering into Memoranda of Understanding with local police forces
            to ensure coordinated responsiveness to sexual violence
      --Committing research resources to creating evidence-based prevention
            and response best practices
                         title ix grievance procedures
        Question. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter noted the ``Grievance
    Procedures'' clarified that Title IX regulations require all recipients
    to adopt and publish grievance procedures for the prompt and equitable
    resolution of sex discrimination complaints. The Department's Office
    for Civil Rights noted ``As part of these procedures, schools generally
    conduct investigations and hearings to determine whether sexual
    harassment or violence occurred. In addressing complaints filed with
    OCR under Title IX, OCR reviews a school's procedures to determine
    whether the school is using a preponderance of the evidence standard to
    evaluate complaints.'' \9\ Before the Department of Education issued
    this guidance, what standard were most schools using? What prompted the
    Department of Education to issue guidance this for schools?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ U.S. Dept. of Educ., Office for Civil Rights, Dear Colleague
    (Apr. 4, 2011).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. The 2011 Dear Colleague Letter noted the ``Grievance
    Procedures'' clarified that Title IX regulations require all recipients
    to adopt and publish grievance procedures for the prompt and equitable
    resolution of sex discrimination complaints. The Department's Office
    for Civil Rights noted ``As part of these procedures, schools generally
    conduct investigations and hearings to determine whether sexual
    harassment or violence occurred. In addressing complaints filed with
    OCR under Title IX, OCR reviews a school's procedures to determine
    whether the school is using a preponderance of the evidence standard to
    evaluate complaints.''
      --The Department does not formally track the standard of proof that
            schools use in their grievance procedures.
      --A 2002 study submitted to the National Institute of Justice found
            that approximately 80 percent (149 of 183) of institutions that
            identified a particular standard of proof for sexual assault
            disciplinary proceedings employed the preponderance-of-the-
            evidence standard.\10\ More recently, in 2011, a Standard of
            Evidence Survey compiled by the Foundation for Individual
            Rights in Education, found that before the 2011 DCL was issues
            approximately 80 percent (135 of 168) of institutions that
            specified a standard of proof for adjudicating allegations of
            sexual harassment and sexual assault used the preponderance-of-
            the-evidence standard or lower.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See Heather Karjane, et al., Campus Sexual Assault: How
    America's Institutions of Higher Education Respond 122 (Nat'l Criminal
    Justice Reference Serv., Oct. 2002), www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/
    grants/196676.pdf.
        \11\ See Standard of Evidence Survey: Colleges and Universities
    Response to OCR's New Mandate (Oct. 28, 2011), http://thefire.org/
    public/pdfs/f17fa5caafd96ccdf8523abe56442215.pdf?direct and http://
    thefire.org/public/pdfs/8d799cc3bcca596e58e0c2998e6b2ce4.pdf?direct.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Through our work investigating complaints, conducting compliance
            reviews, and responding to technical-assistance requests from
            schools, it became clear that schools could use assistance in
            how to apply the Title IX requirements related to incidents of
            sexual harassment and sexual violence, including the
            appropriate standard of proof to use. We recognized that this
            is a complex issue, and schools were often unsure of what their
            Title IX obligations are in this area.
      --Additionally, whether or not we issued guidance, our office was
            receiving complaints that schools were discriminating by
            failing to address sexual harassment and sexual violence. And
            we must resolve every complaint we receive so we were
            investigating and making findings in individual cases,
            including regarding the standard of proof. By issuing guidance,
            we gave recipients clearer notice of what we expected of them
            in this area if we did receive a complaint, and encouraged some
            schools to change their behavior so that there wouldn't be a
            complaint.
              number of schools using department issued standards
        Question. After introducing this guidance, does the Department have
    a sense of how many schools are using this standard?
        Answer. The Department does not formally track the standard of
    proof that schools use in their grievance procedures.
        As explained above, according to two studies, the majority of
    schools were already using a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard
    prior to the issuance of the 2011 DCL. Since the issuance of the 2011
    DCL, OCR has not resolved any complaints where schools have not agreed
    to change their standard of proof if they were not already using a
    preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
                 appropriate remedies for non-compliant schools
        Question. This same 2011 Dear Colleague Letter \12\ also noted
    ``Steps to Prevent Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence and Correct
    its Discriminatory Effects on the Complainant and Others.'' The section
    provided for ``education and prevention'' to ensure full compliance
    with Title IX and steps for schools to prevent sexual harassment and
    violence in the first place. As part of this section, the Department
    also notes ``When OCR finds that a school has not taken prompt and
    effective steps to respond to sexual harassment or violence, OCR will
    seek appropriate remedies for both the complainant and the broader
    student population."\13\ What individual or student population relief
    has the Department been able to obtain?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Id. at 14.
        \13\ Id. at 16.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answer. OCR has required schools to properly address sexual
    harassment or violence through a wide-range of remedies applicable to
    the broader school population. Such remedies include, requiring regular
    and mandatory sexual harassment and violence trainings for all
    students, faculty, staff, and administrators; mandating that a school
    conduct annual climate surveys to assess sexual harassment and violence
    issues on campus; requiring a school to hire or designate a Title IX
    coordinator; ensuring that a school obtains a consultant as an expert
    in sexual harassment and violence prevention; and instructing a school
    to seek input from the campus community, including from past
    complainants, in order to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the
    school's implementation of its sexual harassment and violence policies
    and practices.
        In addition to remedies for the broader school population, OCR's
    resolution agreements may also include remedies for individual
    complainants. For example, OCR's resolution agreements have required
    schools to reimburse complainants for educational and medical expenses,
    such as tuition or payments for counseling services, where those
    remedies are required to eliminate a hostile environment or remedy the
    effects of sexual violence.
                             importance of remedies
        Question. Why did the Department think providing this relief was
    important?
        Answer. The robust remedies OCR requires in our resolution
    agreements are designed to ensure full satisfaction of the civil rights
    laws OCR is charged to enforce. We seek to secure remedies that are
    responsive to violations and concerns we identify during the course of
    our investigations, to ensure going forward that recipients of Federal
    funds fully satisfy Congress' promise that Federal funds will not be
    used to discriminate.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
                    processing borrower relief applications
        Question. It was December 18, 2013 when I first wrote to the
    Department asking for an investigation of Corinthian Colleges after
    reports of widespread fraud, related to inflated job placement rates.
    Since that time, the company has crumbled and investigations by the
    Department of Education, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and
    countless State Attorneys General, including Lisa Madigan in my home
    State of Illinois, have found widespread fraud. I'm concerned that
    despite the tens of thousands of Corinthian students who may be
    eligible under the law for Federal student loan relief, only 1,312
    former Corinthian students have thus far have received it. This is
    unacceptable. What is the Department doing to speed the processing of
    the borrower relief applications it has received and what will it do to
    improve outreach to students to ensure they are aware of their
    eligibility? Is the Department receiving borrower relief claims from
    schools besides Corinthian? When it does, is the Department using that
    information to initiate investigations of those schools?
        Answer. As of March 16, 2016, we've approved borrower defense
    discharges for 2,048 students, and provided closed school discharges to
    6,876 former Corinthian students together representing nearly $133
    million in loan relief. But we are not done. The new form we posted on
    studentaid.gov/Corinthian, based on our latest set of findings about
    misleading placement rates for Everest and WyoTech programs, will allow
    students who were defrauded at more than 90 Corinthian campuses to
    easily seek and obtain relief. The Department has been working closely
    with Attorneys General from multiple States including California,
    Illinois, and Massachusetts to collect and evaluate evidence that could
    form the basis of loan relief for students.
        The Department will continue to reach out to potentially eligible
    borrowers through multiple rounds of emails and postal mail. To improve
    response rates for these emails, the Department has conducted email
    subject-line testing, the results of which we anticipate will improve
    open rates in future email campaigns. In addition, the Department is
    exploring alternative methods of outreach including, but not limited
    to, social media outreach and enhanced coordination with servicers to
    reach potentially eligible borrowers that may not regularly check email
    and/or postal mail.
        The Department has received claims from students at schools other
    than Corinthian. A breakdown of the claims we have received is provided
    in Special Master Joseph Smith's latest report, which can be found at:
    http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/report-special-master-
    borrower-defense-3.pdf. The Department will use borrower defense claims
    as a factor in determining the schools that we investigate.
     enforcement division to reduce fraud and abuse by institutions in the
                                title iv program
        Question. I'd like to thank you for the Department's recent
    announcement to stand up an enforcement division to root out fraud and
    abuse by institutions in the Title IV program. This will be key to
    ensuring the integrity of the program regardless of what kind of school
    is involved in misconduct. But we know the sector that has been most
    often responsible for misrepresentation and other misconduct affecting
    students for-profit colleges. Nearly every major for-profit college is
    facing State or Federal investigations or lawsuits ITT Tech, University
    of Phoenix, DeVry, just to name a few. But all these institutions
    continue to receive billions in taxpayer funds each year through Title
    IV. What steps is the Department taking, in addition to the new
    enforcement unit, to identify misconduct and cut off Title IV
    eligibility to schools who engage in misconduct?
        Answer. The Department does not have the authority to simply stop
    providing access to Title IV Federal student financial assistance to a
    fully certified institution. Rather, the Department must provide due
    process to institutions through termination or similar actions that are
    litigated through an administrative hearing process, and possibly in
    court.
        The Student Aid Enforcement Unit (http://www.ed.gov/news/press-
    releases/student-aid-enforcement-unit-formed-protect-students-
    borrowers-taxpayers) will work closely with Federal and State agencies
    to investigate and bring actions against bad actors in order to best
    protect students and taxpayers. The new unit will collaborate with, and
    incorporate evidence gathered in investigations by, partner State and
    Federal agencies, in building cases against institutions of higher
    education. The unit will also collaborate with the Federal Student Aid
    (FSA) Program Compliance Unit regarding evidence which may impact
    ongoing program compliance reviews. FSA's new Chief Enforcement Officer
    will work with his team to create a process to best allocate
    investigative resources; and the new unit will conduct investigations
    that may lead to termination or similar actions by the Department.
        In addition to the objectives of the new Student Aid Enforcement
    Unit, Program Compliance established the Multi-Regional Division (MRD)
    that focuses on large for-profit and publicly-traded institutions that
    operate on a national level. The MRD has implemented several new
    oversight strategies including the hiring of Case Managers that each
    oversee a group of corporate institutions. The Case Managers have
    developed innovative oversight strategies to monitor large for-profit
    and publicly-traded institutions, including utilizing a contract
    vehicle to do extensive placement rate validation at select
    institutions. To help conduct more focused reviews that involve complex
    student and Title IV administration issues, the MRD has hired
    additional staff. Additionally, the MRD has begun requiring 13-week
    projected cash flow statements and monthly student enrollment rosters
    for institutions that do not meet the financial responsibility
    standards, or have indicated they may close. The additional reporting
    requirements help with monitoring the financial condition and student
    information at at-risk institutions on a more frequent basis as the
    Department proactively prepares for potential school closures. The
    Department has been actively working with other agencies on schools
    under investigation, is developing targeted oversight strategies based
    on risks to student and tax payers, and taking appropriate actions
    within its authority, when appropriate. As a result of these efforts,
    limitation and recertification denial actions have occurred in recent
    months directly related to these enhanced strategies and the very
    schools overseen by the Multi-Regional Division. Program Compliance
    will also be partnering with the Enforcement Division to develop
    collaborative strategies to ensure both effective oversight and
    enforcement of egregious non-compliance are addressed.
        The Department remains strongly committed to investigating
    violations that harm students and taxpayers and taking swift and
    immediate action as necessary. These new resources will help ensure
    such activities are completed in an effective and efficient manner,
    including supporting more reviews of high-risk institutions, responsive
    to the concerns raised by States' and other Federal agencies'
    investigations of such institutions, as well as by complaints by
    students. The creation of the new Student Aid Enforcement Unit builds
    on steps the Obama Administration has taken over the past 7 years to
    hold schools accountable for a providing a quality education,
    including:
      --Developing a wealth of consumer tools to help provide families with
            clear information to make a smart college choice;
      --Establishing gainful employment regulations to help ensure that
            students at career colleges don't end up with debt they cannot
            repay;
      --Establishing State authorization regulations to ensure State
            agencies are upholding their important role in the triad and
            that students have designated offices to voice their
            complaints, as well as other important program integrity
            protections, including credit hour, misrepresentation, and
            incentive compensation regulations;
      --Creating a Federal interagency taskforce to crack down on bad
            actors through investigations and enforcement actions;
      --Enforcing the ban on incentive compensation to protect students
            from aggressive recruiting practices;
      --Increasing the rigor of accreditation processes to ensure stronger
            reviews and a greater focus on outcomes by accreditors; and
      --Proposing to close the 90/10 loophole so institutions do not take
            advantage of service members.
                  consumer financial protection bureau report
        Question. I appreciate your quick response to the recently released
    Department of Education Inspector General Report which found that the
    Department minimized instances where its contracted student loan
    servicers failed to provide veterans with student loan benefits to
    which they were entitled under the law. But I'm troubled that on the
    heels of that report, this week the Consumer Financial Protection
    Bureau found additional violations by Department of Education student
    loan contractors. Specifically, CFPB found that some contracted debt
    collectors used ``false, deceptive, or misleading representations when
    performing collection services of defaulted Federal student loans.''
    Borrowers were threatened with garnishment even when Department of
    Education guidelines would not have permitted it against those
    borrowers. How is the Department responding to this report by the
    Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? What steps is the Department
    taking to reign in its contractors, both servicers and debt collectors,
    to ensure they are following the law and helping students repay their
    loans?
        Answer. There are many functions involved in Federal Student Aid's
    oversight of loan servicers and private collection agencies (PCAs).
    Among these functions, some are common to loan servicing and private
    collections agencies (and potentially other vendors) and others are
    unique to loan servicing or collections. The functions that are common
    to servicing and collections include contract administration and
    management, system security and change management. Each contract has
    designated and responsible contracting officers from the Acquisitions
    Office and designated Contracting Officer Representatives (COR)
    positioned within the various program and operations offices. The
    Contracting Officers, with assistance from the COR(s), oversee the
    administration and management of the contracts according to Federal
    Acquisition Regulation (FAR), manage the invoice processing and
    payment, and ensure the annual submission of contractor performance
    data. The Contracting Officer Representatives also coordinate the
    review of contract deliverables; formal documents that are identified
    in contracts that are often management reports that provide information
    regarding the contractor's delivery of goods and services. Often,
    deliverables require advanced subject matter expertise for review for
    acceptance or rejection. The COR is typically responsible for the
    distribution of deliverables to the appropriate subject matter experts
    within the program or operational business units. The deliverables are
    delivered and reviewed according to a set schedule. Issues identified
    by staff, who review the deliverables are reported to the contracting
    officer and COR. Contractors are generally provided the opportunity to
    rectify issues with the deliverable. When remediation is not
    successful, the contracting officer may take further action. Invoices
    are submitted to FSA. The contracting officer, the COR and FSA's
    Finance Office all participate in the invoice payment process. The
    contracting officer ensures all requirements for payment are met, the
    COR validates the invoice amounts using data provided by the vendors or
    otherwise available to the COR. Invoices may be rejected if it is found
    that the requested payment amounts are not aligned with supporting
    documentation or system data.
        System security is monitored on an ongoing basis. All vendors are
    required to comply with the Federal Information Security Management Act
    of 2002 (FISMA), GAO's Federal Information System Control Audit Manual
    (FISCAM), all relevant National Institute of Standards and Technology
    (NIST), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Department of
    Education security standards, guidance, and directives. Vendors must
    obtain a formal security Authorization to Operate (ATO) from the
    Department. Such authority is only granted once the Department has
    validated that the contractors have met the security requirements.
        Contracts have varying periods of performance. Over time,
    requirements change as a result of new regulation, desired process
    improvements, or for other reasons. FSA maintains a Change Management
    process that manages requirement changes and the validation that the
    changes to impacted systems have been made correctly and that the
    altered process(es) remain compliant.
        There are two oversight functions at FSA that are common to both
    loan servicing and private collections agency contracts administered by
    FSA. Oversight of both of these contract types require call monitoring,
    onsite reviews/process monitoring, and internal controls. Servicers and
    PCAs perform telephone outreach to borrowers who are either in
    delinquent loan repayment status (this is part of a servicer function
    also known as due diligence) or in default status (PCAs). The manner in
    which the outreach is conducted is regulated, and is specified in the
    form of contract requirements. The vendors submit recorded phone calls
    to FSA staff, who then select samples of calls to monitor. The recorded
    phone calls selected for monitoring are then evaluated for compliance
    with regulation (FTCP, UDAP, SCRA, etc.) and contract requirements, and
    assessed from a customer service perspective (the tone of the Customer
    Service Representative, for example). The monitored calls are
    evaluated, and errors are recorded and reported back to the
    contractors. FSA is currently enhancing this function to factor the
    results more heavily in contractor performance. For PCAs, the call
    monitoring scoring will be used in the calculation that determines the
    number of collection accounts awarded to PCAs as a means of driving
    improved performance.
        FSA also performs on-site reviews at loan servicer and PCA
    locations. On site reviews are conducted for the purposes of:
      --Validating that PCA vendors meet requirements to operate prior to
            receiving accounts (the Contractor Initial Evaluation).
      --Conducting system security assessments.
      --Addressing issues revealed through annual risk assessments
            conducted by FSA's Financial Institution Oversight Service
            (FIOS) unit within Program Compliance.
      --Validating that servicers are managing specific, predefined
            activity such as loan discharges, SCRA requirements, loan
            status reporting, or due diligence according to requirements
            and regulation.
      --Following up on potential issues revealed through the monitoring of
            PCA or servicer activities, deliverables and reports, or
            customer complaints.
      --Validating proper loan servicing of accounts identified for a
            comprehensive loan level detailed account review.
      --Monitor Debt Management Collections System processing.
      --Investigating potentially critical issues on an ad-hoc basis.
        There are other oversight functions that are unique to either loan
    servicer or PCA oversight. For loan servicing, FSA maintains a team of
    Servicing Liaisons who are tasked with monitoring servicer day-to-day
    activity, processing inventories and backlogs, and call center
    performance. The Liaisons analyze reports, deliverables and other work
    products to assess servicer performance, and meet regularly to discuss
    performance with other FSA staff including the Acquisitions Office, and
    the vendors themselves. In addition, FSA conducts the Servicing
    Monitoring Group meeting on a monthly basis to discuss issues or
    potential issues related to contract monitoring plan activities. The
    Servicer Monitoring Group meeting is attended by all FSA business units
    involved with contractor oversight as described in the Contract
    Monitoring Plan. Controls within loan servicer processes and systems
    are critical components of Federal Student Aid's internal control
    framework. As such, we anticipate that, at a minimum, some facet of
    servicer process controls and systems, as well as certain oversight
    functions described in this Contract Monitoring Plan (CMP), are
    assessed annually. Staff coordinate servicing control assessment
    planning and reporting activities with Business Operations A-123 senior
    assessment and core team members. A summary of the four phases that
    comprise Federal Student Aid's assessment lifecycle is provided below.
      --Plan: Reconvene the governance structure, perform risk assessments,
            prioritize processes and systems, define scope, and assign
            resources. Planning activities generally occur in January and
            February, but may start as early as the end of the preceding
            year (i.e., September).
      --Document: Identify and document internal controls over financial
            reporting for processes and systems in scope, assess design of
            these controls, and develop test plans to assess operating
            effectiveness. Documentation phase activities generally start
            in February or March and continue through April or May.
            Documentation phase activities may be concurrent to and overlap
            with certain planning and test phase activities.
      --Test: Execute test procedures to determine whether controls have
            been operating effectively over a period of time. The testing
            procedures may include testing techniques such as observation,
            inspection, re-performance, and corroborative inquiry. Test
            phase activities are generally scheduled from April through
            July.
      --Report/Remediation: Evaluate and report the impact and significance
            of identified control deficiencies, develop corrective action
            plans to remediate those deficiencies (or accept the risk), and
            develop management's conclusions and assertions on the
            effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.
            Reporting phase activities start in the July/August timeframe
            and continue through AFR reporting in November. Remediation is
            on-going.
        For each servicer, a significant amount of time and resources are
    invested to document and test the relevant process and system controls.
    FSA also defines financial internal control activities to be performed
    by loan servicer contractors, conduct compliance reviews of the
    servicers in accordance with OMB Circular A-123, and to liaison with
    external auditors providing the auditors with accounting work papers
    for samples and explanations of loan servicing processes. Within this
    activity, FSA staff:
      --Sponsor financial requirements of loan servicers and liaison
            between the Finance Office and the servicers to provide the
            financial requirements documented in the Servicer contracts and
            change requests.
      --Work with the Finance Office (FO) on the Annual Financial Audit
            (External) and A-123 Review-Part A (Internal Audit)
      --Staff define and provide the types of transactions and activities
            to be reviewed and assessed to FO, for the development of the
            scope of auditing activities
      --A-123 Review-Part C (Improper Payment Monitoring System). Staff
            comply with the Improper Payments Elimination and recovery Act
            of 2010 (IPERA) (Public Law 111-204), Improper Payments
            Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) (Public Law 107-300) and the
            Office of Management and Budget's (OMB Circular A-123, Appendix
            C, Requirements) for Effective Measurement and Remediation of
            Improper Payments, to define requirements to reduce improper/
            erroneous payments made by the Federal Government.
      --Internal Control (IC) staff also create and track Corrective Action
            Plans resulting from FIOS Servicer program reviews (referred to
            above). In addition, IC staff review the results of Servicer
            SSAE-16 reports, determining their acceptability as
            deliverables, and converting findings into Corrective Action
            Plans.
        FSA Finance Office staff reconcile activities related to business
    operations origination, disbursement servicing of Federal student aid
    for the Direct Loan Program. Staff perform the following:
      --Review and sign off on contractor prepared reconciliations of
            Servicer portfolio balances, transfers to other Servicers and
            Servicer cash interface with Treasury.
      --Prepare reconciliations of contractor interface data.
      --Monitor inter-system and intra-system balancing reports provided by
            contractors.
        FSA does not have internal financial controls over PCAs because
    they do not receive, process, or post any money for FSA. All borrower
    payments flow through payment channels managed by Treasury (e.g.,
    lockbox for checks, ACH for electronic payments, etc.) There are
    internal controls over the PCA invoice process. These are documented
    and tested through A-123A.
        In addition to onsite review activity and call monitoring, FSA
    staff review, approve or reject:
      --Collection litigation packages on all accounts submitted by PCAs
      --Discharge recommendations
      --Refunds
      --TOP and AWG hearing materials
                               cost of textbooks
        Question. I know you and the President share my concern about the
    growing cost of college. One of the most overlooked costs of a higher
    education is the cost of textbooks. GAO found that new textbooks prices
    increased 82 percent between 2002 and 2012. According to the College
    Board the average student budget for textbooks and supplies during the
    2014-2015 academic year was $1,225. A recent survey by the Student
    Public Interest Research Group found 65 percent of students decided not
    to buy a textbook because of the cost and 94 percent of those students
    worried it would hurt their grade. But there's a solution. Open
    textbooks are free, online educational materials that professors can
    use instead of a traditional textbook which may cost students several
    hundred dollars. I have a bill, the Affordable College Textbook Act
    which would provide grants to encourage the creation and expanded use
    of these materials. How is the Department currently investing in these
    materials and encouraging their increased use? How can we work together
    to do more on this important issue for students?
        Answer. The cost of escalating textbook prices is a real concern
    for students attending our Nation's colleges and universities. The
    Textbook Information provisions authorized under Section 133 of the HEA
    are designed ``to ensure that students have access to affordable course
    materials by decreasing costs to students and enhancing transparency
    and disclosure with respect to the selection, purchase, sale, and use
    of course materials.''
        Although fewer openly licensed textbooks are used than traditional
    publisher textbooks, they are becoming increasingly popular. Openly
    licensed textbooks provide 24/7 access to learning resources, thereby
    expanding learning time and improving equity of access to high quality
    resources for all students. These initiatives align with a number of
    the President's proposals to help make college more accessible,
    affordable, and attainable for all American families, including
    supporting and encouraging higher college completion rates. While the
    scope of these proposals is broader than open textbooks, new and
    continued forms of financial assistance can help to ease the impact of
    textbook costs and related supplies. Originally proposed by President
    Obama in 2009 to help students and families pay for post-secondary
    education, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, worth up to $10,000
    over 4 years, helps working families pay for the cost of tuition, fees,
    and textbooks.
        In addition, the 2017 budget request includes proposals to expand
    access and make postsecondary education more affordable such as--
      --Several new Pell Grant initiatives to expand access to
            postsecondary education and promote student completion
            including, full funding for the Pell Grant maximum award, Pell
            for Accelerated Completion, and On-Track Pell bonus for
            students taking at least 15 credit hours per semester in an
            academic year.
      --$1.26 billion in 2017 for America's College Promise which would
            make 2 years of community college free for responsible
            students, letting the students earn the first half of a
            bachelor's degree or an associate degree and earn skills needed
            in the workforce at no cost. By covering students' tuition,
            America's College Promise affords students the opportunity to
            apply their Federal aid to cover expenses such as books,
            supplies, and room and board, which make up a high proportion
            of college costs.
        [Note: Highlights and additional information about the President's
    fiscal year 2017 budget proposals can be found on the Department's
    website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/budget-
    factsheet.pdf. Making college more accessible and affordable is
    essential to student success and completion.]
        We look forward to working with you to identify ways to promote
    access, affordability, and attainment in higher education for working
    families, including decreasing the cost of college textbooks and
    supplemental materials while supporting the academic freedom of faculty
    members to select high quality course materials for students.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
       guidance and technical assistance to states for library provisions
        Question. In addition to the Innovative Approaches to Literacy
    grant program, the Every Student Succeeds Act also contains other
    school library provisions to expand opportunities for students and
    improve instructional programs, particularly as part of Titles I and
    II, the comprehensive literacy program, and the education technology
    provisions. What are the Department's plans for guidance and technical
    assistance to encourage and support States and school districts in
    implementing the school library provisions of the new law and ensuring
    that all students have access to effective school library programs?
        Answer. The new law provides time and authority for the Department
    to work with State and local partners to ensure a smooth and orderly
    transition from NCLB to the ESSA. There will be regular communication
    from the Department and we will be providing guidance and technical
    assistance to support all grantees during this period.
        In addition, we note that the Comprehensive Literacy Development
    program in Title II, which is very similar in structure to the current
    Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program, awards grants to
    States that agree to use their grant funds to support literacy
    interventions at the local level that meet the needs of students in the
    community and are evidence-based. Increasing access to effective school
    library programs could be a local strategy supported by a Comprehensive
    Literacy Development grant, assuming such strategy meets local needs
    and is sufficiently evidence-based. Of the $190 million requested for
    the Comprehensive Literacy Development program in fiscal year 2017, the
    Department could use up to 5 percent or $9.5 million on technical
    assistance and evaluation activities, which could include specialized
    support to projects that include school libraries as part of their
    literacy development strategy. If Congress funds this program in fiscal
    year 2017, the Department looks forward to working closely with
    literacy projects funded by this initiative to provide technical
    assistance, guidance, and other support.
    affects of workforce innovation and opportunity act implementation for
                                adult education
        Question. The Administration's budget justification documents noted
    a ``persistent need for adult education in the U.S.'' Additionally,
    States and adult education providers are transitioning to the new adult
    education provisions under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
    (WIOA). The Administration has requested the full authorization level
    for the adult, youth, and dislocated worker programs under WIOA.
    However, the request is only for level funding for the Adult Education
    State Grant Program. Why did the Administration choose not to request
    the authorized amount? How will the lack of resources affect WIOA
    implementation for adult education?
        Answer. To address the persistent need for adult education, the
    Administration is working to ensure a smooth transition and effective
    implementation of the reauthorized program under WIOA. To that end, the
    Administration is requesting $11 million in additional funding under
    Adult Education National Leadership Activities to support WIOA
    implementation. This funding will help States meet the data collection
    requirements of WIOA and align their adult education standards to their
    K-12 standards. Additionally, these funds would improve the efficiency
    and interoperability of data systems. The Administration believes
    investments in WIOA implementation will yield a high return in
    improving the state of adult education and that its request for Adult
    Education State Grants is sufficient to meet the objectives of WIOA.
                   teacher quality partnership grant program
        Question. Please explain how the Teacher and Principal Pathways
    proposal does not duplicate the Title II provisions of the Every
    Student Succeeds Act. Also, please explain the rationale for cutting
    continuation grants for current TQP recipients.
        Answer. The Administration's overall request for fiscal year 2017
    includes a set of initiatives that would help State educational
    agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), institutions of
    higher education (IHEs), and other partners address each phase of a
    teacher and school leader's career, including innovative strategies for
    better preparing, recognizing, and supporting teachers and leaders.
        The Teacher and Principal Pathways (TPP) proposal continues the
    emphasis of the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) program on expanding
    high quality teacher preparation programs, but would broaden
    eligibility, eliminate some of the burdensome limitations of current
    law (for example, requiring that a student receive a Master's Degree in
    18 months), and ensure a strong priority for programs with proven track
    records of preparing effective and diverse teachers who get and keep
    jobs in classrooms where they are needed most. The proposed TPP program
    would fund competitive awards to IHEs and nonprofit organizations in
    partnership with high-need LEAs. Teacher Pathways grants would build on
    and replace current efforts to improve teacher preparation through TQP;
    while Principal Pathways grants would build on and complement current
    Department efforts under the reauthorized School Leader Recruitment and
    Support program, the successor to the School Leadership program. In
    addition, the request for Supporting Effective Educator Development,
    which would support innovation in the areas of alternative
    certification and professional development, would complement work
    supported under TPP.
        In addition, TPP would help SEAs and LEAs meet the goals of the
    ESEA Title II Part A Supporting Effective Instruction (SEI) State grant
    program, which include helping ensure that teachers and principals are
    prepared to work in high-need schools, increasing numbers of teachers
    and principals are effective in improving student academic achievement,
    and low-income and minority students have greater access to effective
    teachers and principals.
        The 2017 Budget requests funding for TPP as a standalone program
    for a number of reasons. First, States have a limited set-aside under
    the SEI State grant program to support a wide range of activities.
    Particularly in small States, they may not have sufficient resources
    under Title II to establish or expand teacher and school leader
    preparation academies, and the TPP would be able to help fill this gap
    in such States. Second, by requiring grantees to partner with high-need
    LEAs, the TPP grants will be well-targeted to high-need districts and
    increase the likelihood that programs successfully prepare and place
    effective teachers and principals in schools where they are needed
    most. Finally, TPP would prioritize projects that have a strong
    evidence base, either by expanding successful programs or by supporting
    programs adopting effective practices.
        The Department would not cut continuation grants for current TQP
    recipients. The $125 million request for the proposed Teacher and
    Principal Pathways programs would cover the approximately $29 million
    in continuation costs for TQP grantees, as reflected in the output
    tables contained in the fiscal year 2017 Congressional Justification
    for TPP.
     student loan complaint system at consumer financial protection bureau
        Question. In April 2015, just after the Administration unveiled the
    Student Aid Bill of Rights, Senators Warren, Durbin, Brown, and I sent
    a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, with copies to the
    Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    (CFPB), asking the administration to examine the feasibility of using
    the existing student loan complaint system at the CFPB for Federal
    student loans. We wrote: ``We urge the Administration to leverage the
    efficient and transparent system that is already in place at the CFPB
    rather than expend resources to create a parallel system at the U.S.
    Department of Education. Creating a parallel system at the Education
    Department may be confusing to student borrowers. Borrowers often have
    both Federal and private student loans and could benefit from a one-
    stop complaint system to address their problems.'' We asked for a
    formal response and have yet to receive one. It appears that the
    Department of Education has proceeded to develop its own parallel
    system. What considerations were given to leveraging the CFPB's system?
        Answer. The Enterprise Complaint System is being developed in
    response to the directive in the President's Student Aid Bill of
    Rights, published on March 10, 2015, for the Department to ``Create a
    Responsive Student Feedback System'' to ``give students and borrowers a
    simple and straightforward way to file complaints about Federal student
    loan lenders, servicers, collections agencies, and institutions of
    higher education.'' The Student Aid Bill of Rights notes that, as a
    result of such a system, ``students and borrowers will be able to
    ensure that their complaints will be directed to the right party for
    timely resolution, and the Department of Education will be able to more
    quickly respond to issues and strengthen its effort to protect the
    integrity of the student financial aid programs.'' Although the CFPB
    system and the Department's upcoming Enterprise Complaint System both
    collect complaints, the Department is responsible for using the
    information collected to improve operational efficiency both internally
    and at its own contractor partners. As a result, the Enterprise
    Complaint System incorporates processes for complaint resolution,
    oversight, and data management that differ in purpose and in design
    from the CFPB system.
          department of education's investment in proposed cfpb system
        Question. How much has the Department invested in staff time,
    contracts, and other resources in developing its proposed system?
        Answer. The Department expects total development costs to be
    approximately $7.4 million across fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Staff
    members across various business units have participated in the design
    of the new system.
       estimated costs for development and implementation of cfpb system
        Question. What does the Department estimate the costs going forward
    to be?
        Answer. The Department has estimated annualized ongoing costs,
    including operations and maintenance, software licenses, and contractor
    customer service support, to be approximately $2.5 million per year.
                            fully operational system
        Question. When will the system be fully operational?
        Answer. In accordance with the President's Student Aid Bill of
    Rights, the Enterprise Complaint System will be implemented by July
    1st, 2016.
      interface of department's proposed system and cfpb complaint system
        Question. How will the Department's system interact with the CFPB
    complaint system?
        Answer. Interactions between the Enterprise Complaint System and
    the CFPB complaint system are governed by the Memorandum of
    Understanding (MOU) between the CFPB and the Department regarding
    Federal Student Aid (FSA) Ombudsman data. Cases that are determined to
    be related to the scope of the CFPB complaint system and not the
    Department, e.g., cases related to private student loans, will be
    forwarded to the CFPB for resolution through a process that is seamless
    to the customer. The complainant will be informed when this occurs.
               one-stop interface to file student loan complaints
        Question. Will borrowers have a one-stop interface to file student
    loan complaints regardless of the origin of the loan?
        Answer. Students and borrowers will have a one-stop shop to file
    Federal student aid complaints about Federal student loan lenders,
    servicers, collections agencies, institutions of higher education,
    guarantors, and Federal student aid programs. The Enterprise Complaint
    System will contain language recommending that borrowers with
    complaints about private student loans use the CFPB complaint system in
    order to receive a response efficiently. However, as mentioned in the
    response to the previous question, if a borrower should complain about
    private student loans using the Enterprise Complaint System, that
    complaint will be seamlessly forwarded to the CFPB for resolution, and
    the complainant will be informed when this occurs. We expect these
    cases to be the vast minority as only approximately 7.5 percent of
    outstanding student loan debt is associated with private loans.
                             complaints made public
        Question. And will the complaints be searchable and available to
    the public for review?
        Answer. Although the Department recognizes the value that a
    searchable public database can provide to customers, this functionality
    is not planned for initial implementation. However, the Department is
    exploring ways to develop this capability for a future release, and
    does plan to provide reports to the public. For example, the Department
    will release an annual report on complaint data beginning in October
    2016, and is exploring the possibility of releasing standardized
    complaint data at more frequent intervals on the FSA Data Center, as
    well as periodic ad hoc reports on significant or timely issues.
                           default management system
        Question. Currently, when an institution's cohort default rate
    exceeds 30 percent, the institution must create a task force and
    develop a default management plan. Are there examples of successful
    institutional default management plans that have benefited student loan
    borrowers? What are the features of those plans?
        Answer. An institution that has a 3-year cohort default rate (CDR)
    of 30 percent or greater for any one Federal fiscal year is required to
    establish a default prevention task force, create a program of default
    prevention, and submit a written Default Prevention Plan to the
    Department for review and technical assistance. The purpose of the task
    force and Default Prevention Plan is to reduce defaults and to enhance
    borrowers' understanding of their loan repayment responsibilities.
        An effective and comprehensive Default Prevention Plan must:
      --Identify the factors causing the institution's default rate to
            exceed the threshold. The institution must conduct an analysis
            of delinquency and default patterns of the student population
            to identify factors that appear to increase default risk.
      --Establish measureable objectives and the steps the institution will
            take to improve its 3-year cohort default rate. The activities
            included in the Default Prevention Plan must be measureable.
            This measurement is not only to demonstrate that the
            institution has a delinquency and default prevention strategy,
            but also to ensure that the institution has a mechanism to
            routinely evaluate the success or failure of the default
            prevention activities identified in the institution's Default
            Prevention Plan.
      --Specify the actions the institution will take to improve student
            loan repayment. These actions include, but are not limited to,
            counseling students on repayment options; providing general
            financial information; and, if possible, offering classes on
            financial literacy.
        The number of required default plans over the past cohorts has
    declined. We attribute the decline to more targeted efforts working
    directly with schools by the Departments Default Prevention team. Other
    key factors of successes identified include:
      --Senior Leadership (President or another Cabinet-level person)
            chairs the schools Default Management Task Force. This approach
            ensures the right level of awareness and influence in the
            school policy
      --Assigning a full time default prevention coordinator
      --Schools working directly with Federal servicers
      --Schools working with third-party servicers
      --Schools focusing more effort on specific cohorts
      --Establishing early alerts to help at-risk borrowers like those
            students most likely to drop out
      --Analysis of the defaulters
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
                 institutional risk-sharing in higher education
        Question. Secretary King, a critical driver of the student debt
    crisis is the skyrocketing cost of tuition and attendance at higher
    education institutions across the country. I believe that institutions
    themselves need to have a vested interest in the amount of debt their
    students take on and can successfully repay, and I have introduced
    bipartisan legislation called the Student Protection and Success Act to
    implement such a policy. What is the Department currently doing to
    address institutional responsibility for student debt and to hold
    institutions accountable for their students' ability to repay their
    loans?
        Answer. As part of the Obama Administration's aggressive action to
    protect students and taxpayers, the U.S. Department of Education has
    created a Student Aid Enforcement Unit to respond more quickly and
    efficiently to allegations of illegal actions by higher education
    institutions.
        The new unit will collaborate with, and incorporate evidence
    gathered in investigations by, partner State and Federal agencies, in
    developing cases against institutions of higher education, as
    appropriate. The unit will also collaborate with the Program Compliance
    Unit regarding evidence which may impact ongoing program compliance
    reviews. Moreover, the new Enforcement Unit will utilize a broad set of
    interventions and tools, including subpoena authority, document
    demands, and interrogatories and interviews to enforce against
    violations of Federal law. In the 2017 Budget, the President requests
    $10.5 million in additional funds to strengthen FSA's enforcement and
    oversight activities, as part of its Student Aid Administration
    requested budget increase. The Department remains strongly committed to
    investigating violations that harm students and taxpayers and taking
    swift and immediate action as necessary. This new unit would help to
    ensure such activities are completed in an effective and efficient
    manner, including supporting more reviews of high-risk institutions,
    responsive to the concerns raised by States' and other Federal
    agencies' investigations of such institutions, as well as by complaints
    by students.
        The Department has also put in place a number of program integrity
    regulations to better protect students from poor performing
    institutions. The Government Accountability Office and the Department's
    own Inspector General recommended many of these steps, and the
    Department views them as critical safeguards that provide adequate
    flexibility where necessary.
        Under the Higher Education Act (HEA), all programs at for-profit
    institutions and certificate and non-degree programs at public and non-
    profit institutions must prepare students for ``gainful employment in a
    recognized occupation'' in order to be eligible for Title IV student
    aid funds. Additionally, the Department has enacted and is enforcing
    State authorization regulations to ensure State agencies are upholding
    their important role in the triad and that students have designated
    offices to voice their complaints. Other regulations protect students
    from misrepresentation by institutions; limit incentive compensation
    that results in aggressive recruiting practices; ensure that only
    eligible students receive Federal aid; and clarify both the courses
    that are eligible for Federal aid and the amount of aid that is
    appropriate for that coursework. We are also working to increase the
    rigor of accreditation processes to ensure stronger reviews and a
    greater focus on outcomes by accreditors.
        We remain committed to working with Congress and to providing
    technical assistance to help ensure legislative proposals meet the
    consumer and taxpayer protection purposes of these provisions.
      allocation of student loan volumn to for-profit and not-for-profit
                             student loan servicers
        Question. As you may know, I have long been concerned by the
    Department's approach in allocating student loan volume under the
    Direct Loan program among the for-profit and not-for-profit student
    loan servicers in the program. Not-for-profit servicers typically score
    significantly higher on the Department's performance metrics, but the
    Department has arbitrarily, and harmfully, continued to allocate the
    vast majority of student loan volume to the for-profit Title IV
    Additional Servicers, known as TIVAs.
        Congress included language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
    for fiscal year 2016 that requires the Department to allocate loan
    volume based on the performance of the loan servicer, and I was pleased
    to see this reflected in the Department's most recent allocation, with
    a much higher share going to not-for-profit servicers who have
    performed well. However, I am very concerned by recent reports that the
    Department is now planning to make changes to its performance metrics
    with the goal of allocating more loan volume to the TIVAs.
        Does the Department recognize that such a change would violate
    Congressional intent for the program?
        Answer. The provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
    related to the allocation of borrower accounts requires the Department
    to ``allocate new student loan borrower accounts to eligible student
    loan servicers on the basis of their performance compared to all loan
    servicers utilizing established common metrics, and on the basis of the
    capacity of each servicer to process new and existing accounts.'' On
    March 1, 2016, in accordance with this provision, new allocations were
    set based on a comparison of performance across all Department
    servicers. At the same time, and again consistent with the provision,
    the Department announced that we would require additional time to
    complete and document the required assessment of servicer capacity, as
    well as to ensure that the allocations determined on March 1 were
    equitable given differences in the portfolios of the Title IV
    Additional Servicers (which include contracts with two not-for-profit
    and two for-profit entities) and the Not-for-Profit servicers. We will
    announce the results of these efforts no later than June 30, 2016.
            quality of customer among student loan service providers
        Question. Does the Department support ensuring all student loan
    borrowers receive quality service? Does it believe that allocating loan
    volume under the Direct Loan Program to the highest performing loan
    servicers would make progress towards that goal?
        Answer. The Department is committed to providing the best possible
    service to student and parent borrowers. Under the Department's
    existing performance-based servicing contracts, new borrower accounts
    have always been allocated based on servicers' success in helping
    borrowers avoid delinquency and default, as well as on their scores on
    customer satisfaction surveys. As we continue our efforts to fully
    implement the allocation provision of the Consolidated Appropriations
    Act, quality service for borrowers will continue to be our principal
    goal.
                 contracts with student loan service providers
        Question. I am also concerned that the most recent allocation by
    the Department was for just 4 months, despite the fact that servicers'
    contracts up until now have explicitly stated that the allocations will
    be announced twice a year for six-month periods. What was the reason
    for the unusually short time period of the most recent allocation, and
    what is the Department's justification for modifying the terms of its
    contract with the servicers?
        Answer. This statutory language related to servicing allocations
    requires the Department to take into consideration the capacity of each
    servicer to manage and process new and existing borrower accounts. We
    have experience working with each of our servicers and are already
    familiar with their systems and capabilities. Regardless, we have
    requested, received, and conducted an initial review of capacity plans
    from all of our servicers to assess the reasonability and risk of each
    servicer's staffing, training, system, and other resource planning.
    Based on our experience and our initial assessment of the capacity
    plans, we are confident that all of our servicers can manage and
    process projected borrower account allocations for the next few months,
    while the volume of new accounts is relatively low. While we continue
    the process of completing and documenting our capacity assessment, we
    will monitor each servicer's performance closely and can modify or
    discontinue allocations on short notice if any issues arise. Our plan
    is to complete and document the capacity review, as well any
    adjustments or changes to the metrics, by June 30, 2016. The current
    allocation period was shortened to allow us to reflect the results of
    these actions prior to the beginning of the new academic year on July
    1, 2016.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Blunt. The subcommittee will stand in recess until
    10:00 a.m. on Thursday, March 17.
        Dr. King, thank you for your time today.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., Thursday, March 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    March 17.]