[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.]