    [Senate Hearing 115-277]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
              RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Blunt, Alexander, Capito, Lankford,
    Kennedy, Rubio, Hyde-Smith, Murray, Durbin, Reed, Shaheen,
    Merkley, Baldwin, Murphy, Manchin, and Leahy.

                            DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. BETSY DeVOS, SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY BILL CORDES, ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY, AND VOCATIONAL
                ANALYSIS DIVISION 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.
        We are pleased, Secretary DeVos, that you are here with us
    today. Thank you for appearing to talk about your budget and to
    answer our questions.
        The 2019 budget request from the Department is 11 percent
    less than the money that the Congress appropriated for fiscal
    year 2018 in March. To the Department's credit, you propose
    eliminating and consolidating programs that may not be working
    effectively, and we will want to look at those very carefully
    with you.
        The budget also includes a $1 billion new competitive grant
    program for States and school districts to expand their choice
    programs.
        Certainly I appreciate the perspective, the new look, you
    have brought to the Department. I agree that we should look at
    programs that are either inefficient or ineffective and
    prioritize programs that work the best for students.
        We have a shared priority--your Department and the
    committee certainly--on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering
    and Mathematics) education. I am interested in hearing more
    about how you think the Department can support STEM education,
    including computer science education, and what we can do in
    schools around the country. And I think you will find we will
    be particularly interested in rural schools that may not be
    where we would like them to be in that competitive environment.
        The omnibus included $50 million in dedicated funding for
    evidence-based STEM education programs. I want to certainly
    work with you, as our committee does, and the Department to see
    how we can support and expand that effort.
        I am also interested in working together to make post-
    secondary education more accessible and affordable for all
    students. Two years ago, we were able to reinstate in our
    appropriating bill, with the cooperation of our authorizers,
    year-round Pell Grants. I just spent some time in Missouri at
    the end of the last college year talking about this being
    really the first summer where schools could plan and students
    could plan for year-round Pell. We think there are about 20,000
    more students on campus this summer in Missouri and about a
    million students nationwide because they have the potential to
    continue to make the pattern that is working continue to work.
    You know, if you are paying your way through college, working
    your way through college, maybe the first person in your family
    that is either attending or trying to graduate from college,
    having a pattern that works makes a big difference.
        When I went to college, the first person in my family to
    graduate from college, frankly as several people on this
    committee also are--and I went in 3 years and three summers. As
    I recall, it took 124 hours of credit to graduate. I had 124
    hours of credit, not one extra credit or one extra day. The
    best way, of course, to keep college cost down is to get done,
    and I think a lot of schools have responded to year-round Pell
    by being sure that they have bachelor degree programs that can
    realistically be completed, if that is what a student wants to
    do, in a shorter period of time.
        We look at what happened with year-round Pell. Now, we
    increased the Pell Grant through our committee last year by 3
    percent to $6,095. Your budget is still predicated on a top
    two-semester Pell of $5,920. I think we will, obviously,
    continue the other number and look for the authorizing
    committee, the Chairman and Ranking Member of which are on
    either side of me, to see their forward view on Pell Grants and
    other assistance programs.
        Many of the proposals in the budget eliminate programs. I
    think some of that can be done. I hope we can look at it
    carefully with you. But I think it is likely that the committee
    will look at the work we just completed, and the large formula
    grant programs are not likely to be eliminated. We are not
    likely to support the elimination of Impact Aid for Federal
    property, though this administration would not be the first one
    to suggest that Impact Aid could be looked at in another way.
        There are some small targeted programs eliminated like
    Special Olympics and Arts and Education. Again, while the size
    maybe looks like they do not make a lot of impact, it would
    make a lot of impact if you eliminated them. And I think our
    committee would want to think long and hard before we did that.
        Finally, Secretary DeVos, I want to acknowledge your
    efforts to realign the Department of Education's role in the
    education system. I believe, as many Members of the Senate and
    House do, that decisions should, whenever they can, be made
    closer to students and their family and local school districts.
    That is where those decisions should be made. It is hard enough
    to make a decision in a State capital that impacts an entire
    State as opposed to decisions in Washington, DC that impact the
    entire country. And your efforts to try to look for ways that
    more of those decisions can be made closer to where kids and
    their families are and where adult students are going to school
    is a wonderful thing for us to be talking about.
        I look forward to your testimony today and the discussion
    that will follow that.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
        Good morning. Thank you, Secretary DeVos, for appearing before the
    Subcommittee today to discuss the Department of Education's fiscal year
    2019 budget request.
        The fiscal year 2019 budget request for the Department of Education
    is $63.2 billion, $7.7 billion, or 11 percent, less than the fiscal
    year 2018 Omnibus passed in March.
        Like last year's request, this budget proposal includes significant
    changes to the scope of the Federal Government's investments in
    education. It eliminates or consolidates over 30 programs and
    significantly reduces funding for several others. It also includes $1
    billion for a new competitive grant program for States and school
    districts to expand school choice programs.
        I appreciate the fresh perspective you bring to the Department.
    This request makes difficult decisions and prioritizes funding for
    programs while working under tight budget constraints. I agree we
    should look for programs that are ineffective or inefficient, and
    prioritize that funding to programs that work best for students. I am
    confident we can work together throughout this year's budget process on
    that goal.
        We have a shared priority in STEM education. I am interested in
    hearing more about your ideas on how the Department can support STEM
    education, including computer science education, in schools across the
    country, particularly rural schools. The Omnibus included $50 million
    in dedicated funding for evidence-based STEM education programs and I
    want to work with you on how the Department can support and expand that
    effort as well as build upon the innovative work States and school
    districts are already doing in STEM education.
        I am also interested in working together to make post-secondary
    education more accessible and affordable for all students. Two years
    ago, the Labor/HHS bill reinstated Year Round Pell Grants. Year-round
    Pell is expected to help approximately one million students nationwide
    each year, and 20,000 in my home State of Missouri, where one-third of
    students receive a Pell Grant. When I was in Missouri last month
    visiting community colleges and universities, I heard from students
    about the benefits of being able to take classes continuously. And this
    is the first summer most students are able to benefit.
        Additionally, in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus, we were able to
    build upon the success of Year-round Pell by funding several
    significant initiatives focused on college affordability and
    completion, including increasing the Pell Grant maximum award,
    increasing funding for campus-based aid programs like Federal Work
    Study, and focusing funding on TRIO programs to help students get into
    and complete college. As the first person in my family to graduate
    college, I understand the importance of finding a system that works.
    Staying continuously enrolled in school, having support from programs
    like TRIO, and access to financial aid through Pell and campus-based
    aid programs will help more students stay on track for graduation,
    enter or re-enter the workforce sooner, and graduate with less debt.
        We share a lot of common ground with regard to the role of the
    Federal Government in our education system. However, there are places
    we disagree. I continue to believe that certain elements of the
    Department's proposal on student loan servicing are misguided. The
    Omnibus bill prevents the Department from moving forward with a new
    system that does not include certain safeguards to promote
    accountability and transparency, and incentivize high-quality service
    for borrowers. I hope that we can work together this year to improve
    the Federal student loan servicing process for borrowers, while making
    sure these safeguards are in place.
        Further, many of the proposals in the budget request to eliminate
    programs were considered by our Subcommittee last year, and rejected.
    This Subcommittee will not pass a bill eliminating large formula grant
    programs supporting afterschool programs and teacher professional
    development. As we have done since the last Administration, our Labor/
    HHS bill will not support the elimination of the Impact Aid Payments
    for Federal Property program, which represents a core aspect of the
    Federal Government's commitment to the parts of the country impacted by
    the presence of federally-owned land. Similarly, while some small
    targeted grant programs, like Special Olympics or Arts in Education,
    may simply because of their size not have widespread impacts, they can
    help leverage significant private funding and build the evidence-base
    for what works to improve student outcomes. As we look to produce our
    third consecutive bipartisan Labor/HHS bill at the end of this month, I
    expect these proposals will face the same result this year.
        Finally, Madame Secretary, I want to acknowledge your efforts to
    realign the Department of Education's role in our education system. I
    believe education decisions should be made as close to the student and
    family as possible. It is hard enough to make decisions for a student
    in Springfield, Missouri from Jefferson City, let alone Washington,
    D.C. We need to empower schools, students, and families to make the
    best decisions for individual students to help them succeed. I believe
    you are taking important steps to do that and limit the role of the
    Federal Government in both our elementary and secondary school system
    and at institutions of higher education. I will continue to support you
    in those efforts.
        My goal is for us to continue to work together to identify
    priorities and find common ground while responsibly allocating
    taxpayers' resources. Madame Secretary, I look forward to hearing your
    testimony today and appreciate your dialogue with us about these
    important issues.
        Thank you.

        Senator Blunt. And I am pleased now to recognize my good
    friend, Senator Murray.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

        Senator Murray. Thank you, Chairman Blunt.
        Thank you, Secretary DeVos, for joining us today.
        It is now 16 months since you were confirmed by an
    unprecedented tie-breaking vote as Secretary of Education, and
    you were confirmed despite millions of students and parents and
    teachers around the country who spoke up in opposition to your
    extreme ideological commitment to privatizing public education
    and who were concerned about your lack of experience in
    educating or in advocating for our public schools.
        Unfortunately, instead of taking those concerns to heart,
    you have doubled down on your harmful agenda and filled your
    Department with for-profit college executives and lobbyists
    looking out for their former employers and clients. And that
    could not be clearer when looking at your actions over the past
    year and the budget that you are here to defend today.
        Secretary DeVos, since you were confirmed, we have seen a
    barrage of actions out of the Department that hurt both
    students and taxpayers. You continue to prioritize your extreme
    privatization agenda, which would siphon taxpayer dollars away
    from public schools. You are ignoring the parts of our Nation's
    K-12 law, the Every Student Succeeds Act, that helps ensure
    equity in our schools. You have made it easier for predatory
    for-profit colleges and student loan companies to take
    advantage of our students by rolling back a number of consumer
    protections and effectively dismantling the unit that actually
    investigates claims of fraud and abuse. And you have taken a
    number of extremely concerning steps to undermine civil rights
    protections for our students, including attempting to scale
    back the Office for Civil Rights, rescinding guidance
    protecting transgender students, making it easier for schools
    to once again sweep sexual assault under the rug, saying it is
    a local decision to call ICE (Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement) on undocumented students, and so much more.

                   SIMILARITIES TO PRIOR YEAR BUDGET REQUEST

        So let me turn to the budget you are proposing for next
    year. And I am really disappointed how similar this budget
    looks to what you proposed last year and which this committee
    soundly rejected.
        After years of budgets for education not keeping up with
    our needs, we are now seeing teachers and parents around the
    country organizing and standing up for public education because
    our kids should not be forced to learn in crumbling classrooms
    with shabby textbooks, and our teachers should be paid fairly
    for the important work they do. And yet, with this budget, once
    again you are ignoring what millions of parents and teachers
    and students are asking for, and you have instead proposed more
    than $4 billion in cuts to elementary and secondary education.
        I do not have time to name them all, but your budget would
    eliminate programs that help teachers grow and improve their
    teaching skills, grants that support before and after school
    programs, and investments that support low-income
    undergraduates.

                                SCHOOL VIOLENCE

        And this budget is another example of an empty promise made
    by this administration to address the senseless gun violence
    devastating our families and our schools and our communities
    around the country. President Trump has continued to give in to
    the demands of the NRA (National Rifle Association). Your Gun
    Safety Commission has yet to take any real action steps, and
    now your budget would eliminate grants that are used to improve
    students' safety for the second year in a row. After the tragic
    Parkland shooting, you said Congress should hold hearings on
    gun and school safety. So in a show of good faith, I urge you
    to commit to testify in front of the HELP Committee on what
    meaningful gun safety reform we can enact to help end the
    scourge of violence in our schools.

                                 SCHOOL CHOICE

        Finally, while your discretionary budget cuts $7.7 billion
    in Federal investments in education, you are proposing $1
    billion for programs that align with your personal agenda but
    are not authorized by the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds
    Act. A little more than 2 months ago, Congress rejected
    virtually the same proposals in the bipartisan spending bill.
        So, Secretary DeVos, I have many questions for you this
    morning on why you once again put forth a budget that will hurt
    our students and families, and I look forward to your responses
    this morning. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. So we have votes at 11:00, but we will
    continue the hearing through those two votes. We have a hard
    stop today at noon because of commercial travel. But Senator
    Leahy said that he would give up his time in return for us
    getting to questions quicker. So glad to do that.
        And Secretary, if you want to go ahead and make your
    opening statement, we would be pleased to hear that.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. BETSY DEVOS

        Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Chairman Blunt.
        Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
    President's fiscal year 2019 budget request for the Department
    of Education.
        This budget sharpens and hones the focus of our mission:
    serving students by meeting their needs. When the Department
    was created, it was charged to prohibit Federal control of
    education. I take that charge seriously. Accordingly, President
    Trump is committed to limited government, fiscal discipline,
    and reducing the Federal footprint in education.
        The President's fiscal year 2019 budget would reduce
    overall funding for Department programs by $3.7 billion, or 5.6
    percent from fiscal year 2017 enacted levels, and $7.6 billion,
    or 10.8 percent, below the fiscal year 2018 enacted level.
        This budget was prepared prior to the 2-year cap deal and
    the Omnibus, for that matter. So the Administration submitted
    an addendum that restores valuable investments in students,
    including Impact Act Basic Support Payments, TRIO, school
    choice, Federal Work-Study, and Pell.
        For programs that we level funded in this budget request,
    our intent was to maintain levels appropriated by Congress. We
    used the numbers in place at the time, and our intent remains
    the same for newly appropriated funds.
        This Department's budget focuses on improving educational
    opportunities and outcomes for all students, while also
    returning power to the people closest to students.

                       PROMOTING SAFE AND HEALTHY SCHOOLS

        First, we must promote a safe and healthy culture in our
    schools. The tragedies at Noblesville West Middle School in
    Indiana and Santa Fe High School in Texas were only the most
    recent devastating reminders that our Nation must come together
    to address the underlying issues that create a culture of
    violence. I have directed my Department to do everything within
    the law to encourage States and districts to take advantage of
    flexibilities so newly appropriated funds, about $1.1 billion,
    under Title IV are most useful.

                               OPPORTUNITY GRANTS

        Second, our request would provide significant new resources
    dedicated to helping achieve the President's goal of giving
    every student the freedom to attend a school that best meets
    his or her unique needs. The budget provides funding for this
    program through a new Opportunity Grants program that would
    expand the number of students who have the opportunity to
    attend a school of their choice. Under this new program, States
    could apply for funding to provide scholarships to students
    from low-income families that could be used to transfer to a
    different school. Local educational agencies participating in
    the Department's student-centered funding pilot could request
    funds to build on the flexibility provided by establishing or
    expanding open enrollment systems. This way funds follow
    children based on their needs, not buildings or systems.
        In addition, the budget requests support for Charter
    Schools by providing an increase of $100 million, for a total
    of $500 million, and continues support for Magnet Schools. We
    are also proposing to expand use of direct student services to
    allow States to reserve up to 5 percent of their Title I
    allocations to further expand educational freedom, including
    helping students transfer to a school that better meets
    individual needs.

                     SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

        Third, the Administration's request includes support for
    students with disabilities. Our request for essential K-12
    formula grant programs supports the Nation's neediest students,
    especially all programs authorized under the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act.

                              PATHWAYS TO CAREERS

        Fourth, our request creates more pathways to prepare
    workers to fill existing and newly created jobs, as well as
    jobs of the future. Expanding apprenticeships and reforming
    ineffective education and workforce development programs will
    help more Americans obtain relevant skills and enter high
    paying jobs.
        Students should be able to pursue a variety of pathways to
    successful careers. To that end, the budget expands the use of
    Pell Grants for high quality, short-term summer and certificate
    programs. It invests in career and technical education and
    streamlines student loan repayment.
        These proposals also support congressional efforts to
    reauthorize the Higher Education Act to address student debt
    and higher education costs while reducing the complexity of
    student financial aid.

                                 STEM EDUCATION

        Fifth, our request supports STEM education to help better
    equip students with skills employers need. Consistent with the
    President's Memorandum on STEM Education, our request includes
    $200 million in new funding to support STEM education while
    continuing to fund almost $330 million in discretionary grants.

                           REFORM AND REORGANIZATION

        Finally, our request reflects a number of reform proposals
    aimed at streamlining the Department's internal organization
    and improving the Department's services to States, districts,
    postsecondary institutions, and the public. We recommend, for
    instance, a number of consolidations, including proposals for
    the Federal TRIO programs and the HEA Title III and V programs
    supporting Minority-Serving Institutions, making them formula
    grants so that States may use the funds more effectively. The
    budget eliminates, streamlines, or reduces funding for many
    discretionary programs that do not address national needs, that
    duplicate other programs, are ineffective, or are more
    appropriately supported with State, local, or private funds.
        The budget reflects our commitment to spending taxpayer
    dollars wisely and efficiently. The Federal Government does not
    and cannot know the unique needs of each individual student in
    America. Parents and teachers know their students best and know
    how their needs should be addressed.
        With this budget, we can continue to return power to those
    who walk side by side with students every day because that is
    who budgets are for, not for special interests, not
    legislators, not the system. This budget is about students. It
    is easy to get lost in the numbers and forget about the faces
    of students whom we have all pledged to serve. Education can
    truly change the trajectory of a child's life. All they need is
    the chance to attain it. More students need the freedom to seek
    an education that unlocks their potential and allows them to
    pursue their passions. That is the focus of this Administration
    and the focus of this budget.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Betsy DeVos
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's Fiscal
    Year 2019 Budget Request for the Department of Education.
        This Department's Budget focuses on improving educational
    opportunities and outcomes for all students while also returning power
    to those closest to them.
        Ultimately, this Budget sharpens and hones the focus of our
    mission: serving students by meeting their needs. When this Department
    was created, it was charged with prohibiting Federal control of
    education.\1\ I take that charge seriously. Accordingly, President
    Trump is committed to reducing the Federal footprint in education, and
    that is reflected in this Budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Department of Education Organization Act, Section 103(b);
    https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-93/pdf/STATUTE-93-Pg668.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I won't miss an opportunity to point out that past Federal
    education reform efforts have not worked as hoped. Too many of our
    children are still unprepared to lead successful careers and fulfilling
    lives, despite billions of dollars injected into the system with the
    goal of improving the outcome.
        The United States spends more per pupil than nearly every other
    developed country, many of which perform better than our Nation on the
    international stage. Yet there are many who, despite the evidence to
    the contrary, continue to push ``more funding'' as the answer to every
    challenge. Student success should be measured by the outcomes--by what
    they achieve. It should not be measured by the number of inputs. That's
    why this Budget refocuses taxpayer dollars more effectively to benefit
    students.
        The President's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget would reduce overall
    funding for Department programs by $3.7 billion or 5.6 percent from
    fiscal year 2017 enacted levels.
        The Budget was initially prepared prior to enactment of a 2-year
    cap deal, which raises the fiscal year 2019 caps significantly above
    the previous cap levels. To account for the resulting higher non-
    defense spending levels in the most fiscally responsible manner, the
    Administration submitted an addendum to its 2019 Budget that includes
    nearly $3 billion in additional funding for a limited set of
    Administration priorities under the new, higher cap levels. The fiscal
    year 2019 Budget request is $7.6 billion or 10.8 percent below the
    fiscal year 2018 enacted appropriation.
        This addendum restores valuable investments in students, including
    Impact Aid Basic Support Payments, TRIO, school choice, and Federal
    Work-Study, while eliminating a proposed rescission of Pell Grant
    balances.
        This Budget seeks to support and empower families and expand
    postsecondary pathways, helping ensure students lead successful careers
    and fulfilling lives.
        First, our request would provide significant new resources
    dedicated to helping achieve the President's goal of giving every
    student the freedom to attend a school that best meets his or her
    unique needs.
        The Budget provides funding for this purpose through a new
    Opportunity Grants program that would expand the number of students who
    have the opportunity to attend a school of their choice. Under this new
    program, States could apply for funding to provide scholarships to
    students from low-income families that could be used to transfer to a
    different school, and local educational agencies participating in the
    Department's weighted student-centered funding pilot could request
    funds to build on the flexibility provided by establishing or expanding
    open enrollment programs.
        In addition, the Budget requests support for charter schools by
    providing an increase of $100 million--for a total of $500 million--and
    continues support for magnet schools. We also are proposing to expand
    the Direct Student Services reservation in section 1003A of the ESEA to
    allow States to reserve up to 5 percent of their Title I allocations to
    further expand educational choice, including helping disadvantaged
    students attending a school identified for improvement to transfer to a
    higher-performing school.
        Second, the Administration's request recognizes the importance of
    maintaining strong support for students with disabilities. Our request
    intended to maintain funding for programs authorized under the
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), including essential
    preschool and K-12 formula grant programs that provide basic support to
    schools and programs that support research, demonstrations, technical
    assistance and dissemination, and personnel preparation and
    development.
        Third, our request creates more pathways to prepare workers to fill
    existing and newly created jobs, as well as jobs of the future. It
    includes proposals that would promote multiple pathways to successful
    careers while minimizing costs to students and families. The
    Administration believes students need to have a full host of options,
    including technical schools, community colleges, and apprenticeships.
        Students should be able to pursue a variety of pathways to
    successful careers. To that end, funding should follow the student, as
    they do in the Pell Grant program. The Budget requests expansion of the
    use of Pell Grants for high-quality, short-term programs. In addition,
    it invests in career and technical education, and streamlines student
    loan repayment.
        These proposals also support congressional efforts to reauthorize
    the Higher Education Act to address student debt and higher education
    costs while reducing the complexity of student financial aid.
        Fourth, our request supports STEM education to help better equip
    America's young people with the relevant knowledge and skills that will
    enable them to secure high-paying, stable jobs throughout their
    careers. Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum on STEM education,
    our request includes $200 million in new funding to support STEM
    education while continuing to fund almost $330 million in discretionary
    grants for STEM projects.
        Fifth, we look forward to working with Congress on promoting a safe
    and healthy culture in our schools. Our commitment to every student's
    success is one we must renew every day, but first we must ensure our
    children are safe at school. The tragedy at Santa Fe High School in
    Texas was only the most recent, devastating reminder that our Nation
    must come together to address the underlying issues that create a
    culture of violence.
        This Administration is committed to keeping our Nation's students
    and teachers safe at school. I've directed my Department to do
    everything within the law to encourage States and districts to take
    advantage of flexibilities in spending the $1.1 billion in new funding
    available beginning July 1 under the flexible Title IV-A grant program.
    Naturally, the primary responsibility for the physical security of
    schools rests with States and local communities. Schools must have the
    resources they need to improve safety infrastructure, hire more
    counselors, and host more programs and activities aimed at violence
    prevention. We owe the victims of school violence nothing less.
        Our request also supports a new round of School Climate
    Transformation Grants that will help States support effective
    implementation of school-based opioid abuse prevention strategies by
    addressing mental health and other needs of students affected by the
    epidemic. This funding would also support technical assistance centers
    that develop and provide opioid abuse prevention resources that would
    be publicly available to all schools and postsecondary institutions.
        Finally, our request reflects a number of reform proposals aimed at
    streamlining the Department's internal organization and improving the
    Department's services to States, districts, postsecondary institutions,
    and the public. We recommend, for instance, a number of consolidations,
    including proposals for the Federal TRIO programs and the HEA Title III
    and Title V programs supporting Minority-Serving Institutions, making
    them formula grants so that States may use the funds more effectively.
    The Budget eliminates, streamlines, or reduces funding for many
    discretionary programs that do not address national needs, duplicate
    other programs, are ineffective, or are more appropriately supported
    with State, local, or private funds--reducing taxpayer costs by $7.6
    billion.
        The Budget reflects our commitment to spending taxpayer dollars
    wisely and efficiently. The Federal Government does not--and cannot--
    know the unique needs of every individual student. Parents and teachers
    know their students best and know how their needs should be addressed.
        With this Budget we can continue to return power to those who walk
    side-by-side with students every day.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to
    respond to any questions you may have.

                     SCHOOL SAFETY FUNDING AND FLEXIBILITY

        Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Secretary DeVos. Glad to
    have you and Mr. Cordes from the budget office there with you.
        Let us talk about student safety to start with. Clearly the
    idea that people go to elementary school and high school and
    any school anywhere with some sense that bad things have
    happened in other schools and can happen in their school--what
    are we doing to try to minimize that likelihood? There was a
    $22 million increase in the spending bill that you just got at
    the end of March for school safety. What are you doing with
    that? And what ideas do you have of other programs that we
    might allow more flexibility to use those programs like Title
    II and Title IV, as an example, for school safety? With the
    situation we are in now, every parent, every grandparent, every
    citizen sees that as unacceptable. What can we do to encourage
    school districts getting to the right place on the safety of
    kids at school?
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Chairman, for that question.
        I know we all share concern for students as they attend
    school each day and feel for the parents who fear for their own
    children's safety. It is a focus of this Administration. I know
    it is the focus of this body as well.
        And I would just broaden the question and the issue around
    the issue of the Commission that the President has commenced
    and that I am chairing to look at practices that are happening
    in States and in some communities. We have been charged with
    about 27 different items to look at and study and to raise up
    best practices on to share more broadly. I think one of the
    most important things we can do is help others learn about what
    has been effective in a local community or in a State and
    encourage them to adopt some of these measures in their own
    communities or in their own States.
        I know many State legislatures are debating this very topic
    and issue right now and are formulating plans and policies that
    are unique to their situations. We know there is no one-size-
    fits-all approach. We know that our geographies and our people
    are very dispersed. And so we have to make sure that there are
    ample menu options to choose from for communities to consider,
    ensuring that their school buildings--that their students are
    safe at school each day.

          APPLICATION OF $22 MILLION INCREASE IN SCHOOL SAFETY FUNDING

        Senator Blunt. And are there things we can do with $22
    million that you did not have in the past for this purpose or
    other programs to encourage those menu options to be looked at
    and funded when chosen?
        Secretary DeVos. Yes, indeed, and also the Title IV funds
    for which there is great flexibility. Those all will be part of
    the forward-looking focus of this Commission and the
    recommendations that will follow. And as States and communities
    develop their plans and programs, these funds will be available
    for proven solutions, ones that have been enacted in certain
    places that have proven effective. And we are there. We want to
    support those activities and ensure that each community is able
    to answer and address this situation unique to their
    circumstances.

                                  PELL GRANTS

        Senator Blunt. I am sure others will come back to that, so
    let me move on quickly in the minute and 30 seconds I have
    left.
        On Pell Grants, you are talking about allowing Pell Grants
    to be used for certification programs and other programs that
    in the short-time programs in the past we have not allowed Pell
    Grants to be used. I am supportive of that, but I would like to
    hear a little bit more about your thought as to how those
    shorter-term certification programs would be defined and how
    Pell Grant eligibility would help prepare that workforce.
        Secretary DeVos. Well, thank you.
        We know that fewer and fewer students today are traditional
    students, going from high school into a 4-year college or
    university. And we know that there are many opportunities for
    students to pursue a shorter-term program, a certification, a
    credentialing that will get them into the workforce into a
    meaningful path and track for whatever their interests might
    be. Our proposal is to develop high quality, short-term
    programs and do so in conjunction with Congress to put the
    appropriate guardrails around that, but acknowledging that
    students are very different today than they were 20 or 30 years
    ago, and to meet their needs and to meet the needs of our
    economy today, we can do so by recognizing and allowing for
    those kinds of flexibilities and innovations.
        Senator Blunt. Well, I think in the interest of everybody
    being sure they get their questions in on the panel, I am going
    to enforce the time limit pretty carefully. So I will enforce
    it on myself. My time is up and now to Senator Murray.

                 OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS RESOURCES AND STAFFING

        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary DeVos, let me start with you. You claim the
    Office for Civil Rights is more efficient under your new
    policies. One new policy that you have allows the Office for
    Civil Rights to dismiss complaints if it places an unreasonable
    burden on OCR (Office for Civil Rights) resources. If you feel
    there is a strain on OCR resources, you should be asking
    Congress for more funding to make sure that every student is
    protected.
        Last year, you reduced the number of staff at OCR through
    voluntary buy-outs. Does that not result in fewer staff to
    handle the workload?
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks for that question, Senator.
        And before I answer that one, I just want to make reference
    to your opening----
        Senator Murray. Well, I have a very short amount of time.
        Secretary DeVos. I know that.
        Senator Murray. So if you could just answer me yes or no on
    that question, and we will get a chance to hear on your others
    later. But I want to know.
        Secretary DeVos. The Office for Civil Rights is very much
    focused on the work that it has before it. They have been able
    to do so with effectiveness and efficiency. I am very proud of
    the work that they have done, and they continue to address all
    complaints appropriately and will continue to do so.

              IMPACT OF REQUESTED FUNDING ON OCR CLAIMS DISMISSAL

        Senator Murray. Well, you are requesting even fewer
    resources for OCR. Does that mean OCR will dismiss even more
    complaints because of the burden it places on their efforts?
        Secretary DeVos. We are committed to ensuring that the
    rights of every student are protected, and the Office is very
    much committed to continuing that work.
        Senator Murray. Well, I think it is very clear with fewer
    resources, fewer staff, and that we are going to take fewer
    claims and protect fewer students. That really is not how OCR
    is supposed to operate. Congress has taken very clear steps to
    address that issue with our budget. In the spending bill that
    we passed last year, Republicans and Democrats actually
    rejected your proposed cuts to OCR and instead directed OCR to
    increase staff in order to effectively and timely investigate
    the complaints. Your staff would not provide specific
    information to our bipartisan, bicameral appropriations staff
    during a briefing on your hiring plans. Will you commit here
    and now to get back to our staffs with specifics on that,
    please?
        Secretary DeVos. We will be happy to get back with you on
    that. We are in the process of following the orders and the
    intent of Congress. We remain very committed to protecting
    students' rights.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Your staff refused to give us
    answers. So we would like that and would appreciate getting
    back to us.
        Secretary DeVos. Of course.

                                TEACHER STRIKES

        Senator Murray. During your April meeting with State
    Teachers of the Year, you claimed that the teacher strikes
    occurring around the country were coming, quote, ``at the
    expense of children''. Those teachers out there are fighting
    for new school supplies for their students, classrooms that are
    not falling apart, and the ability to support their families on
    their salaries. Do you think children benefit when they have to
    use outdated and worn books or when their teachers have to work
    multiple jobs just to make ends meet?
        Secretary DeVos. I think students, when they are not able
    to go to school because they do not have anyone to go to school
    to teach them--that hurts them. And so my point has been that I
    hope that adults will have their disagreements and debates
    outside of the time that it impacts and affects students. We
    need to ensure that students are kept in the center of the
    equation on this whole question.
        Senator Murray. Well, it takes money to pay teachers more.
    And you keep trying to cut Federal investments, as I talked
    about in my opening statement. Do you think children benefit
    from your proposals to cut billions from public elementary and
    secondary schools, including funding to train teachers,
    underfunding grants for students' safety, well-rounded
    education and other issues, an after-school program for almost
    2 million students? Do you think children benefit from that?
        Secretary DeVos. Our budget is focused on helping students
    that need the most help. And we are keeping in mind the fact
    that the Federal Government is only 10 percent of the equation
    of funding for schools. We need to stay focused on what
    actually benefits students the most, and we believe our budget
    stays very focused on those students----

                    REFUGEE STUDENTS AND TEACHER OF THE YEAR

        Senator Murray. I can tell you as a former school board
    member, I can tell you every dollar counts.
        Finally, you may have seen the student letters that Mandy
    Manning--she is the National Teacher of the Year from my home
    State of Washington. The National Teacher of the Year. She
    delivered it personally to President Trump. And she teaches
    English actually to refugees and immigrants. And one of her
    students wrote to President Trump. And I want to read it to
    you.
        When you say you don't want refugees, students in the hall
    at school tell me that they don't want me here because I am a
    refugee. You can change this by saying good things about people
    like me.
        That is what a student said from the Teacher of the Year.
        Do you think it would be good for all children if the
    President would say good things about students like those of
    our National Teacher of the Year?
        Secretary DeVos. I had the pleasure of meeting Mandy, and I
    think she is an awesome teacher. I think that the work that she
    does is so important, and I think that we need to continue to
    support her and all of our counterparts.
        Senator Murray. Do you think adults should be careful with
    their language because of the impact it has on students like
    that?
        Secretary DeVos. I think we all have an opportunity to be
    careful with what we say.
        Senator Murray. Including the President?
        Secretary DeVos. All of us have the opportunity to be
    careful.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Murray.
        Senator Lankford.

                     PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE WITHIN A DISTRICT

        Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, it is good to see you again. Thanks for
    all the work that you are doing for our kids and our teachers
    around the country. I appreciate the ongoing work.
        I want to ask you about a proposal that you have dealing
    with students having and parents having options within a
    district to be able to choose a different school within a
    district. Now, this is a very different kind of discussion
    about school choice.
        I happened to grow up in a district that had four high
    schools in it, and I was allowed, even at the time that I went
    to high school, to be able to pick whichever high school that I
    wanted to be able to attend. I was in the band. I liked the
    band program in one of the high schools that was across town
    better than the one that was closer to me. So I had the
    opportunity to be able to choose to drive across town and to be
    able to get there. Now, that was a burden for my family and all
    those things to be able to work on transportation issues, but
    it gave me the option to be able to choose that.
        I think that is what I am hearing from you when you are
    talking about somewhat about school choice within districts.
    You are talking about having that opportunity. What is the
    incentive? How would that work for the school that was not
    chosen? How does that work for parents? And what do you
    envision there?
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Senator, for that question.
        I would just say at the beginning you were very fortunate
    because your school district must have been a real leader in
    its time in allowing for open choice within the district.
        There are few districts--there are some that offer that
    today, and we encourage districts to look seriously at opening
    up their district-wide choice to meet students' needs better.
    Part of our proposal through the Opportunity Grant proposal and
    also through the student-weighted funding pilot program through
    ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) provides a couple of
    different ways that local districts could look at opening up
    options to a wider range of schools within the district. We
    very much encourage States and school districts to look at
    doing so because it does help continue to give students the
    kinds of options and choices that they need.

            FLEXIBILITIES REQUIRED TO EXPAND CHOICE WITHIN DISTRICTS

        Senator Lankford. So mechanically how would that work? You
    have got a parent that does not have any kind of wealth, that
    transportation is going to be a challenge for them, that want
    their kids to be able to go to another school on the other side
    of the district and say they may have better opportunities
    there, they may have better test scores, whatever it may be.
    The finances and the flexibility--could they use that for
    transportation and be able to help? How would that impact the
    first school there, that now has smaller class sizes because
    they have fewer students? But how does that help them as well?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, we have seen this implemented on a
    smaller scale in a number of States. It really does depend on
    what the needs of that district are. Transportation costs could
    be factored in and a variety of different accommodations to
    ensure that the students' needs are met and that the disruption
    is minimized in the district. The idea of the proposal is to
    remain flexible so that States and local districts can adopt
    the kind of approach and the kind of supports that will work
    for them.
        Senator Lankford. I met last week with a group of African
    American pastors and floated this concept to them. They
    happened to be in an urban district in my State. And I asked
    them, how would this work for you, how would this work for your
    parents. The gentleman to my left immediately said I would be
    glad to take any opportunity that we had to be able to do that,
    for my parents to be able to choose whichever school in the
    district they want to be able to go to as long as the school
    close to me is not forgotten because some parents will not have
    that opportunity.
        Do you envision that there is still that focus from the
    district to say we are not leaving any one school behind, but
    we are also giving parents that option?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, again, I think in the districts that
    have implemented this well that has been a high sensitivity for
    them. I think about Indianapolis that has done a really
    innovative job of addressing this and have created innovation
    schools alongside some of the traditional schools within the
    district. They have, again as a district, been quite sensitive
    to what the needs of the whole district are. So that
    opportunity is very much there, and the proposal remains very
    flexible so that districts can address these issues according
    to the local need.

                 IMPORTANCE OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COLLABORATION

        Senator Lankford. Terrific.
        Let me bring up one caveat as well. I know that the
    Department of Education and the Department of Labor are trying
    to be able to work together because ultimately we are preparing
    people for careers. So that cooperation should be there. In
    fact, in most other countries, education and labor are one
    entity within government rather than two. So I appreciate the
    cooperation.
        I would like to encourage continued cooperation as well
    between Interior and Education because our Indian education
    continues to suffer around the country. There are some assets
    that you could bring to bear that would help the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education to be able to
    have that cooperation together. So as you are cooperating with
    Labor, I would encourage continued cooperation with Interior as
    well.
        Secretary DeVos. Indeed. Thanks, Senator.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
        Senator Leahy.

                            SCHOOL SAFETY COMMISSION

        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary DeVos, welcome back to the subcommittee.
        Secretary DeVos. Thank you.
        Senator Leahy. I regret that we are discussing a budget
    proposal that does not support all students seeking to learn in
    our education system. And I will not repeat what Senator Murray
    said, but I totally agree with her statement.
        Let me go into another area. You are the chair of the
    President's School Safety Commission that was formed after the
    school shooting in Florida that left 17 students and educators
    dead. Our country is now averaging a school shooting each week.
    In fact, 1 day after the Commission met last month, another 10
    students and teachers were killed in Santa Fe, Texas.
        I understand your commission intends to release its
    recommendations by the end of the year. Will your Commission
    look at the role of firearms as it relates to gun violence in
    our schools?
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Senator, for that question.
        It is an honor to serve and to lead this Commission.
        We are focused on the 20-some different provisions that
    the----
        Senator Leahy. I understand there is a lot. But I am also
    thinking the chairman has difficulties. So I tried to give you
    a question that could be answered yes or no. Will your
    Commission look at the role of firearms as it relates to gun
    violence in our schools?
        Secretary DeVos. That is not part of the Commission's
    charge per se.

                        ROLE OF GUNS IN SCHOOL VIOLENCE

        Senator Leahy. I see. So you are studying gun violence but
    not considering the role of guns?
        Secretary DeVos. We are actually studying school safety and
    how we can ensure our students are safe at school.
        Senator Leahy. Well, you are studying things like how much
    time they spend on video games and all that, but you can go to
    a lot of other countries where they spend just as much time but
    have only a tiny fraction of the shootings that we do.
        The gun of choice for mass shooters is an AR-15. Do you
    believe an 18-year-old high school student should be able to
    walk into a store, and minutes later come out with an AR-15
    style rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, sir, I know that this body and your
    counterparts on the other side of the Capitol have addressed a
    number of these issues, and I know that you are going to
    continue to debate them and discuss them.
        Senator Leahy. I am trying to give you questions that could
    be answered yes or no. So let me repeat it in case I was not
    clear.
        Secretary DeVos. Thank you.
        Senator Leahy. Do you believe an 18-year-old high school
    student should be able to walk into a store and minutes later
    come out with an AR-15 style assault weapon and hundreds of
    rounds of ammunition?
        Secretary DeVos. I believe that is very much a matter for
    debate. And I know that has been debated within this body and
    will continue to be.
        Our focus is on raising up successful, proven techniques
    and approaches to ensuring schools are safe for students to
    attend.
        Senator Leahy. Are you looking at those other countries
    where the students spend just as much time on social media and
    video games and everything else but have much lower gun
    violence in their schools?
        Secretary DeVos. We had a very important meeting last week
    in Maryland at a school within a district that has employed an
    approach called PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and
    Supports) for 16 or 18 years that deals with----
        Senator Leahy. I am sorry. Maybe I did not make my question
    clear. Are you looking at some of those countries where the
    students do just as much time on video games, just as much time
    on social media as we do, but do not have gun violence? Are you
    looking at those at all? That is a yes or no.
        Secretary DeVos. Not per se.

    AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORTING STUDENTS AFFECTED BY OPIOID CRISIS

        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        So we will look at gun violence in schools but not look at
    guns. It is an interesting concept.
        Now, I have learned from after-school programs across my
    own State of Vermont. Many of the families who participate are
    struggling with opioid addiction. I think the same could be
    said probably of every single State represented by Republicans
    or Democrats in this body. Are you concerned that by pulling $1
    billion in after-school funding the Department of Education
    would be complicating recovery for many families who depend on
    safe and educational care for their children in order to hold
    down a job or focus on addiction treatment?
        Secretary DeVos. We are very much focused on this program--
    I mean, on this problem and have, in fact, in the budget
    included $43 million to identify and encourage replication of
    effective prevention programs. We also know that there is a lot
    of flexibility----
        Senator Leahy. That is not included in the 11 percent that
    you have cut from key programs that do support our students.
        Secretary DeVos. The focus is on flexible funding to be
    used as needed by the districts and the States in which these
    problems are more prevalent, and we encourage States to take
    that flexibility and to apply it in ways that it is going to be
    particularly effective and meaningful for their communities.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. My time is up, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Alexander.

                           ESSA STATE PLAN APPROVALS

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, welcome.
        Under our new Every Student Succeeds Act, replacing No
    Child Left Behind, every State submits a plan to you for
    approval in order to receive about $18 billion of Federal
    funding for Titles I, II, and IV. I have some questions on that
    because it has been suggested by some--not me--that you are not
    following the law in approving those plans.
        How many State plans have been approved so far?
        Secretary DeVos. 46 State plans.
        Senator Alexander. Do you believe it is a requirement of
    the law that States collect, report, and use data on the
    performance of all students and each subgroup of students?
        Secretary DeVos. Yes, indeed.
        Senator Alexander. Do all the State plans that you have
    approved thus far propose to look at data from, ``all students
    and each subgroup of students''?
        Secretary DeVos. They do, yes.
        Senator Alexander. Do you believe it is a requirement of
    the law that States identify schools with, ``consistently
    under-performing subgroups''?
        Secretary DeVos. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. Do all of the State plans that you have
    approved thus far propose to identify schools with,
    ``consistently under-performing subgroups''?
        Secretary DeVos. Yes, indeed.
        Senator Alexander. After the Passage of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act, Secretary Duncan reportedly said, ``Candidly, our
    lawyers at the Department of Education are much smarter than
    many of the folks who are working on this bill.'' Are any of
    those smart lawyers still at your Department?
        Secretary DeVos. Indeed, they are, probably most of them.
        Senator Alexander. Do those smart lawyers at the Department
    agree that the plans that you have approved meet all of the
    requirements of the law?
        Secretary DeVos. They do.

                 SIMPLIFYING FINANCIAL AID APPLICATION PROCESS

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Now, let me ask you this. We have had a lot of discussion
    in our authorizing committee about trying to make it simpler
    for students to apply for and pay back where they need to their
    Federal student aid, $100 billion in loans each year, $30
    billion or so in Pell Grants.
        It seems to me that applying for Federal aid for college
    should be as simple as buying a plane ticket on your phone or
    buying a book with one click. This has been invented and we use
    it for all sorts of things.
        Now, you have asked for $50 million in the budget in order
    to modernize the system by which students apply for and pay
    back their Federal financial aid. What can you tell us about
    that? How do you plan to spend the money? And why do you think
    you will be successful doing this when we were so unsuccessful
    in technology when we dealt with the Obamacare exchanges, which
    turned into a big mess?
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Senator, for that question.
        I am really excited about the effort to modernize Federal
    student aid, both the process and the experience. We believe
    that students should have a world-class experience when
    applying for and then subsequently paying down their student
    loans. The framework and infrastructure for this has not been
    modernized and has not been--it has been sort of patched over
    the last 20-some years. So our approach is to completely
    restructure and make that experience one that will be seamless
    for students, one that we can complete the Federal student aid
    application on your smart phone, and again have the world-class
    experience that we have come to expect in every other area of
    life.
        The confidence I have in being able to do that is that we
    have the right leadership in place to be able to ensure that--
    --
        Senator Alexander. Who is that? Why do you think that?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, we have Dr. Wayne Johnson who comes
    from the financial services field with much experience and lots
    of entrepreneurial activity in that field. In fact----
        Senator Alexander. Has he ever done anything like this
    before?
        Secretary DeVos. He has, indeed. Some of you may recall
    years ago when you got new credit cards in the mail, they would
    come without an activation code because that was just how it
    was done. Strangely enough, many of those cards disappeared in
    the process of getting from the origination point to your
    mailbox. Well, he developed the 1-800 number that now we just
    go online to activate. But the 800 number was his invention,
    and it became ubiquitous across the financial services
    industry. So very forward-thinking and a very deep knowledge of
    that field and that process and that experience.
        We are committed to having the first steps completed for a
    pilot test in July of this year, and we will be able to in the
    fall--hopefully by October 1st--have the full thing being able
    to roll out so that student aid applications for the next
    school year will be able to be completed online in one sitting.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        Senator Shaheen.

                 SCHOOL VIOLENCE FROM INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here, Secretary DeVos.
        I want to go back to an issue that was raised by Senator
    Leahy because we got an email from a high school student from
    Dover, New Hampshire in our office, and she writes--and I am
    quoting--``it should be known that I am a student and that
    February 14th, 2018, which was the date of the Parkland
    shooting, was not the first time in my life that I have stayed
    up at night thinking extensively about how I would react in a
    situation such as a school shooting. I at 16 years old should
    not have an intimate relationship with the idea of mass
    shootings. But I do. And so does every one of my friends. So do
    my parents. So does my 9-year-old brother, and so does the rest
    of the country.''
        I think that outlines very dramatically a problem that is
    unique to the United States, sadly. School shootings in the
    U.S. occur at a scale far beyond any other major industrialized
    nation. Since 2009, the U.S. has had 57 times more school
    shootings than the rest of the G-7 countries combined. That is
    288 school shootings in the U.S. compared with 2 each in Canada
    and France, 1 in Germany, and none in Japan, Italy, or the
    United Kingdom.
        So the question that I have for you is, are you going to be
    looking at this? What are these other countries doing to
    protect their students from school shootings? Do they have
    fewer mentally ill people? Are they arming their teachers? Or
    do they have more sensible gun laws?
        Secretary DeVos. Senator, thank you for that question.
    These are, of course, very important questions in the whole
    context of talking about keeping schools safe and making sure
    students are safe in school.
        The Commission that has begun its work is very much focused
    on the range of issues that we have been asked to address and
    to focus on. It does get down to looking at what is this
    culture of violence, where does it come from. It really is the
    issue of violence, and violence can manifest in several
    different ways.
        Senator Shaheen. Excuse me for interrupting, but we do have
    limited time.
        But given that, it does seem to me that you should think
    about reworking the mission of the Commission so that it is
    also taking a look at guns and the role that guns play in
    school violence. So I would urge you to do that.

                       AFFORDABILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

        I would like to move on to another topic because you said
    in your opening remarks that education can change the
    trajectory of a child's life, and I very much believe that. I
    believe that going to good schools and having an opportunity
    for a higher education provides opportunities that young people
    can get in no other way.
        And so that is why I am so puzzled about why your budget
    proposes cutting so many of the programs that help our students
    in New Hampshire, the after-school programs, the help for
    college students, particularly first generation college
    students. We heard from some students at the University of New
    Hampshire, one pre-med student who says coming to college can
    be very overwhelming. Personally I did not have family members
    that could guide me to college, tell me what to expect or what
    to do. And being part of TRIO, they were that family.
        So we also have the second highest student loan debt in the
    country, and yet your budget proposes cuts that will force
    students to take out even more loans to pay for school. You
    eliminate work-study programs. You eliminate subsidized loans
    for undergraduates. How should we tell students in New
    Hampshire that they are going to be able to afford college and
    that they are going to be able to go to good schools?
        Secretary DeVos. Senator, we are very much focused on
    ensuring that students that have the greatest need have also
    the greatest opportunity. This budget was predicated on making
    decisions around the parameters that we were given and is
    really focused on programs that do meet students that are in
    the greatest need directly. Some of the programs that you
    referred to are ones that have not been proven to be effective
    or have been spread too thinly or----

                        EVIDENCE OF INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS

        Senator Shaheen. And do you have reports that show that
    they have not been effective? Can you share that with the
    committee why the 21st Learning Grants you believe are not
    effective?
        Secretary DeVos. Yes, indeed. There is data that
    demonstrates ineffectiveness in that program and we would be
    happy to share that.
        Senator Shaheen. I think we would very much appreciate
    seeing that information.
        [The information follows:]
               performance and evaluation data for 21st century
                       community learning centers program
        While limited evaluation and survey data from certain States and
    individual centers demonstrate benefits from participation, such as
    improved behavior and classroom grades, overall program performance
    data show that the 21st CCLC program is not achieving its goal of
    helping students, particularly those who attend low-performing schools,
    meet challenging State academic standards. For example, in 2016, only
    26 percent of elementary school program participants improved from not
    proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in reading and
    only 19 percent of middle and high school program participants improved
    from not proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in
    mathematics. Furthermore, student improvement in academic grades was
    limited, with States reporting higher math and English grades for less
    than half of ``regular program participants,'' defined as students who
    attended programs for 30 days or more during a school year.
    Additionally, the last rigorous national evaluation of the program,
    conducted in 2005, found the program had limited academic impact (see
    https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/cclcfinalreport/cclcfinal.pdf).
        The program's longstanding failure to contribute meaningfully to
    improved academic outcomes may be partly explained by the fact that
    less than half of all participants (728,000 out of 1.9 million, or 44
    percent) attended programs for 30 days or more during the 2015-2016
    school year. These data suggest that low participation rates and
    limited or infrequent access to federally funded activities are
    significant obstacles to program effectiveness.
        A 2010 report prepared by the Department's Policy and Program
    Studies Service, ``21st Century Community Learning Centers: Descriptive
    Study of Program Practices,'' analyzed data from a nationally
    representative sample of 21st CCLC programs to evaluate State and local
    program implementation (see http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
    opepd/ppss/reports.html#after-school). The evaluation focused on how,
    and to what extent, funds support high quality programs that emphasize
    academic content, as well as staffing patterns and other features of
    after-school program implementation that may have an impact on the
    quality of the programming offered. Centers reported that about half of
    their students attended roughly 2 days a week or more. In addition,
    three-quarters of the centers reported that a typical student
    participated in reading activities (75 percent) and mathematics
    activities (81 percent) for less than 4 hours per week. About half of
    centers reported offering professional development opportunities to
    staff through training courses or conferences.
        A 2005 program evaluation conducted by the Department's Institute
    of Education Sciences found that there were no differences between
    treatment group students and control group students on most academic
    outcomes; treatment group students scored no better on reading tests
    than control group students and had similar grades in English,
    mathematics, science, and social studies. This study identified a
    potentially contributing factor to the lack of academic gains resulting
    from the program: only 53 percent of the treatment group students who
    continued to have access to a 21st CCLC program in year 2 of the
    evaluation continued to attend a center (see https://www2.ed.gov/
    rschstat/eval/other/cclcfinalreport/cclcfinal.pdf).

                      PROPOSED CUTS TO FEDERAL WORK-STUDY

        Senator Shaheen. And on higher education, you think the
    Work-Study program has not helped students with----
        Secretary DeVos. The Work-Study program we have continued
    to propose funding for. The piece that you are referring to is
    the graduate piece of that program and again, making difficult
    decisions around where to focus the resources. By the time a
    student gets into a graduate program, there are other
    opportunities. We are focused on trying to get the greatest
    number of students the opportunity to pursue higher education
    whatever that looks like for them. That is why we have
    suggested a short-term Pell program as well because we cannot
    make the assumption that a 4-year college or university is the
    right answer or the right pathway for every single student.
        Senator Shaheen. My time is up. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Capito.

                     ADDRESSING REJECTED TRIO APPLICATIONS

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary DeVos, for coming this morning and
    thank you for your service.
        I wanted to follow up. You came by the office a few weeks
    ago and we talked about the TRIO programs. And I wanted you to
    share with the committee your plan for reviewing these
    applications that were discarded due to either formatting or
    budget issues. This Committee, thanks to Chairman Blunt and
    others, wants to make sure that institutions like WVU and West
    Virginia State are not penalized for the minor errors in their
    applications.
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Senator, for that question.
        We did have that conversation. And as you know, the
    formatting issue was dealt with I think later last year. But
    there were some other applications that had some issues with
    the budgetary formatting and/or some of the numbers, frankly.
    Per the direction of Congress, we have gone back and have
    opened a process to reexamine those--I think it is--40-some
    applicants that fall into that category.
        Senator Capito. Do we have a timeline on that?
        Secretary DeVos. I do not have the specific timeline, but I
    would be happy to get that to you.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        In your remarks, you mentioned that a number of
    consolidations are occurring, including proposals for the
    Federal TRIO, HEA, Title III and Title V supporting Minority-
    Serving Institutions, making them formula grants so that the
    States may use the funds more effectively.
        Could we talk about that a little bit? Does that mean it is
    formula grants down to the State to make that decision? Is that
    how you envision that? And why is that more efficient and a
    better way to deliver the funding than what we presently have?
        Secretary DeVos. So let me just go back to your previous
    question because I just--we are on track to have the process
    for the 40-some schools we just talked about done by the summer
    so that it is in advance of the next school year.
        Senator Capito. The fall. Great.

                PROPOSAL TO SHIFT COMPETITIVE TO FORMULA GRANTS

        Secretary DeVos. With respect to your question about some
    of the programs that we have proposed for consolidation, all of
    these programs--about 90 percent of the funding continually
    goes to the same entities. And yet, we have a large process
    within the Department of Education that goes through all of
    these grant programs repetitively time after time and ends up
    granting them out to the same places.
        So our proposal is to make that more efficient and
    recognize what it essentially is, which is more of a block
    granted program, and do so to the States. The States, we
    believe, are closer to the institutions and have a better
    handle on whether there are some new entrants into the market
    that might be considered and also how the existing ones are
    doing. And so that is our proposal to streamline that and make
    that process more effective and recognize what it basically is.
        Senator Capito. I mean, I agree with the premise of giving
    the States the flexibility. I think that goes along with the
    Every Student Succeeds Act that we passed and others.
        My questions is--and I think Senator Shaheen will--her ears
    will perk up on this one as well--whenever I hear the formula
    funding, it always sounds like it is going to be population-
    based, and for smaller States, sometimes and a lot of times
    that can be detrimental to maybe previous years. So I would
    just put that on your radar screen.
        Secretary DeVos. The proposal would be for the States to
    get the same level of funding that they had previously.

                                APPRENTICESHIPS

        Senator Capito. Okay. That makes me feel better.
        On the apprenticeships, you and I talked about skills gaps.
    We hear this all the time. You basically cannot have an
    economic development conversation with any businesses who are a
    problem finding the right skill sets for the jobs of tomorrow
    and even the jobs right today. This is a big concern for all of
    us I think. So I am interested in your expansion of the
    apprenticeship, and I know that obviously you all have that.
        What steps are you taking to--are you working with the
    Secretary of Labor on this to expand this? Are you working with
    the unions to expand this? If you could just talk about that
    aspect of it, please.
        Secretary DeVos. Sure. The Task Force on Apprenticeships
    that President Trump had----
        Senator Capito. Right. Put together.
        Secretary DeVos [continuing]. Put together just completed
    its report last month and submitted I think about three dozen
    different recommendations on how to expand this important
    opportunity and pathway. It is one area of import. Actually I
    am going to be in Switzerland later this week where I am
    attending an international forum on apprenticeships, and I
    think this is an area where America can learn a lot from their
    model there. Almost 70 percent of the students in Switzerland
    go into apprenticeships of some sort. When we think of
    apprenticeships, I think we think of a pretty narrow definition
    for them here. And yet, in Switzerland it goes into every
    sector. So I think these are areas that we have to get a lot
    more serious about.
        Referencing back to the work of the Apprenticeship Task
    Force, the group that really discussed the recommendations and
    brought them forward was a very robust combination of business
    leadership, labor leadership, and higher ed leadership, all
    really coming together in a very unanimous and supportive
    fashion to say these are programs and these are areas that we
    have to become much more intentional about supporting business
    to form these new consortiums and apprenticeship opportunities
    and then having the theoretical and instructional pieces come
    alongside and do so in a way that is going to be relevant and
    current for students and able to be flexible to change as the
    needs change.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Durbin.

                     PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS AND LOAN DEFAULTS

        Senator Durbin. Welcome, Madam Secretary.
        I think we both would agree that when students default on
    their student loans, there are many losers: the student, the
    student's family, America's taxpayers, and you might say other
    students who are counting on that money coming back into the
    Treasury for their generation to have a chance at higher
    education.
        So I want to ask you a question, and I am going to give you
    multiple choice answers. Here is the question. Which group of
    colleges and universities enroll 9 percent of all postsecondary
    students--9 percent of high school grads--but account for 33
    percent of Federal student loan defaults? Here are your
    choices: (A) public colleges and universities, (B) private not-
    for-profit colleges and universities, and (C) for-profit
    colleges and universities. Which one would you choose?
        Secretary DeVos. C.
        Senator Durbin. Exactly right.
        So could you explain to me why for-profit colleges and
    universities, which enroll just 9 percent of high school
    graduates, account for 33 percent of all Federal student loan
    defaults?
        Secretary DeVos. It is a very serious issue, Senator, and
    it is one that we have--I think collectively we have to get
    much more serious about looking at both the opportunities for
    students and acknowledge--I think this is a much broader
    question than just what you are trying to get at because----
        Senator Durbin. Well, let me just say----
        Secretary DeVos [continuing]. Students today need to know
    early on before they even get into high school a number of
    different options that they have to pursue beyond high school.
        Senator Durbin. It just seems to me that one class with
    fewer than 10 percent of the students and 33 percent of the
    student loan defaults really has a problem that the other types
    of universities and colleges do not, at least to some extent.
        So here is what is comes down to as far as I am concerned.
    They are charging too much and they are providing too little.
    They are misleading these students into debt and enrollment and
    then casting them off.
        Now, how can I say something as extreme as that? Because
    here is what the statistics show. Two out of three graduates
    from for-profit colleges and universities make less money than
    their high school graduate counterparts who never attend a
    university. So they are not making much money. And it also
    turns out that three out of four students from these types of
    for-profit colleges and universities are not able to pay $1 on
    their Federal student debt within 3 years of entering
    repayment. So a lot is going on here.
        And luckily for us, you have been in charge of a Department
    which has an investigative unit that is going to keep an eye on
    these for-profit colleges and universities because they are
    being investigated by everybody. In fact, some of them are
    failing because of the abusive approaches they have used and
    their misleading marketing: Corinthian, Westwood, ITT Tech and
    so forth and so on.

                   APPOINTEES FROM FOR-PROFIT COLLEGE SECTOR

        But here is the thing that troubles me and what I want to
    ask you a question about. Were you aware--I am sure you are not
    aware of this, but you should be. Were you aware of the fact
    that the people you have appointed to the enforcement unit to
    keep an eye on for-profit colleges and universities that are
    ripping off students and their families and taxpayers--I am
    sure you are not aware of this. But it turns out that the head
    of the unit, Julian Schmoke, was a former dean at DeVry, one of
    the largest for-profit colleges and universities in my home
    State of Illinois. And it also turns out that Robert Eitel in
    that same unit you appointed and Diane Auer Jones and Carlos
    Muniz were former employees at Bridgepoint and Career Education
    Corporation, for-profit colleges and universities, themselves.
    So were you aware of the fact that you were appointing people
    to the enforcement and investigative unit who had a conflict of
    interest because of their own private careers before they
    joined you?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, Senator, the enforcement unit, part
    of Federal Student Aid, is very robust and functioning very
    well. And most of those individuals you just referred to are
    not part of the enforcement unit. So that is erroneous
    information.

                          STUDENT AID ENFORCEMENT UNIT

        Senator Durbin. So tell me what happened at the enforcement
    unit?
        Secretary DeVos. Let me just say we are very focused on
    ensuring that colleges and universities have a--the
    opportunities that students have are quality. We have to
    focus----
        Senator Durbin. You have reduced the number.
        Secretary DeVos [continuing]. On the opportunities and the
    outcomes for students----
        Senator Durbin. Well, if you focused on the outcomes and 33
    percent are defaulting on their student loans and only 10
    percent of the students and you took a dozen attorneys in the
    enforcement unit and cut it down to three and then you riddled
    the unit with people with conflicts of interest, it is no
    wonder that little or nothing is being done by way of
    investigation.
        Secretary DeVos. Well, I am sorry, but your information is
    just erroneous.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the article from
    the ``New York Times,'' which catalogues this in detail--and I
    am sure you have seen it--be made a part of the record after my
    question.
        Senator Alexander [presiding]. So ordered. Thank you,
    Senator Durbin.
        [The article follows:]

    New York Times
    Education Department Unwinds Unit Investigating Fraud at For-Profits
    By Danielle Ivory, Erica L. Green and Steve Eder
    May 13, 2018

    Members of a special team at the Education Department that had been
    investigating widespread abuses by for-profit colleges have been
    marginalized, reassigned or instructed to focus on other matters,
    according to current and former employees.

    The unwinding of the team has effectively killed investigations into
    possibly fraudulent activities at several large for-profit colleges
    where top hires of Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, had previously
    worked.

    During the final months of the Obama administration, the team had
    expanded to include a dozen or so lawyers and investigators who were
    looking into advertising, recruitment practices and job placement
    claims at several institutions, including DeVry Education Group.

    The investigation into DeVry ground to a halt early last year. Later,
    in the summer, Ms. DeVos named Julian Schmoke, a former dean at DeVry,
    as the team's new supervisor.

    Now only three employees work on the team, and their mission has been
    scaled back to focus on processing student loan forgiveness
    applications and looking at smaller compliance cases, said the current
    and former employees, including former members of the team, who spoke
    on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from the
    department.

    In addition to DeVry, now known as Adtalem Global Education,
    investigations into Bridgepoint Education and Career Education
    Corporation, which also operate large for-profit colleges, went dark.

    Former employees of those institutions now work for Ms. DeVos as well,
    including Robert S. Eitel, her senior counselor, and Diane Auer Jones,
    a senior adviser on postsecondary education. Last month, Congress
    confirmed the appointment of a lawyer who provided consulting services
    to Career Education, Carlos G. Muniz, as the department's general
    counsel.

    The investigative team had been created in 2016 after the collapse of
    the for-profit Corinthian Colleges, which set off a wave of complaints
    from students about predatory activities at for-profit schools. The
    institutions had been accused of widespread fraud that involved
    misrepresenting enrollment benefits, job placement rates and program
    offerings, which could leave students with huge debts and no degrees.

    Elizabeth Hill, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, attributed
    the reduction of the group to attrition and said that ``conducting
    investigations is but one way the investigations team contributes to
    the department's broad effort to provide oversight.'' She said that
    none of the new employees who had previously worked in the for-profit
    education industry had influenced the unit's work.

    She also said the team's deployment on student loan forgiveness
    applications was an ``operational decision'' that ``neither points to a
    curtailment of our school oversight efforts nor indicates a conscious
    effort to ignore `large-scale' investigations.''

    Aaron Ament, a former chief of staff to the office of the department's
    general counsel who helped create the team under President Barack
    Obama, said it had been intended to protect students from fraudulent
    for-profit colleges. ``Unfortunately, Secretary DeVos seems to think
    the colleges need protection from their students,'' said Mr. Ament, who
    is now president of the National Student Legal Defense Network.

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, also
    criticized the team's new direction. Ms. DeVos has taken a number of
    actions to roll back or delay regulations that sought to rein in abuses
    and predatory practices among for-profit colleges--actions that Ms.
    Warren and other Democrats have said put the industry's interests ahead
    of those of students.

    ``Secretary DeVos has filled the department with for-profit college
    hacks who only care about making sham schools rich and shutting down
    investigations into fraud,'' Ms. Warren said.

    DeVry did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. Schmoke declined
    to be interviewed. Mr. Schmoke recused himself from matters involving
    DeVry, according to the department.

    DeVry agreed to pay $100 million in 2016 to settle a separate Federal
    Trade Commission lawsuit alleging that it misled prospective students
    with ads about employment and salaries after graduation.

    The Education Department announced a limited settlement with DeVry the
    same year after finding that the school could not substantiate claims
    that 90 percent of its alumni since 1975 were employed in their field
    of study within 6 months of graduating. But the investigative team
    continued to look into the institution's job placement claims and other
    recruiting practices.

    The former and current employees disputed Ms. Hill's account, and said
    the group and its work had become an issue of contention during
    meetings with the Trump transition team. Several of the employees said
    that there had been a staff push to continue the investigation as
    recently as this year, with no result.

    The group had also been looking into similar issues of recruiting and
    advertising at Bridgepoint and Career Education during the latter part
    of 2016, the employees said.

    Ms. Hill declined to comment on those cases. ``To preserve the
    integrity of investigations, program reviews and other enforcement
    activities,'' she said, ``the department's practice is to neither
    confirm nor deny current or potential investigations.''

    In a statement, Bridgepoint said the company was aware of a review
    beginning in 2015, but had ``not been made aware of any investigation
    or involvement by the enforcement unit.'' Career Education did not
    respond to requests for comment.

    Bridgepoint has a high-profile connection in the Trump administration
    beyond the Education Department: It is a former client of Mercedes
    Schlapp, who is now the director of strategic communications at the
    White House.

    Ms. Schlapp was a consultant for Bridgepoint at Cove Strategies, a
    lobbying and consulting firm she founded with her husband, Matt
    Schlapp. Bridgepoint said that it remained a Cove client.

    The White House did not say whether Ms. Schlapp had recused herself
    from issues involving Bridgepoint and did not respond to a request to
    interview her. Mr. Schlapp said in an email that ``Bridgepoint and
    other online institutions were persecuted by President Obama's
    administration because they dared to bring innovation to the education
    market.''

    He added, ``I believe educational innovation and disruption are a fight
    worth having and it matches the President's agenda of rolling back the
    excess of the Obama regulatory stranglehold.''

    Mr. Eitel, the senior adviser to Ms. DeVos, last year recused himself
    from issues involving both Bridgepoint and Career Education, where he
    was previously a top lawyer.

    Ms. Jones, the senior adviser on postsecondary education, has not
    recused herself from matters involving Career Education, where she
    previously worked, according to a list of recusals the department
    provided. The department did not say whether Mr. Muniz had recused
    himself from issues involving the company.

    Ms. Jones worked for about 5 years as a senior vice president at Career
    Education Corporation after serving as assistant secretary for
    postsecondary education for President George W. Bush. She joined the
    Trump administration early this year.

    In a letter to Ms. DeVos last week, Ms. Warren and nine other
    Democratic senators called on the department to reveal the extent of
    Ms. Jones's ties to the industry, suggesting she had a history of
    working ``on behalf of bad actors.''

    The department issued an extensive statement defending Ms. Jones,
    calling her background an ``asset'' that would advance the department's
    goals. Ms. Jones has had ``vast higher-ed experience in community
    colleges, research universities and for-profit colleges,'' it said in
    the statement, adding that she had spent only a fraction of her career
    in the for-profit industry.

    The investigative team emerged in the wake of Corinthian Colleges'
    shutdown as the Obama administration faced criticism for providing
    loans to students attending other for-profit schools that had also been
    accused of illegal activity, substandard practices or predatory
    behavior. While not created expressly to focus on for-profit schools,
    the group directed its attention to those institutions because of their
    recruiting practices and the large amount of students they serve.

    Separately, another group, the borrower defense unit, focused on
    forgiving loans for students at Corinthian and other schools where
    fraud had been identified. That group's work all but came to a stop
    last year, but has recently gotten going again.

    After Mr. Trump's victory, some employees openly worried about the fate
    of the investigative unit, and policies quickly changed with the new
    administration, according to the current and former employees.

    Communication with outside groups now required special approval,
    including with state attorneys general, who had been partners in
    identifying cases, and Federal agencies like the Consumer Financial
    Protection Bureau, which had been aggressively monitoring a number of
    for-profit colleges. Without permission, team members could not contact
    schools or other parties to request documents, an essential part of
    making a case, which effectively halted investigative work.

    Ms. Hill, the Education Department spokeswoman, said the department was
    ``focused on weeding out bad actors'' across higher education, ``not
    capriciously targeting schools based on their tax status.''

    In recent months, the three remaining team members have been looking at
    small cases and examining student requests for loan forgiveness, like
    one filed by Josue Perez.

    Mr. Perez, 30, said he was persuaded by an admissions officer at
    Corinthian Colleges' Everest Institute in the Boston area to take out a
    $5,000 loan to attend the school for massage therapy.

    The officer told him, according to Mr. Perez, that the college would
    help him find a job when he graduated. But Mr. Perez never received the
    help, he said, and he still has not worked in the field. The loan has
    since tripled to more than $15,000, he said.

    He has been waiting for more than a year for the Education Department's
    decision on his claim to forgive the $15,000, he said. In the meantime,
    he worries about the department's new direction.

    ``They're basically removing the police force that keeps these colleges
    in check,'' he said.

        Senator Alexander. Senator Hyde-Smith.

                          ISSUES FACING RURAL SCHOOLS

        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary DeVos, first of all, I am thrilled that you are
    here. I enjoyed getting to meet you over the phone, and thank
    you for talking with me.
        Rural schools, like many in my State, face unique
    challenges from recruiting and retaining teachers to the lack
    of access to broadband. I believe it is imperative that the
    Department support research to address the specific needs for
    rural schools and students.
        It is my understanding that the Department will recompete a
    grant to establish a Research and Development Center dedicated
    to rural education.
        My question is, what does the Department consider the most
    pressing issues facing rural schools, and how will you help
    tackle these needs, including the severe teacher shortage?
        Secretary DeVos. Senator, thanks for that question.
        I know that the needs of rural communities are very unique
    and they differ from community to community. We very much
    support the flexibility for rural communities to address their
    issues and their needs specifically.
        When we think about opportunities and making sure that
    students have a broad range of opportunity, I think one of the
    most important things is that the schools and the communities
    have access to broadband in a very robust way. I know that that
    is continuing to improve. That is not part of the Department of
    Education's purview but we certainly advocate for the
    widespread adoption of and availability of broadband. That is I
    think one tool that communities can use to ensure that students
    are introduced to a broader subject range through courses that
    they may not be able to provide at their school. But we again
    acknowledge that every rural community is different as well. So
    we support the communities' approaches to address the needs
    that they have for their students and are focused on trying to
    do so in a way that recognizes the varying geographies and the
    varying needs.

             GEOGRAPHY AND REGIONAL DIVERSITY IN FUNDING DECISIONS

        Senator Hyde-Smith. And another question is, how does the
    Department consider the geographic distribution and disparities
    of research projects and fundings?
        Secretary DeVos. The research projects and fundings--those
    are programs that are generally looked at competitively and as
    a whole. And if you have a specific one that you are interested
    in, I would certainly look forward to hearing about that and
    for the Department to look at that program seriously--or that
    request, I should say.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you for that.
        The Department recently awarded Striving Reader Literacy
    Grants to 11 States, and I understand that this funding is used
    to help States create a comprehensive program to advance
    literacy skills for students from birth through grade 12. Would
    you please share with the committee what the Department is
    doing to ensure these grants benefit a wide variety of States,
    especially rural areas with underserved populations like
    Mississippi?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, we are certainly taking into account
    the very diverse populations that we have in our country and
    are hoping to ensure that a wide range of communities and
    students are able to take advantage of that program. Again, if
    you have a specific interest in that one, I would be glad
    offline to talk with you about that and try to ensure that we
    are looking very objectively at the requests from your State.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. Thank you very, very much.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Senator Manchin.

            CUTS TO FLEXIBLE FUNDS APPLICABLE TO ADDRESSING OPIOIDS

        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Secretary, for being here.
        I know the vote is going on. I got to hurry.
        I want to thank Secretary DeVos for being here.
        While the fiscal year 2019 budget proposal does not cut as
    much funding from the Department of Education as last year, I
    am very concerned about the significant cuts that have been
    proposed and appreciate you are here to answer our questions.
        I am particularly concerned about the $3.6 billion in cuts
    that come primarily by eliminating the 21st Century Community
    Learning Centers and the Title II teacher grant funds. Both of
    these programs are critical for West Virginia communities but
    particularly so in all of our rural communities and rural
    States.
        As you know, the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act
    includes a program called Title IV Student Support and Academic
    Enrichment Grants Program. The block grant is designed to
    provide States and school districts the flexibility to provide
    a wide range of services that support a well-rounded education.
    Congress authorized more than $1.6 billion in funding. Then we
    appropriated $1.1 billion in funding. And the President's
    budget, however, eliminates all the funding entirely.
        The problem is we are using that for opioid concerns that
    we have with students coming from addicted households and maybe
    even addiction themselves. It puts us in a critical situation,
    Madam Secretary, and I did not know how you all plan to work
    with this or navigate this since there is no money.
        Secretary DeVos. Well, Senator, thanks for the questions.
        The budget in total was produced in the context of the
    restrictions and the parameters that we had. We had to make
    choices around programs that were duplicative or spread thinly
    or shown not to be effective. I would say that the funding that
    Congress did restore in the Omnibus to Title IV is an area that
    I think we look at differently given the circumstances today
    versus when the budget was originally generated.
        Senator Manchin. You have gone from like $400 million up to
    $1.1 billion, which I am very much appreciative, but then it
    goes right back to nothing. Opioid addiction in my State, as
    you know, and a lot of States--the flexibility that we had with
    those grants, those titles--we were able to use that to
    intervene, to identify, to replace children that were coming
    from addicted homes. And it is going to be imperative we have
    some way of doing that.
        Secretary DeVos. Absolutely. Well, the funding that remains
    in the proposed budget is very flexible and can be used in----
        Senator Manchin. So you are intending to basically use with
    the base budgets you have in education because there is 3.6
    percent cut overall.
        Secretary DeVos. But as I said, the budget was put forward
    prior to the enactment of the 2018 Omnibus. Given the time
    frame and the elapsed time since then and the focus both on
    school safety issues, as well as the opioid crisis, we look
    anew at the Title IV----
        Senator Manchin. If your staff can get with us and show us
    how you intend for us to be able to still address the problems
    we are having because our educators are concerned next year
    everything stops. We got a program moving right now identifying
    children that are coming from addicted homes, placing them,
    getting them out of risk. And it is just imperative that we
    have some----
        Secretary DeVos. I know the opioid issue is a very horrible
    one.

                  PLAUSIBILITY OF SCHOOL CHOICE IN RURAL AREAS

        Senator Manchin. The other thing is I am concerned--and you
    and I have spoken about this before--is choice and school
    charters. In small rural States, the only choice we have is
    either improving the education we have or doing without. There
    is not an option in some of the rural areas. So I am concerned
    about the $3.6 billion that are being cut while at the same
    time shifting $1.5 billion from critical education programs to
    school choice. That is going to be very, very hard.
        So would your choice program not simply leave holes in West
    Virginia? I mean, the way it is right now in our West Virginia
    school budgets created by these proposed cuts, it is just going
    to leave a hole that we cannot fill.
        Secretary DeVos. Well, sir, the proposal around choice
    really does offer rural districts opportunities to think
    differently and to meet students' needs differently as well.
    And that is really sort of the big picture----
        Senator Manchin. In West Virginia, we just cannot afford to
    start another education system. We do not have the market where
    the private market is moving into that. All we are doing is
    taking funds away from--hopefully enhancing a system, making it
    better than what we have right now.
        Secretary DeVos. But sometimes you can think of choice
    differently, and I think we often think in terms of
    infrastructure and buildings. In rural areas, I understand that
    maybe the biggest challenge is a school that is not able to
    offer some AP courses because they simply do not have enough
    students. So offering course choice via a virtual classroom is
    an opportunity to----
        Senator Manchin. That would be great except I do not even
    have Internet connect in most of the rural areas and even cell
    service. So sometimes----
        Senator Alexander. Senator Blunt will be upset with me if I
    do not enforce the rule.
        Senator Manchin. I know. With that, we would like to invite
    you to West Virginia to come into some of these real rural
    communities without connectivity to see firsthand. Okay?
        Secretary DeVos. Yes, thanks. I mean, I know that is a huge
    issue.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
        Senator Murphy.

                       FEDERAL AUTHORITY ON CIVIL RIGHTS

        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today.
        I think you have heard some concern from many of us about
    the changes in procedures for civil rights investigations and
    dismissal of claims. And so let me just try to square some of
    your opening comments with some of the changes that you have
    been asked about.
        You have made it very clear that you do not think that
    there should be a one-size-fits-all approach to education in
    the country, you should not think as much authority for making
    decisions about kids' education should be in the hands of local
    educators. And there are certainly lots of members of this
    committee who agree.
        But on the issue of civil rights, should there be a one-
    size-fits-all for civil rights protections, or should that
    decision be in the hands of local communities? Or should your
    office consider different community standards regarding issues
    like civil rights when making decisions?
        Secretary DeVos. The role of the Department is an important
    one in enforcing students' civil rights and protecting them.
    And it is one that I am committed to and it is one that the
    Office for Civil Rights is committed to.
        Senator Murphy. So I understand that. But there should be a
    one-size-fits-all standard for civil rights protections. Right?
    We should have a Federal civil rights law. All students should
    be protected by that under the same standard.
        Secretary DeVos. Indeed.

                        RIGHTS OF UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS

        Senator Murphy. Let me ask you a question that you were
    presented with in a House hearing around the question of
    whether teachers should refer undocumented students to ICE for
    immigration enforcement. In the hearing, I think you stated
    that that should be up to each individual State or school
    district, and then you released a follow-up statement in which
    you said that our Nation has both a legal and moral obligation
    to educate every child and it is well established under the
    Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler and has been consistent in my
    position since day one.
        So I am worried that that statement is still not clear on
    this sort of very important question of whether or not a
    teacher or a principal is allowed to call ICE to report an
    undocumented student under Federal law. Can a teacher or
    principal call ICE to report an undocumented student under
    current Federal law?
        Secretary DeVos. I will refer back again to the settled
    case in Plyler v. Doe in 1982 which says students that are not
    documented have the right to an education. I think it is
    incumbent on us to ensure that those students have a safe and
    secure environment to attend school, to learn, and I maintain
    that.
        Senator Murphy. So let me ask the question again. Is it
    okay--you are the Secretary of Education. There are a lot of
    schools that want guidance and want to understand what the law
    is. Is it okay for a teacher or principal to call ICE to report
    an undocumented student?
        Secretary DeVos. I think a school is a sacrosanct place for
    students to be able to learn, and they should be protected
    there.
        Senator Murphy. You seem to be very purposely not giving a
    yes or no answer, and I think there are a lot of educators that
    want to know whether this is permissible.
        Secretary DeVos. I think educators know in their hearts
    that they need to ensure that students have a safe place to
    learn.
        Senator Murphy. Why are you not answering the question?
        Secretary DeVos. I think I am answering the question.
        Senator Murphy. Well, the question is yes or no. Can a
    principal call ICE on a student? Is that allowed under Federal
    law? You are the Secretary of Education.
        Secretary DeVos. In a school setting, a student has the
    right to be there and the right to learn. And so everything
    surrounding that should protect that and enhance that student's
    opportunity and that student's environment.
        Senator Murphy. So they cannot call ICE.
        Secretary DeVos. I do not think they can.
        Senator Murphy. Thank you.

                     SCHOOL SAFETY AND CONSISTENT STANDARDS

        Lastly, on your School Safety Commission, I guess I am just
    trying to square again this belief about not having one-size-
    fits-all with the goal of the Commission to establish best
    practices. So how do you do both? Because if you just give a
    menu to schools, that might not be terribly helpful. What would
    be helpful is to look at evidence, what works, what does not.
    Obviously, you know my interest in making sure that teachers
    are not armed. I would argue that if you look at the evidence,
    it will not point you in the direction of arming teachers.
        I am out of time here. But just how do you balance telling
    schools what works based on the evidence versus not having a
    one-size-fits-all presentation on the issue of school safety?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, I do not think it is a role of the
    Federal Department of Education to tell schools what they can
    and should do or cannot and should not do. It is the role for
    States and local communities to decide what is going to be best
    to protect their students. And we know that there are countless
    legislatures at the State level debating how they are going to
    address these issues now. The role of the safety commission is
    to ensure that we raise up these practices and encourage States
    to look at them and encourage communities to look at them.
        One of the first things that we did was to go back to the
    reports following Sandy Hook, following Columbine and Virginia
    Tech and to look at what actually has been adopted in places
    and that is being assessed now. But evidence-based approaches
    that have been demonstrated to work--we need to urge and
    encourage more of those to be broadly adopted.
        Senator Murphy. Great. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
        Senator Reed.

                      SCHOOL FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, during the campaign, President Trump
    strongly advocated for fixing schools up as part of an
    infrastructure plan, and the schools certainly need it. The
    American Society of Civil Engineers gives our school facilities
    a D-plus rating, about a $38 billion gap between necessary
    repairs to bring them up to standard. And that is certainly a
    level that cannot be supported by States and localities alone.
        One of the ironies is that we are spending money
    programmatically in schools that, because of the disrepair, are
    not functional. The kids are not being well educated not
    because they do not have good teachers. It is just that the
    windows are broken and the computers are damaged by rain and
    all those things.
        So just what are you doing to address this issue of
    improving school facilities at the Department of Education or
    getting the President to get it into his infrastructure plan?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, thanks, Senator, for that question.
        As you know, the specifics around school infrastructure
    were not part of the infrastructure proposal, and that really
    does not fall under the purview of the Department of Education.
    These issues are left to the States and local communities to
    deal with, and I think that is where those are best addressed.
        Senator Reed. The issue of addressing them locally goes to
    just like highways and roads and bridges, yes, but without
    Federal support, they will not be effectively addressed. And we
    are spending a lot of time here talking about educational
    reform, programmatic reform, enhancing the teachers' skills, et
    cetera when kids are sitting in rooms where the ceilings are
    falling in, the windows are broken. Should you not be
    advocating that the President incorporate it in his
    infrastructure plan, that this is absolutely critical to
    education success?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, I obviously think that learning
    environments are important to students, but I also think that
    we can have an opportunity to think a little more broadly as
    well. I visited a school last week that is a public middle
    school located in a public museum, and the whole city is their
    classroom. These are the kinds of approaches that I think more
    schools can be thinking about and utilizing. And I would
    encourage that because the world has changed.
        Senator Reed. Well, Madam Secretary that is a novel and
    perhaps unique experience. Most schools--in fact, too many
    schools--I will not say most, but I will say too many schools
    are just without basic maintenance and funds for
    rehabilitation. And it is an issue that is an educational
    issue. You do not see the connection between a suitable school
    facility with adequate heat and windows and an education? That
    is disconnected?
        Secretary DeVos. I do think it is an important part of an
    educational experience.
        Senator Reed. So you will advocate from the Department of
    Education based on educational issues that we do something for
    school infrastructure?
        Secretary DeVos. Infrastructure is a State and local issue.
    It is a matter for those entities to address and deal with to
    ensure their students have the kind of environment that is
    conducive to their learning.
        Senator Reed. So you are saying no, that the Federal
    Government should not be involved in providing support to
    schools for reconstruction, for rehabilitation, and for
    physical improvements.
        Secretary DeVos. Well, it is not part of the President's
    plan and it is not part of the Administration's proposal.
        Senator Reed. But it is a big part of education from the
    perspective of most people that I know, students, teachers, and
    other people.

                 COORDINATING WITH DEFENSE ON LOAN FORGIVENESS

        Your student loan program proposals. The request would make
    student loans more expensive. You are eliminating the in-school
    interest subsidies for needy students, ending public service
    loan forgiveness. This particular issue I think is problematic
    because we have heard comments from the Department of Defense
    that they use this loan forgiveness as a means to begin
    recruiting personnel into the military. Have you coordinated
    with DOD (Department of Defense) about the effect of rescinding
    the loan forgiveness?
        Secretary DeVos. We have been in conversation with DOD
    about serving our military and our veterans well, including the
    students of those military families----
        Senator Reed. I am talking about prospective recruits which
    would rely upon or could benefit from the loan forgiveness, but
    if it is taken away, they might decide that going into the
    service is not their best option.
        Secretary DeVos. Well, I hope that we will be supportive
    and continue to be supportive of veterans in their careers and
    beyond.

                             TEACH GRANT SERVICING

        Senator Reed. Finally, the TEACH Grant program has had
    tremendous servicing issues. People have discovered after they
    thought they spent years in a program that would allow them to
    have their loan forgiven that because of poor servicing, bad
    advice, they have failed. They do not get the relief they
    thought they would have.
        What are you doing to fix that servicing problem?
        Secretary DeVos. I will look into that specific question
    and issue and get back with you on that.
        [The information follows:]
            review and oversight plans for servicing of teach grants
        The Department reaffirms its commitment to improve its
    administration of the Teacher Education Assistance for College and
    Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program. Taking note of past servicing
    issues, the Department is studying all aspects of the program to
    determine necessary modifications so as to align servicing of the TEACH
    Grants with Congressional intent. This will ensure that students who
    agree to teach for 4 years at an elementary school, secondary school,
    or educational service agency that serves students from low-income
    families have the resources and support that they need.
        In the interim, the Department will continue to perform oversight
    and review of TEACH Grant-related disputes and escalated issues
    resulting from interactions with recipients. Moreover, the Department
    will continue to perform periodic on-site and off-site monitoring to
    ensure adherence to existing TEACH Grant regulations, requirements, and
    other issues.

        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Senator Reed.

                       HIGHER EDUCATION REGULATORY REFORM

        Other Senators are coming back, Madam Secretary, but in the
    meantime let me ask you this.
        A distinguished group of higher education officials headed
    by the chancellor of Vanderbilt and the chancellor of Maryland
    at the request of a bipartisan group of Senators on this
    Committee gave us a group of 59 recommendations to cut through
    what they described as the, ``jungle of red tape interfering
    with their administration of higher education.'' 12 of those
    are items that the Department of Education can deal with
    without legislative action.
        Are those on your priority list, and where do we stand with
    that?
        Secretary DeVos. They are, Senator. And I will get back
    with you with the specifics on each of the ones that are
    administratively able to be done. They are in varying degrees
    of process forward.
        [The information follows:]
                       higher education regulatory reform
        Consistent with President Trump's Executive Order 13771, Reducing
    Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, the Department of
    Education fully shares the goals of the Task Force on Federal
    Regulation of Higher Education (Task Force). In particular, we agree
    with the Task Force that ``oversight of higher education by the
    Department of Education has expanded and evolved in ways that undermine
    the ability of colleges and universities to serve students and
    accomplish their missions.'' The Department is currently undertaking a
    comprehensive regulatory reform effort pursuant to Executive Order
    13771, focusing on rescinding and modifying all outdated, unnecessary,
    or ineffective regulations, guidance, and information collection
    requests. As part of this effort, the Department published on June 22,
    2017, a Federal Register notice soliciting public input to inform its
    evaluation of existing regulations and guidance. The Department has
    reviewed these comments, which it will continue to consider as part of
    our overall regulatory reform initiative.
        With regard to the specific regulatory actions identified by the
    Task Force, the Department has already taken action, including
    negotiated rulemaking in the areas of borrower defense to repayment,
    financial responsibility requirements for institutions, false
    certification discharges, closed school discharges, and gainful
    employment. In addition, the Department intends to conduct negotiated
    rulemaking on a variety of issues identified by the Task Force,
    including accreditation, State authorization distance education and
    related disclosures, ``regular and substantive interaction''
    requirements for distance education, ``credit hour'' requirements, and
    direct assessment programs and competency-based education.

                 DEPARTMENT VS CONGRESSIONALLY INITIATED REFORM

        Senator Alexander. Well, I just want to make sure that
    those 12 items are things that you can do while we are still
    debating when to move ahead with our Higher Education Act, and
    I would hope that you could do that because they have broad
    support within our higher education system. There are, of
    course, 6,000-plus institutions. And one of the most common
    complaints we hear from administrators is, for example, the
    University of Maryland wants to offer online programs in this
    country. It has to get approval from every single State.
        Secretary DeVos. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. And they recommended a change in that.
    That is something that maybe we have to do, but there are some
    things you can do.

                                    TITLE IX

        Another area where you are moving ahead is in the area of
    Title IX. Since 1999 when the Supreme Court decided the word
    ``sex'' includes sexual harassment, we, the Congress, have not
    passed a law defining what we mean by sexual harassment, and
    the Department has not done any regulations in that area. All
    we have had are a series of letters of guidances, and that is
    very confusing to the more than 6,000 higher education
    institutions and 50,000 public schools who are governed by
    Title IX.
        I mean, as a former university president, it would be
    helpful for me to know, if I were in that business, exactly
    what is the definition of sexual harassment? When am I required
    to act under the Federal law? What about off-campus incidents?
    What is a fair and impartial process?
        Now, I would assume that since you have said and testified
    in the House you are in a regulatory process that you cannot
    talk about that very much because of the way our laws are
    written. But what can you say to us, if anything, about the
    Department's effort to regulate under Title IX?
        And let me say to begin with I support what you are doing.
    It should have been done some time ago. This is a very
    important area for the students and faculty members and
    administrators all over the country. They have a right to know
    what the Federal law expects, and if Congress itself does not
    define these issues, then the only other proper way to do
    something of this importance is to do it through Federal
    regulation where interested people have a chance to make
    comments and you have a chance to consider them. And a Federal
    regulation has the rule of law. These guidances and letters,
    which have been popping out of the Department of Education on a
    variety of matters every other day it seems like, are not
    supposed to have the force of law, but it is very confusing to
    institutions.
        So what can you say to the college and university
    presidents and the high school principals about what the
    Department is doing on Title IX, and what should they expect?
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Senator, for that question.
        You and I have talked about this at some length. The
    guidance letter that the last Administration put out with
    respect to this issue was one that has been very confusing for
    institutions, and it is also one that has in many cases not
    really respected the due process rights of both parties
    involved in a complaint. So we are focused on making sure,
    first of all, that we do this in the proper way through a
    formal regulatory process, and we are in the midst of that
    process now. In the coming months, we will have a draft for
    comment. We are focused and intent on ensuring that
    institutions will have clarity around their responsibilities in
    this area and that the rights and due process rights are
    respected for all parties involved in such complaints.
        Senator Alexander. Where does the regulatory process stand
    right now in terms of what you are doing?
        Secretary DeVos. We are close to being able to release a
    draft for comment.

                                ESSA STATE PLANS

        Senator Alexander. Let me switch back to another area.
        You have now reviewed, I think you said, 46 State plans.
        Secretary DeVos. ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) plans.
    We have approved 46.
        Senator Alexander. Approved 46 State plans, Titles I, II,
    and IV. That is about $18 billion in a year that goes out to
    State and local governments. Have you been encouraged by the
    plans?
        I mean, the idea of Congress was to give--what we were able
    to agree on in this committee, pretty remarkably, was that we
    wanted to continue the 17 Federal tests, and some other
    requirements and the disaggregation of those tests. We wanted
    the public to know what our 50 million students in 100,000
    public schools--how they were doing and how the schools are
    doing. And we continued that. That is quite a bit of Federal
    involvement. We wanted local governments to then have the
    responsibility for what to do about the results of the tests.
        Have you seen many States that have taken advantage of this
    new flexibility in a good way?
        Secretary DeVos. A number of the States are actually
    approaching this question with some level of creativity and
    intentionality to ensure that this information is widely shared
    and that it is very accessible to students and parents. I think
    the rubber will meet the road in the next year or so when they
    actually have it fully implemented. I know that we have
    continued to encourage States to seize all the opportunity they
    have for flexibility in those areas, and we will continue to do
    so. And I think as States implement them, it is going to become
    obvious variation of approaches and hopefully States will learn
    from one another.
        Senator Alexander. Well, I am going to turn this back over
    to the chairman.
        But it would be fair to say, would it not, that we are not
    likely to get a fair and complete picture of how the States'
    plans operate until we see them actually operate? And then
    perhaps some of the questions that Senators have about whether
    States are doing what Senators and Congressmen intended them to
    do will be clearer.
        Secretary DeVos. Exactly, yes.
        Senator Blunt [presiding]. Senator Baldwin.

                     PROPOSED CUTS TO STEM-RELATED PROGRAMS

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary DeVos, you and I have agreed on the importance of
    career and technical education, or CTE, both in private
    meetings and at previous hearings before this and the HELP
    Committee. Yet once again, your proposed budget fails to
    significantly invest in these programs.
        Now, I am pleased that, unlike your fiscal year 2018 budget
    proposal, there are no cuts to programs under the Perkins
    Career and Technical Education Act. However, I am disappointed
    that the budget simply requests fiscal year 2017 level funding
    for the Perkins Basic State Grant program and that, once again,
    it seeks to cut two K through 12 programs that can support
    career and technical education in STEM, namely the Student
    Support and Academic Enrichment Grant and the 21st Century
    Community Learning Centers Grant.
        You have talked about the need to strengthen investments in
    high quality career and technical education programs and STEM
    education, but the budget proposal does not back that up.
        So why does flat funding and even cutting funding for these
    programs support your commitment to career and technical
    education and STEM if they are, indeed, priorities for you?
        Secretary DeVos. Well, thank you, Senator for that
    question.
        To put the budget a little more in context, when this
    budget was proposed, it was within the parameters of the
    broader Administration budget proposals, and so decisions had
    to be made around programs that were most effective in reaching
    students and the needs that they have. That resulted in the
    proposed elimination of a couple of the programs that you have
    referred to because they are spread thinly and they have been
    demonstrated to not be particularly effective.
        That said, any line item that has been basically flat
    funded--proposed to be flat funded from 2017 is considered a
    high priority by us, by the Administration. And so career and
    technical education investments continue to receive that kind
    of support.
        We have also made a proposal for short-term Pell Grants
    recognizing that there are not as many traditional students
    today and that high quality, short-term certification programs
    through Pell would provide students a lot of other
    opportunities to pursue some of these career and technical
    programs that they may not be able to otherwise.
        Senator Baldwin. On that last point, I appreciate that.
    That is a policy change that I have been seeking to make for
    some time, recognizing the need for sometimes shorter-term
    programs and things that lead to a credential that would
    otherwise be unaidable.
        However, when you say that flat funding is what you are
    doing for your most high priority programs that is
    disappointing.

                             COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY

        Let me move to college affordability. In your testimony,
    you suggest that your budget hones the focus of the
    Department's mission, ``serving students by meeting their
    needs.'' But just as it did last year, your budget proposal
    would make college less affordable for students in my State,
    Wisconsin, and across the country. It again targets three
    campus-based programs: Perkins Loans, Federal Work-Study and
    Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, all of which allow
    campuses to target financial aid to the students they know to
    be in need. It slashes them all, eliminating SEOG (Federal
    Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant), cutting work-study
    in half or almost half, and supporting an end to the Perkins
    program.
        This would eliminate in the State of Wisconsin roughly $461
    million in aid for Wisconsin students. It also cuts billions
    from other programs that make college more affordable,
    including by eliminating Federal subsidized loans and the
    Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. As you know, college
    costs continue to rise and push the promise of higher education
    out of reach to more and more, young people.
        How do these massive cuts to Federal financial aid programs
    further your Department's mission to, quote again ``serve
    students by meeting their needs?''
        Secretary DeVos. Thank, Senator, for that question.
        And just in reference to a couple of the programs that you
    cited, the Perkins program has been continually phased out by
    Congress. So I guess the budget reflects a continuation of
    that.
        The Work-Study program. We continue to propose funding
    Work-Study but really focused on the students that are in the
    baccalaureate programs versus the graduate programs. The
    elimination is really for graduate level work-study.
        The bigger question about how can we make sure that
    students have opportunity to pursue higher education refers
    back to again supporting a multitude of pathways and then also
    for students that take on debt in order to do so really
    streamlining that experience and then their repayment. We have
    made proposals for an income-driven repayment program that is
    much more robust for them, can be counted on for the students
    that elect that option. We think that will help students that
    heretofore have not been able to pursue higher ed in a longer-
    term, meaningful way to be able to do so. We are focused on
    finding ways to make sure that students that are most in need
    of these opportunities are able to access them and then have
    good options for the back end in repaying.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
        We have two more members. We are going to try to finish up
    right at noon. And Senator Kennedy, you are first, followed by
    Senator Rubio.

         COMPARING SPENDING AND RESULTS VERSUS INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

        Senator Kennedy. Madam Secretary, welcome.
        If you add up all State, local, and Federal dollars that we
    spend on pre-K to 12, my understanding is we spend on average
    in the United States about $13,000 per public school student.
    Does that sound about right?
        Secretary DeVos. That does.
        Senator Kennedy. I also understand we rank about the same
    as Slovakia, which spends about half the money. Is that right?
        Secretary DeVos. I think that would be about right.
        Senator Kennedy. Name me the one single thing that Congress
    could do in your considered judgment to improve elementary and
    secondary education on the public side in America.
        Secretary DeVos. The one single thing that Congress can
    do----
        Senator Kennedy. The most important.
        Secretary DeVos [continuing]. Would be to empower parents,
    especially low-income parents, to find and choose the right
    education setting for their child on the one hand and to really
    embrace and support individual local public schools to be
    creative and innovative with how they meet their students'
    needs so that we do not see the kind of one-size-fits-all
    approaches that are prevalent in many States across the
    country.

                        VOLUNTEERING TO SUBSTITUTE TEACH

        Senator Kennedy. This is just one person's opinion, Madam
    Secretary. And I think you are doing a wonderful job, by the
    way. I think a lot of our policymakers do not understand what
    our public schools are like today. They do not. That is true at
    the State and local level. I think it is also true at the
    Federal level. We cannot control what our colleagues at the
    State and local level do, but we can control what we at the
    Federal level do.
        And I am going to make a general suggestion to you. Start
    with the upper echelon folks at the Department of Education.
    How you define that will be up to you. Eventually I would like
    you to consider extending this to every policymaker in the
    Department of Education. Ask them to volunteer to substitute
    teach at least once in a public school, not a private school,
    in an inner city public school. And I do not mean going in and
    talking to the civics class about how a bill becomes a law. I
    mean signing up as a substitute. All you need is a B.A. degree
    or a B.S. college degree, and you go to an orientation. And
    then you are a substitute teacher. And you start at a quarter
    to 7:00 and you go to 2:45, and you do either bus duty or
    lunchroom duty and it is you and 25 or 20 or 30 kids. And you
    are going to learn some stuff.
        Would you consider doing that?
        Secretary DeVos. I think it is a great idea, and in fact, I
    think we have an example that I am looking at right now. As I
    understand you do this two or three times a year in Louisiana.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes.
        I mean, what you see is how hard it is to be a teacher.
    Teachers--they do not just have to teach. They have to be mamas
    or daddies and social workers and psychologists. And it is so
    much harder being a kid today. These young people are seeing
    things in the 6th grade that I did not even know about until I
    was in college. And I just think a lot of our policymakers have
    lost sight of that. It is easy to tell teachers, well, just
    maintain discipline in the classroom. But in a lot of our
    schools, violence is common and learning is rare. And it just
    seems to me that is an appropriate place to start.

                       COST VS VALUE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

        Here is my final question. The cost of a college education
    has gone up since 1985, more than the cost of healthcare, which
    is breathtaking. Do you believe that the value of a college
    education has gone up commensurate with its cost?
        Secretary DeVos. I think that is a very good question, and
    I think that varies from place to place and from institution to
    institution. And I think we can be helpful in helping students
    and parents evaluate these questions and issues by providing
    more information.
        Senator Kennedy. How could we lower the cost? What is the
    one thing we can do to lower the cost?
        Secretary DeVos. I do not know that there is one thing to
    lower the cost. I think that allowing for a lot more innovation
    in higher education is one area that has to be explored, and it
    has to be allowed to happen because again the world has changed
    in every other area except primarily the world of education.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Secretary.
        Senator Rubio.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND DISCIPLINE

        Senator Rubio. Thank you for being here. I guess I get to
    bat cleanup it sounds like.
        One of the things that struck me in the aftermath of
    Parkland was even before the authorities had released the name
    of the shooter, all the students knew who it was. Everybody
    knew who it was without even seeing it.
        We now know, for example, that this student--this killer
    had been suspended 67 days in a single year for things like
    bringing bullets to campus claiming that he sold knives at
    school, drawing swastikas and hate speech on his book bag, a
    series of other offenses, a number of which, including off
    campus, would have had him formally reported to law enforcement
    and in turn, added to the NICS (National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System) system that would have prevented him
    from purchasing a firearm.
        As your Department has reviewed the school discipline
    policies nationally and in particular in Broward County, what
    do we know to this point about the school discipline policy in
    Broward or nationally.
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks for the question, Senator.
        As you know, this policy is part of the menu of items that
    the School Safety Commission is charged with considering. We
    are looking at and evaluating the policy. Clearly the goal of
    the policy, to ensure that no student is discriminated against
    in a discipline situation, is a valid and noble goal and we
    certainly embrace that. The question is, is the policy doing
    some harm in some way? And we are in the middle of reviewing
    that and considering that, and it will be part of the work of
    this Commission to come out with a result and recommendation.
        Senator Rubio. And indeed, the goal is to prevent school
    discipline policies from having an unfair impact, for example,
    on minority students. I agree with that. No one wants to see
    minority students disproportionately or unfairly impacted.
        Do we know that as a direct result of the guidance, has the
    Department found any schools or school districts to have
    discipline policies that violate civil rights?
        Secretary DeVos. We are in the process of reviewing that,
    and I do not have anything to add at this moment about it but
    will soon.
        Senator Rubio. Do we know how many have been investigated
    for potential violations leading up to your time at the
    Department?
        Secretary DeVos. I do not have that specific number now,
    but I can get that to your office.
        Senator Rubio. I guess my last question is clearly the
    intent of the school discipline guidance that was issued under
    the previous administration could not have been meant to
    prevent teachers from reporting a student to law enforcement
    when the student commits an act that may result in them being
    prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm. Clearly that
    should not be the intent of the policy. You would agree.
        Secretary DeVos. I would agree.
        Senator Rubio. And the reason why I bring that up--and I
    hope to encourage you to be supportive of it. It is an issue of
    first impression. I am not even sure we have shared it--we
    might have shared it with your office already. But it is
    legislation that I have introduced called ABCs in School
    Discipline Act, and it would make it clear. It would provide
    clear guidance on this that the discipline policy of our school
    districts should in no way prevent teachers from reporting a
    student to law enforcement when the student commits an act that
    may result in them being prohibited from legally purchasing a
    firearm later on for obvious reasons. And so I hope that is
    something that we can get put in place so that something like
    this may never ever happen again.
        I think I am fine. Just in the interest of time, thank you
    for being here today.
        Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Senator.
        Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Senator Rubio.
        Thank you, Secretary DeVos, for being here with us today.
        The record will stay open for 1 week for additional
    questions, and the subcommittee----

                    ESSA GOALS AND ADMINISTRATION BRIEFINGS

        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one
    statement simply because ESSA has been raised a number of times
    here.
        Secretary DeVos, you know I disagree with much of what you
    said. When we wrote the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act,
    we agreed that the performance of students who have
    historically struggled must be factored in when States measure
    overall school performance. The ``Wall Street Journal'' has
    reported that a State may award an A letter grade to a school
    even if only 40 percent of African American students can read
    at grade level. That is exactly why we put in those provisions.
    I do not think you would give an A to a student who got 40
    percent of the answers right. I do not think it is fair for
    families of African American families to be told their students
    are going to an A-rated school even if only 40 percent of
    African American students are reading at grade level.
        So I disagree with the conversation very clearly that has
    occurred here today. And I just want to reiterate my staff has
    requested multiple times that your Department begin to provide
    bipartisan staff briefings on this so we can examine it. And I
    reiterate that request to you today.
        Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator. I am sorry I did not ask
    if you had anything to add before we started to finish up
    there.
        I would say on the topic of just being responsive to the
    committee, that is really important. It needs to happen.
    Everybody could be better at it. But I think it is a priority
    and it gets you a long way by just providing the information
    when it is asked for as quickly as it is asked for, and
    frankly, if you are working on things that you know are going
    to be a problem with the committee, to step forward with that
    as well.
        Secretary DeVos. Senator, if I could just say we have asked
    and invited Senator Murray on multiple occasions to talk about
    the specific issues that she has had questions on. So we will
    continue to do so and welcome that opportunity.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Blunt. And again, thank you for being here today.
        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
      next generation financial services environment and compliance with
                         omnibus servicing requirements
        Question. The fiscal year 2018 Omnibus includes bill language to
    promote accountability, transparency, and competition in the Federal
    student loan servicing, and specifically requires the Department to
    ensure that any future Federal student loan servicing environment
    include: (1) the participation of multiple student loan servicers that
    contract with the Department to manage a unique portfolio of borrower
    accounts; (2) that each servicer manage the full life-cycle of borrower
    accounts from disbursement to pay off with certain limited exceptions;
    and (3) that new borrower accounts are assigned to servicers based on
    performance. Given this language, how specifically does the Department
    plan to move forward with its Next Generation Financial Services
    Environment proposal so that it is consistent with current law and
    congressional intent?
        Answer. The Department is committed to enhancing the borrower
    experience, improving and simplifying loan servicing, and optimizing
    outcomes, and it will ensure compliance with all statutory
    requirements. We will continue to work closely with Congress on an
    ongoing basis to communicate more detailed information as it becomes
    available.
       role of enhanced servicers in next generation financial services
                              environment proposal
        Question. The Department has indicated that it plans to include
    ``enhanced servicers'' as part of the Next Generation Financial
    Servicers Environment for borrowers who are more than 90 days
    delinquent on their loan. How does this fit in with the Departments
    larger Next Generation Financial Services Environment proposal?
        Answer. One of the key goals of the Next Generation Financial
    Services Environment (NextGen) is to drive better borrower outcomes by
    creating a simpler, more consistent, and more customer-friendly
    environment throughout the student aid lifecycle. With regard to
    ``enhanced servicing,'' FSA will increase outreach to borrowers as soon
    as they miss three payments, which is much earlier than the 270 day
    default trigger. Earlier outreach will help borrowers get into an
    appropriate repayment program long before they are in default. NextGen
    will leverage world-class mobile and other digital engagement and self-
    service technologies while also deploying real-time, customer-driven
    analytics to inform our outreach efforts. The final structure of
    NextGen will be determined through the ongoing active procurement. We
    will continue to work closely with congressional staff on an ongoing
    basis to communicate more detailed information as it becomes available.
                   current portfolio of stem-related funding
        Question. In your testimony, you say that the budget request
    includes $200 million in new funding for STEM education while
    continuing to funding almost $330 million in discretionary grants for
    STEM projects. What specific programs and grants are included in that
    existing $330 million?
        Answer. Most existing STEM investments are in our higher education
    programs, including the HSI STEM and Articulation program, Upward Bound
    Math and Science, the McNair Postbaccalaureate program, Student Support
    Services, Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need, the Minority
    Science and Engineering program, and Teacher Quality Partnerships.
    Other key programs supporting STEM projects include Magnet Schools
    Assistance, Javits Gifted and Talented, IDEA Stepping Up Technology
    Implementation, and research grants administered by the Institute of
    Education Sciences. We have also posted a Notice Inviting Applications
    for STEM apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs through the
    National Programs authority under the Perkins Career and Technical
    Education Act.
                   stem priorities at requested funding level
        Question. How does the Department plan to prioritize STEM education
    projects as part of the $200 million in new funding within EIR and
    Career and Technical Education?
        Answer. The $180 million request for Education Innovation and
    Research includes proposed bill language that would allow the
    Department to award all fiscal year 2019 EIR funds under one or more
    STEM priorities. The Department would use existing National Programs
    authority under the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act to use
    the $20 million requested in fiscal year 2019 solely for projects that
    promote innovative CTE programs in STEM fields, including computer
    science.
              funds supporting stem for fiscal years 2018 and 2019
        Question. What other discretionary grant programs will the
    Department include STEM priorities in for fiscal year 2018 or 2019, and
    does the Department have an estimate of how much funding will be used
    for STEM education as part of those other programs?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2018 we are using STEM priorities in the
    following programs: Teacher Quality Partnerships, Supporting Effective
    Education Development, GEAR UP, and Graduate Assistance in Areas of
    National Need. The STEM Priority is also being used in Education
    Innovation and Research, Special Programs for Indian Children, the
    Training Program under Federal TRIO Programs, Center on STEM Learning
    for Young Children with Disabilities, Innovative Approaches to
    Literacy, Pathways, Upward Bound and Fund for the Improvement of
    Postsecondary Education's Pilot Program for Cybersecurity Education
    Technology Upgrades for Community. The actual investment in STEM
    projects under these programs depends on the number and quality of
    applications meeting the STEM priorities. The Department has not yet
    completed its fiscal year 2019 spending plan, which will include
    determining the specific programs using STEM priorities for 2019
    competitions.
          planned changes for defaulted federal student loan borrowers
        Question. The Department has indicated that it will make
    significant changes to the way it manages borrowers who have defaulted
    on their Federal student loans. What specific changes does the
    Department plan to make in this area?
        Answer. The Department is in the process of reviewing and refining
    our approach to delinquency prevention and default collection, with the
    twin goals of improving outcomes for borrowers and enhancing our
    stewardship of the over $1.4 trillion Federal investment in student
    loans and related administrative costs. This process has been, and will
    continue to be, informed by past experience, the results of pilots and
    other analyses, market research activities, and input from a broad
    range of sources within and outside of government. Details of the
    Department's plans have not been finalized, but the Department will
    share with Congress after they are completed. Although the general
    outline of the planned changes have been approved and shared with the
    public, the Department continues to develop the details. Those details
    will be shared with Congress as they are completed.
               determining capacity to serve defaulted borrowers
        Question. Under the current process, and until the Department could
    transition to a new one, how did the Department determine that it has
    sufficient capacity in its current contract to properly serve students
    in default, and what factors or performance measures did the Department
    consider as part of that process?
        Answer. The Department's determination regarding the current flow
    of new accounts being handled by the current 13 PCAs was based on a
    review of monthly account placements over the last 14 months. The
    average number of placements during this period was 120,000 accounts
    per month (in December 2017 an eight month backlog of accounts was
    assigned due to the Court's prior injunction of all account placement
    activity). The Department also based its determination on its ongoing
    assessment of PCA capacity. Based on that review, the Department
    determined that small businesses would have a ``going forward'' monthly
    capacity of about 750,000 new accounts. The two 2017 award term
    extension (ATE) would contribute an additional 210,000 account capacity
    to that monthly total. The available capacity far exceeds the recent
    monthly average for account assignments.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
       application of obama administration school discipline guidance in
                    judgment of civil rights act violations
        Question. Mrs. Secretary, during your testimony I asked for
    specifics regarding the Obama Administration's Dear Colleague Letter on
    the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline and you noted
    that you would provide this information later.
        As a direct result of the Obama Administration's guidance, has the
    Department of Education concluded that any schools or school districts
    have discipline policies that violate the Civil Rights Act?
        Answer. As a result of the Obama Administration's guidance, OCR
    found that one school district had a discipline policy that violated
    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
      investigations under obama administration school discipline guidance
        Question. Do you know how many schools, or school districts, have
    been investigated for potential violations?
        Answer. The prior administration opened 439 cases for
    investigation.
    availability of racial data on those victimized by disciplined students
        Question. It is my understanding that the Department keeps some
    records about the race of students subject to disciplinary actions.
    Does the Department have similar statistics about the race of the
    student(s) victimized when a school-based punishment occurs? Would you
    consider including that question in your agencies reviews?
        Answer. Although OCR collects racial data for school discipline
    numbers through its Civil Rights Data Collection, OCR is not able to
    definitively say how many schools have declined to appropriately
    discipline a student due to their racial minority status. Such a
    practice would be impermissible conduct under Title VI, because it
    would treat non-minority students more harshly based on their race, and
    if such a complaint were brought to OCR, the office would evaluate the
    allegation for investigation.
        That being said, with respect to racial discipline cases more
    broadly, we can offer the following information.
        The total number of racial discipline cases received since January
    2014 and opened for investigation: 503 (473 elementary and secondary
    and 30 postsecondary).
        The total number of racial discipline cases received since January
    2014 that has found violations: 1.
      --Still under investigation: 329
      --Early Complaint Resolution: 10
      --302 resolution agreement (pre-OCR determination): 22
      --Resolved w/OCR involvement, no agreement: 3
      --Insufficient evidence: 90
      --Administrative closure: 48
        The total number of racial discipline cases involving non-minority
    white students received since January 2014 and opened for
    investigation: 15 (14 elementary and secondary, 1 postsecondary).
        The total number of racial discipline cases involving non-minority
    white students received since January 2014 that has found a violation:
    0.
      --Still under investigation: 6
      --Early Complaint Resolution: 1
      --302 resolution agreement: 1
      --Resolved w/OCR involvement, no agreement: 1
      --Insufficient evidence: 6
            ensuring accurate reporting of student disciplinary data
        Question. Multiple Broward county media outlets have reported that
    Broward County failed to report numerous discipline actions, including
    alleged acts of trespassing, bullying, theft, battery, and bringing
    weapons to schools. The Broward County League of Cities' School and
    Community Public Safety Task Force's initial report stated, ``[w]hile
    there is certainly a defined process for discipline, it was reported
    that some individual participants in BCPS system may have a real or
    perceived incentive to underreport or not impose consequences. The Task
    Force was unanimous that such incentives need to be eliminated and
    audits need to be performed to make sure the discipline process is
    being followed with fidelity.''
        What can your Department do to ensure that school districts are
    accurately reporting these incidents to the States?
        Answer. OCR coordinates with local educational agencies (LEAs) or
    school districts, in most cases, and with State educational agencies
    (SEAs), such as in Florida's case, for the Civil Rights Data Collection
    (CRDC). OCR and responding school districts and SEAs work together to
    ensure CRDC data are an accurate and comprehensive depiction of student
    access to educational opportunities in school districts. The submission
    system includes a series of embedded edit checks to ensure significant
    data errors are corrected during the data submission process. OCR also
    ensures that data quality-checks of submitted data occur and excludes
    outlier data when appropriate. Additionally, each district or the
    submitting SEA, such as Florida, is required to certify the accuracy of
    its submission. Only a district superintendent or designee, or the SEA
    designee in Florida, may certify the CRDC submission. Ultimately, the
    quality of the CRDC data depends on accurate collection and reporting
    by the participating districts and SEAs. Additionally, with each survey
    cycle, OCR engages in continuous improvement of the data quality
    processes. New data quality checks and technical assistance materials
    are developed, particularly when new data elements are introduced.
                anonymous feedback on school discipline guidance
        Question. Has the Department considered asking school districts or
    teachers for anonymous feedback as to whether the Federal school
    discipline guidelines, or local pressures, have discouraged them from
    reporting school disciplinary actions?
        Answer. Although the Department has not solicited anonymous
    feedback, OCR has held several listening sessions with organizations
    representing school districts and educators concerning the impact of
    the Federal school discipline guidelines. Those sessions included
    discussions on the issue of whether educators have felt pressure to
    avoid reporting school disciplinary actions.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
       applying and allocating funds to serve rural schools and students
        Question. Secretary DeVos, rural schools, like many in my State,
    face unique challenges from recruiting and retaining teachers to the
    lack of access to broadband. I believe it is imperative that the
    Department support educational research to address the specific needs
    of rural schools and students. I understand the Department will re-
    compete a grant to establish an Institute of Education Sciences
    National Research and Development Center dedicated to rural education.
    How will this specific Research Center help tackle needs of rural
    schools, including severe teacher shortages? How does the Department
    consider the geographic distribution and disparities of research
    projects and funding?
        Answer. The Notice Inviting Applications for an Education Research
    and Development Center on Improving Rural Education was published in
    the Federal Register on May 21, 2018; applications are due August 9,
    2018; and the Department anticipates making an award in fiscal year
    2019. The Center will examine how to build the capacity of rural
    schools and postsecondary institutions to use high-quality, scientific
    research to improve student educational outcomes. The goals of the
    Rural Center are (1) to conduct research on a major problem or issue in
    rural education that involves local stakeholders and addresses their
    needs and (2) to develop and test a tool or method to support the
    conduct of education research in rural settings. The Department does
    not mandate specific areas of research but, instead, encourages
    applicants to identify the problem or issue they will address, based on
    locally-identified needs. Applicants must explain why the area they
    selected is significant to education policy and practice and how the
    proposed research will help rural schools and institutions of higher
    education improve student education outcomes. The applications will be
    reviewed by non-Federal peer reviewers who are knowledgeable about the
    issues to be addressed by the center.
        Other research opportunities also are available to address the
    unique needs of rural areas. Under the IES Education Research Grants
    competition for fiscal year 2019 awards, IES noted that it was
    particularly interested in understanding how technology may be used to
    expand educational opportunities in underserved areas, such as low-
    income and rural communities. The notice also identified areas where it
    felt there are critical research gaps, including issues related to
    providing educational services in rural communities.
       determining need and reaching rural students in awarding literacy
                                     grants
        Question. Madam Secretary, the Department recently awarded Striving
    Reader literacy grants to 11 States to help States create a
    comprehensive program to advance literacy skills for students from
    birth through grade 12. Please share with the Committee what the
    Department is doing to ensure these literacy grants benefit a wide
    variety of States, especially rural areas with underserved populations,
    like Mississippi. What metrics does the Department use in determining
    States with the greatest need are awarded these grants, including
    States with reading scores significantly below the national average?
        Answer. Of the 11 grantees in the 2017 Striving Readers
    Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) cohort, five explicitly discussed in
    their funded applications the unique issues that students in rural
    communities face. These five applicants received 48 percent of the
    funds available for new awards in 2017. The Department asked States to
    submit, as part of their applications, State- and local-level literacy
    plans that were informed by a comprehensive needs assessment. The local
    literacy plans were required to include evidence-based literacy
    interventions tailored to local needs and a strategy for tracking
    student outcomes over time. External peer reviewers then reviewed and
    scored each application by reviewing the contents of the proposed
    literacy plans and determining the extent to which such plans were
    relevant to the stated needs of students that would be served. Finally,
    the 2017 notice inviting applications for new SRCL awards explicitly
    stated that when awarding subgrants States must prioritize districts
    that would serve greater numbers or percentages of disadvantaged
    children, including children who are performing below grade level.
     content center priorities, training and technical assistance to serve
                               rural communities
        Question. Madam Secretary, in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018
    budget requests, the Department indicated funding for Comprehensive
    Centers would ``support a new cohort of Content Centers to be selected
    through a competitive process to reflect the changing priorities and
    new demands resulting from the reauthorization of ESEA.'' To date, the
    Department has not indicated when new Content Centers would be selected
    or which priorities within ESEA would be addressed. Should Congress
    provide funding for Comprehensive Centers in fiscal year 2019, when
    does the Department plan to release details on which issues Content
    Centers will address? Since ESSA provides greater flexibility to State
    and local schools, how does the Department plan to use Comprehensive
    Centers to provide training and technical assistance (TTA) to build
    capacity within low-performing schools? Please explain how the
    Department plans to establish a Content Center focused on assisting
    rural schools with TTA, as emphasized in the fiscal year 2017 and
    fiscal year 2018 Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Committee
    Reports.
        Answer. The Department is developing plans for a competition for
    new Comprehensive Center awards in fiscal year 2019, should Congress
    choose to fund the program, and anticipates publishing a notice of
    proposed priorities in the fall of 2018. The Department will take the
    special needs of rural areas into consideration when designing the
    competition and making awards.
         timeline and actions on promise neighborhood extension grants
        Question. Secretary DeVos, you and I have previously discussed how
    proud I am of Mississippi's two Promise Neighborhood programs in the
    Delta region. In the fiscal year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
    Congress provided detailed guidance to the Department regarding the 2-
    year extension of Promise Neighborhood grantees from the fiscal year
    2011 and fiscal year 2012 cohorts. Extended support would allow
    grantees additional time to formalize relationships for long-term
    sustainability. I appreciate the attentiveness the Department has given
    to this issue. Please provide the Committee with an update on the
    timeline and actions the Department have taken on awarding extensions
    grants.
        Answer. The Department awarded three extension grants on July 2 to
    South Bay Community Services (CA), Mission Economic Development Agency
    (CA), and Delta Health Alliance (MS). Each grantee was awarded $6
    million to be spent over 2 years.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
       preemption of state authority in student loan servicing oversight
        Question. Does the Department believe it would have benefited from
    input from affected State and local officials in developing the Notice
    of Interpretation entitled ``Federal Preemption and State Regulation of
    the Department of Education's Federal Student Loan Programs and Federal
    Student Loan Servicers,'' published in the Federal Register on March
    12, 2018, even if it does not assert that it was legally required to
    obtain such consultation?
        Answer. The Notice of Interpretation (``Notice'') reflects the
    Department's legal position regarding State regulation of Federal
    student loan servicing. The Department is open to receiving input from
    State and local officials on important issues related to the
    Department's responsibilities, including its loan servicing practices;
    however, as with litigation or other legal proceedings, the Department
    does not solicit opinions from outside the Federal Government when
    determining its own legal position. The Notice is also consistent with
    the Department's approach in previous statements where it asserted
    Federal preemption over State laws regulating Federal student loan
    servicing and the administration of Federal student loan programs. For
    example, in 1990, the Department did not seek public comment when it
    published a Notice of Interpretation that Federal law preempted State
    law regulating the conduct of certain loan collection activities by
    guaranty agencies. See 55 FR 40120. During the prior Administration,
    the Department did not seek public comment when it intervened in
    litigation and successfully asserted that Federal law preempted State
    law that was being used to regulate Federal Family Education Loan
    Program (FFELP) Loan servicing. See Chae v. SLM Corporation, 593 F.3d
    936 (9th Cir. 2010).
         disaggregated private collection agency volume and performance
        Question. The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, 2018 (Public Law 115-141) asks the Department to
    provide the performance metrics, total loan volume, and number of
    accounts broken out by servicer and for each private collection agency.
    The Department has provided total loan volume and number of accounts
    for some private collection agencies, but no performance metrics.
    Please indicate which performance metrics have been used to evaluate
    private collection agency volume and specify the performance on those
    metrics, disaggregated by each private collection agency currently
    holding Federal loan volume.
        Answer. FSA does not think that it is possible to draw a meaningful
    comparison between performances of our 11 small business private
    collection agencies (PCAs) to the PCAs with unrestricted contracts
    because the two contracts have operated during different periods of
    performance and with different contractual incentives. Historically,
    when FSA has compared the performance of its PCAs, we have compared the
    performance on groups of accounts assigned to those PCAs
    contemporaneously. This is not possible to do between two different
    contracts because FSA stopped transferring accounts to the unrestricted
    contractors at roughly the same time that we began transferring
    accounts to the small business contractors. Because it takes a minimum
    of 10 months for a borrower to rehabilitate his or her defaulted loan,
    the age of a PCA's portfolio is a critical factor in comparing
    performance; we would expect very different performance statistics for
    a cohort of borrowers a PCA has held for a year rather than for just 6
    months.
        The Small Businesses have been effective in resolving defaulted
    accounts. Since November 2015, these PCAs collected more than $585
    billion (Voluntary payments and AWG) and to date have rehabilitated
    more than 137,000 defaulted borrowers' accounts, excluding additional
    borrowers who are working to complete rehabilitation but have not yet
    completed.
        FSA does monitor prime performance in a number of ways., First,
    Quality Control (QC) is performed monthly on both complaints filed and
    calls handled by the PCAs and focuses on regulatory compliance and
    customer service. The results are shared regularly with PCAs. Secondly,
    Quality Audit Reports (QAR) is performed periodically and focuses
    primarily on the extent of a vendor's adherence to contractual
    requirements, along with applicable policies and procedures documented
    in the vendor's Quality Control Plan. Finally, Contractor Performance,
    Monitoring and Evaluation (CPME) was developed as a tool by which to
    measure success in default collections, adherence to regulatory and
    customer experience via QC of calls, and volume of complaints. The
    intent of CPME is to eventually utilize it as a tool to determine
    monthly allocation volume to all vendors based on these competitive
    results. Until CPME is utilized, monthly allocations are distributed
    solely on capacity provided by the vendors. Unfortunately, litigation
    has prevented us from previously implementing CPME.
         servicer payment reductions for borrower benefit noncompliance
        Question. In response to written questions submitted in March 2018
    by Representative Rosa L. DeLauro, you indicated that ``FSA reduced
    payments to Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation, Granite State
    Management & Resources, and Oklahoma Student Loan Authority in 2017 as
    a result of noncompliance in the application of a borrower benefit.''
    Which borrower benefit were these servicers found to be out of
    compliance with administering, and what was the total amount of the
    reduced payment for each servicer?
        Answer. FSA reduced payments to Great Lakes Higher Education
    Corporation, Granite State Management & Resources, and Oklahoma Student
    Loan Authority in 2017 as a result of noncompliance in the application
    of the 0.80 percent interest rate reductions. From October 1, 2000--
    September 30, 2001, the Department offered an up-front, permanent
    interest rate reduction of 0.80 percent to borrowers who consolidated
    their loans and made 12 consecutive on-time payments. This was a one-
    time reduction and could not be regained if the 12 consecutive on-time
    payments were not made. FSA found that some borrowers were provided
    with either a double interest rate incentive (0.80 percent X 2 = 1.6
    percent) or originally lost the 0.80 percent interest rate incentive
    but regained the incentive once the new servicer received 12 monthly
    on-time payments.
        Servicers are not entitled to payment for borrowers who are not
    being serviced in compliance with requirements. Therefore, FSA reduced
    payments to Great Lakes, Granite State, and OSLA by the amount
    previously paid by FSA for the improper servicing of affected student
    loan borrowers.
        In April 2017, FSA worked with Great Lakes, Granite State, and OSLA
    to determine how much FSA paid each servicer for the affected borrowers
    for the entire period of noncompliance. The period of noncompliance is
    from the time of the improper deduction until January 26, 2016 (for
    borrowers who received a double deduction) or until May 5, 2016 (for
    borrowers who were improperly granted the deduction). The calculated
    amounts were as follows: Great Lakes--$1,260.14; Granite State--
    $37,437.57; and OSLA--$42,549.57.
        In May 2017, FSA requested that these amounts be credited, and the
    amounts were credited on the servicers' next invoices.
                  list of routine and targeted servicer audits
        Question. Please provide a list of all routine or targeted audits
    of Direct Loan servicers conducted by FSA in the last 5 years,
    including the name of each servicer for which the audit was conducted
    and the applicable dates of the audit.
        Answer. Please refer to the three tables that follow.
                      routine and targeted servicer audits

                       internal controls on site reviews

                    tivs-nfp reviews conducted 2013-present

                 loan servicing oversight and customer service
        Question. In a March 12, 2018, notice of legal interpretation in
    the Federal Register regarding oversight of student loan servicing and
    debt collection, your Department claimed that it is providing
    ``exemplary customer service'' for borrowers. Please describe your
    agency's actions with respect to protecting Federal student loan
    borrowers that reflects this exemplary customer service.
        Answer. The Department monitors servicer compliance with the
    Department's contracts, which include requirements related to customer
    service. These oversight efforts include, but are not limited to, call
    monitoring, process monitoring, and servicer auditing, conducted both
    remotely and on-site by FSA. FSA has dedicated staff with the
    responsibility to ensure that servicers are adhering to regulatory and
    contractual requirements for servicing loans. For example, FSA reviews
    interactions between servicers and borrowers and compares the
    servicers' performance against a detailed Department checklist. FSA
    provides its performance evaluations to servicers through written
    reports and meetings and requires servicers to alter their practices
    when needed to correct deficiencies. FSA also maintains direct access
    to servicer systems and therefore can review individual borrower
    accounts to evaluate the servicers' treatment of those accounts against
    regulatory and contractual requirements.
        The Department's procurement and contracting requirements provide
    incentives for improved customer service by allocating more loans to
    servicers that meet performance metrics, such as high levels of
    customer satisfaction and by paying servicers higher rates for loans
    that are in a non-delinquent status, including those enrolled in an
    income-driven repayment plan. Poor-performing servicers lose loans in
    their portfolio to better-performing servicers.
        FSA maintains a Feedback System, which includes a formal process
    for borrowers to report issues or file complaints about their loan
    experiences, including problems with servicing. Borrowers may also
    elevate complaints to the FSA Ombudsman Group--a neutral and
    confidential resource available to borrowers to resolve disputes
    related to their loans.
                  controls on abuses in direct loan servicing
        Question. There are countless examples of abuse in the student loan
    industry--from servicers to debt collectors--including borrowers being
    driven into forbearance where they face billions of dollars in
    unnecessary interest; being given bad advice about forgiveness options;
    disabled veterans erroneously reported in default; and servicers
    routinely miscalculating and misapplying payments. What are specific
    examples of when the Department has taken action to stop Direct Loan
    servicers from abusing student loan borrowers?
        Answer. When the Department becomes aware of errors in servicing
    with a borrower's account, we work directly with the servicer to
    remediate the account. In the instances of more egregious errors, such
    as regulatory or contractual violations, the Department's procurement
    and contracting office will review and determine where/when to impose
    warranted fees and/or penalties.
             basis for initiation of enhanced servicing at 90 days
        Question. In a memorandum dated May 3, 2018, the Department stated
    that ``FSA's new vision [for debt collection] is for an enhanced
    servicer(s) to provide services to borrowers beginning ninety (90) days
    after a borrower account becomes delinquent and continue those services
    through the resolution of any subsequent default.'' What evidence
    supports the Departments choice of 90 day as an inflection point for
    borrower success?
        Answer. Based on market research, FSA has determined that we must
    engage at-risk borrowers with more intensive outreach much earlier in
    the process. Consequently, FSA intends to expand its focus to include
    default prevention efforts 91 days after the date of delinquency.
        benefit of enhanced servicing versus private collection agencies
        Question. In the May 3, 2018 memorandum on debt collection, the
    Department noted that ``FSA's need for Private Collection Agency (PCA)
    services as a function separate from the work provided by the enhanced
    servicer(s) will diminish rapidly in the coming months and ultimately
    become nonexistent . . . FSA Business Operations has identified
    significant benefits to the Government and to borrowers from this new
    approach.'' Please identify the specific benefits to borrowers,
    including any cost savings for the borrower.
        Answer. We expected that the enhanced services provided to
    borrowers beginning at 91 days after the date of delinquency should
    reduce defaults, allowing for borrowers to avoid negative credit
    reporting and the increased loan burden that comes with collection fees
    assessed at the time a student loan defaults. Additionally, focusing on
    default prevention means expanded options for distressed borrowers,
    including various repayment plans, deferments, and forbearance, most of
    which are not available once the loan is in default.
                  costs of private collection agency phase-out
        Question. Would the Department's plan to phase out the use of
    private collection agencies potentially involve any increase in
    collection costs for borrowers, including but not limited to shifting
    costs onto borrowers that are current provided through mandatory fees
    the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1982 (DCIA) through contingent
    fee contracts? If so, please describe these potential costs in detail.
        Answer. No. FSA's plan will not increase collection costs for
    borrowers.
         consumer protection standards for servicing contract selection
        Question. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)
    requires the Department to ensure that contractors selected for
    participation in the FSA Next Generation Processing and Servicing
    Environment have a ``history of compliance with applicable consumer
    protections laws.'' Please describe the consumer protection laws upon
    which the Department will evaluate such history of compliance, and how
    previous audits and reviews of compliance with the Department's own
    contract requirements and standards will be used in this process.
        Answer. Because the Next Generation Financial Services Environment
    acquisition is currently an active procurement, there are legal
    restrictions on the information that FSA can share publicly regarding
    the selection process. Information regarding the internal evaluation
    process is source selection information subject to the restrictions on
    disclosure of the Procurement Integrity Act. The Phase One solicitation
    includes past performance as one of the selection factors.
         student loan record data sharing with law enforcement agencies
        Question. In a document published on the Federal Register on June
    13, 2018, regarding the Privacy Act provisions for the Customer
    Engagement Management System (Docket ID ED-2018-FSA-0053) the
    Department indicates that it is ``removing former routine use (2)
    entitled ``Disclosure for Use by Other Law Enforcement Agencies''
    because the Department no longer intends to disclose any records under
    this routine use.'' The effect of this change will be to deny access to
    student loan information that supports a legitimate law enforcement
    interest by a State, local, tribal, or other Federal agency charged
    with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting violations or
    potential violations of any applicable statute, regulation, or order of
    a competent authority. Please provide a detailed justification for why
    would the Department take action to remove the sharing of student loan
    record data with law enforcement agencies, including how this action
    protects and supports student loan borrowers.
        Answer. The Department is not changing policies regarding the
    sharing of data from the Customer Engagement Management System (CEMS).
    The Department is in the process of modernizing the application system
    for Federal student loan borrowers who wish to apply for relief under
    the Borrower Defense to Repayment (BD) provisions. In doing so, the
    Department is moving the BD system to CEMS. As a result, the CEMS SORN
    needed to be updated to reflect routine uses associated with processing
    Borrower Defense claims.
        The SORN update, and specifically the removal of the law
    enforcement routine use, does not indicate a policy change. The
    Department can and will continue to share information for law
    enforcement purposes pursuant to 5 USC Sec. 552a(b)(7) and the routine
    use governing ``enforcement disclosure.'' We are removing this routine
    use as it is redundant. The Department will continue to share data from
    CEMS with the FTC, DOJ, and other appropriate law enforcement agencies.
            hold on exploring additional borrower defense categories
        Question. The Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG)
    released a report on December 8, 2017, titled ``Federal Student Aid's
    Borrower Defense to Repayment Loan Discharge Process'' which notes, on
    page 16, that further research into additional categories of borrower
    defense claims was ``placed on hold'' during the current
    Administration. Who placed this research on hold and why?
        Answer. As previously announced, the Department put a hold on
    certain borrower defense evaluation activities in order to conduct a
    comprehensive review of the program. This review was done by high-level
    career and political leaders. One of the recommendations based on the
    review was a request that the Inspector General review the overall BD
    adjudication process.
        The IG review focused initially on the over 16,000 claims that had
    been approved in the previous Administration but not yet discharged.
    Given the significant fiscal implications of full discharge of these
    claims and because there were numerous complexities involved with many
    of the claims, the Department focused on those claims first to ensure a
    smooth discharge process for those borrowers.
        Once the processes to discharge those loans were finalized,
    Department leadership decided to prioritize updating its relief
    methodology and assessing the large number of existing Corinthian
    claims not yet adjudicated, including how to handle large numbers of
    claims that the previous Administration had flagged for denial but had
    not developed any processes or procedures to effectuate.
                         borrower defense and itt tech
        Question. According to the OIG report on borrower defense, one
    category of evidence for borrower defense claims relates to ITT
    Education Services, Inc. (``ITT Tech'') misrepresentations of
    guaranteed employment. Has the Department provided borrower defense
    discharges from former ITT Tech students due to guaranteed employment
    misrepresentations or any other category of evidence since January 20,
    2017? Furthermore, has the Department made any additional findings or
    documented any additional evidence or findings that could support
    borrower defense claims from former ITT Tech students since January 20,
    2017? If not, why not?
        Answer. No. The Department continues to review borrower defense
    applications related to various institutions, including ITT Tech. As
    part of this review, the Department is considering whether the
    allegations in the claim would give rise to a cause of action under
    applicable State law. The Department is working to evaluate the merits
    of these claims including applicable evidence related to an
    institution's alleged wrongdoing.
        Regarding additional findings, no. The Department put a hold on
    Borrower Defense (BD) claim processing during the change of
    Administration while it requested that the Inspector General review the
    overall BD adjudication process and the new Administration reviewed BD
    policies.
              digitizing public service loan forgiveness paperwork
        Question. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act calls on Federal
    agencies to increase their use of electronic forms, electronic filing,
    and electronic signatures. Although it is positive that borrowers can
    digitally upload many forms and documents on the web with their
    servicers, Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) forms have not been
    significantly digitized. What is the status of the Department's effort
    to implement a fully digital signing and uploading process for all PSLF
    forms and allow borrowers with any servicer to utilize such process,
    consistent with bipartisan requests from Congress?
        Answer. FSA is currently in the process of creating and
    implementing a PSLF online assistance tool that will allow borrowers to
    submit Employment Certification Forms (ECF) and PSLF applications
    online. The tool will assist borrowers with a better understanding the
    PSLF program, knowing when they should provide the ECF or PSLF
    application and assist borrowers to understand what payment plans are
    eligible for PSLF. The tool will use NSLDS data to provide borrower
    specific information and help to pre-fill forms being submitted.
    Borrowers with loans that do not qualify for PSLF will be advised on
    how they can begin a consolidation application and complete that form
    on the same online site. FSA anticipates the tool to be in place by the
    end of 2018.
                         pslf employment certification
        Question. Has the Department considered improvements to make the
    employment certification process more efficient, including logging
    known employers for PSLF in a centralized database, or entering into a
    data match with the Office of Personnel Management to eliminate the
    need of Federal employees to certify Federal employment for the
    purposes of PSLF? If not, why not?
        Answer. FSA is currently in the process of creating and
    implementing a PSLF online assistance tool that will allow borrowers to
    submit Employment Certification Forms (ECF) and PSLF applications
    online. FSA envisions future enhancements to this tool that will
    maintain a database of qualified PSLF employers and allow integration
    of that database with the PSLF forms simplifying the process for form
    completion. Integration with various sources to populate and update the
    employer information is being evaluated and will be implemented to the
    extent feasible. The implementation of this employer database feature
    is expected to be in place in 2019.
                 borrower defense and court reporting institute
        Question. In a January 17, 2018, response letter to me from James
    Manning, Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of
    the Under Secretary, regarding the status of borrower defense
    discharges for victims of the Court Reporting Institute (CRI), I was
    told that the agency could not provide ``an exact timetable for when
    the Department will reach a decision regarding the specific BD claims''
    but that the Department was ``working tirelessly to reduce the number
    of pending claims.'' It has been more than a year and a half (18
    months) since I asked the Department to provide debt relief to at least
    335 student loan borrowers from Washington who were subject to fraud
    and abuse by CRI, as detailed in a November 21, 2016, letter from
    Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson to the Department. CRI
    induced students to enroll and finance their educations with
    extraordinary levels of debt by systematically misrepresenting its
    educational practices, instructor qualifications, graduation rates, and
    employment prospects.
        Has this Administration reviewed the evidence provided in the
    November 21, 2016, letter from Washington State Attorney General Bob
    Ferguson to the Department regarding CRI's misrepresentations that give
    rise to State law causes of action under Washington's Consumer
    Protection Act, RCW 19.86, and common law fraud?
        When will the Department answer my requests, the requests of
    Washington State Attorney General Ferguson, and the pleas of hundreds
    of former CRI students that were cheated and deserve student loan debt
    relief?
        Answer. While we cannot comment on internal or deliberative
    discussions, we assure you that the Department is working tirelessly to
    reduce the number of pending claims.
               loan discharge for total and permanent disability
        Question. Is the Department aware of any single example of State
    tax liability for veterans receiving a total and permanent disability
    (TPD) discharge of their Federal student loans?
        Answer. No. The Department has not reviewed each State's tax laws
    on this point. The Department does not have expertise on the various
    State tax laws and does not want inadvertently to provide inaccurate
    tax advice to our borrowers; however, servicer correspondence and
    websites encourage borrowers to contact a tax professional.
              automating loan-related processes for servicemembers
        Question. Senate Report 115-150 accompanying the 2018
    appropriations bill notes that under the ``Higher Education Relief
    Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, servicemembers enrolled in
    income-driven repayment programs are eligible for a waiver from annual
    recertification obligations of their income [and] servicemembers with
    Federal Perkins Loans are also eligible for a cancellation of a
    percentage of their debt, based on qualifying years of military
    service, in accordance with Section 465 of the Higher Education
    Opportunity Act of 2008.'' I have not received the information required
    by the explanatory statement on either of these provisions. Please
    describe the Department's plans to automate the application of both of
    these benefits for our Nation's service members.
        Answer. The Department is currently pursuing a data matching
    agreement with the Department of Defense (DoD). This arrangement will
    commence with a ``no-interest accrual'' benefit. The agreement will
    then expand to include additional facets of data matching for borrowers
    who are service members.
        While we move toward automation, there will be some instances, such
    as with the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES)
    Act, where waivers for service members that are required as part of the
    Act would create a disproportionate hardship to the borrower. As the
    borrower (i.e., the service member) would self-determine their income
    information for their IDR application, this self-determination could
    prevent the ability for total automation.
             restorations to pell eligibility due to school closure
        Question. Please provide an update on Pell Grant Lifetime
    Eligibility Used (LEU) restored due to school closure, according to the
    Department's April 3, 2017, notice, Guidance on COD Processing of Pell
    Grant Restoration for Students who Attended Closed Schools, including
    total number of unduplicated students receiving restoration of Pell
    LEU, total number of institutions which those students attended, and
    total number of semesters restored.
        Answer. Pell Closed School Restoration as of June 27, 2018:
      --Unduplicated Student Count: 309,497
      --Closed School Count w/Restorations: 984
      --Estimate of Equivalent Semesters: 489,436
           commitment to expanding ccampis to reduce childcare costs
        Question. Given the 233 percent increase in funding, will you
    commit to substantially expanding the overall number of CCAMPIS
    beneficiaries by a similar level, and, if so, how will the Department
    ensure that low-income students are prioritized in new CCAMPIS awards
    in a manner that reduces their childcare costs--and that does not
    supplant existing childcare funding provided by institutions?
        Answer. The Department anticipates an increase in the number of
    grantees commensurate with the funding increase. In determining the
    final number of awards to make in fiscal year 2018, the Department will
    also take into account such factors as the number and quality of
    applicants and the likelihood of the current funding level being
    retained in future years.
        state authorization for distance education and foreign locations
        Question. Why does the Department believe the entire rule governing
    State authorization for distance education and foreign locations should
    be delayed if concerns have only been raised with select parts of the
    rule? For example, the Department did not cite any concerns about the
    State authorization component for foreign locations of American
    colleges.
        Answer. The Department did not delay the entire rule. The component
    regarding State authorization of foreign locations of domestic
    institutions (34 CFR 600.9(d)) was not delayed and went into effect
    July 1, 2018.
               comment period on delayed state authorization rule
        Question. Why did the Department wait so many months to publish a
    notice of delay regarding State authorization for distance education
    and foreign locations when it had more than a year to consider the
    rule's implementation, and then provide only a 15 day comment period?
        Answer. The Department received 2 letters from representatives of
    regulated parties in February 2018. These letters made us realize that
    the extent to which clarifications to the 2016 rule were needed to
    implement the 2016 rule were more substantive than we initially
    thought. We further believed that the needed clarifications were so
    substantive that a delay in the effective date would be required to
    review and possibly revise the regulations. We do not believe that
    guidance would be the appropriate vehicle to provide needed
    clarifications. Finally, due to the complexity of the issues and the
    substantive nature of the necessary clarifications, we believed that,
    to develop workable solutions, it would be important to conduct
    negotiated rulemaking under the Higher Education Act in order to
    solicit the input of stakeholders who have been engaged in meeting
    these requirements.
        Regarding the 15-day comment period, this was necessary because,
    given that the 2016 rule was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2018,
    a final rule delaying the effective date needed to be published prior
    to that date. A longer comment period would not have allowed sufficient
    time for the Department to review and respond to comments and publish a
    final rule.
     deferment applications and grants under hbcu capital financing program
        Question. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)
    provided $10 million to allow multiple financially struggling HBCUs to
    apply for the deferment of HBCU capital finance loans. Applications for
    those deferments were due on June 8, 2018.
        a. Does the Department expect to be able to provide eligible
    institutions with deferments by the end of the academic fiscal year,
    which is June 30, 2018?
        b. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)
    specifically mentioned that the authority for loan deferment would be
    made to eligible institutions (plural). Does the Department expect to
    provide all institutions that meet the qualifications named in law to
    all receive support from the deferment authority? If not, why not?
        c. Please provide the number of institutions that applied for a
    deferment, the number of institutions that meet all the qualifications
    for a deferment as named in law, and the number of institutions the
    Department expects to grant a loan deferment.
        d. Does the Department plan to proactively notify the accrediting
    agency of an approved institution under the new deferment authority?
        Answer. a. We notified successful institutions prior to June 30,
    2018. The paperwork will extend past that date.
        b. The deferment requests exceeded $10 million per year, so not all
    institutions were successful.
        c. We received 15 applications. Of those, 13 were eligible. Eight
    institutions were notified that they would receive deferments.
        d. We notified each successful applicant of its deferment pending
    completion of revised loan agreements. Each institution may share its
    notification with any other party.
         credit for hbcu payments made prior to 2018 appropriation for
                         modification and consolidation
        Question. Separately, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018
    (P.L. 115-141) provided $20,150,000 to cover the cost of HBCU Capital
    Financing Program loans, which includes the cost of modifying such
    loans. Some institutions are in need of relief from their loan, and
    some are institutions that have already made their second biannual
    Capital Finance Program loan payment for fiscal year 2018. In some
    cases, the payments were made after the provisions authorizing
    deferment and modification were signed into law. Institutions made the
    responsible choice to remain current on their loan payments, but in
    doing so placed the entire institution in a poorer fiscal position.
        a. Does the Department plan to credit back all or some portion of a
    school's fiscal year 2018 payment? If not, why not?
        b. If the Department plans to credit back some or all of a school's
    fiscal year 2018 payment, does the Department plan to assist
    institutions in accounting for a modification in their end of year
    audit?
        c. If the Department plans to credit back some or all of a school's
    fiscal year 2018 payment, does the Department plan to proactively
    notify the accrediting agency of that institution's institution pending
    credit to a school's account?
        Answer. a. The deferments are provided on a fiscal year basis, so
    past payments for fiscal year 2018 will be credited.
        b. We are pleased to provide technical assistance within our
    authority. Institutions are responsible for their own financial
    reporting.
        c. Each institution may share its situation with any other party.
                        hbcu capital financing outreach
        Question. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)
    also directed the Department to create and execute an outreach plan to
    work with States and the Capital Financing Advisory Board to improve
    outreach to States and help additional public HBCUs participate in the
    program. What is the status and timeline of the creation and execution
    of that outreach plan? Please share details on the key activities that
    will be undertaken under the plan.
        Answer. We are making progress in developing such a plan and have
    so shared with GAO.
                               acics outcome data
        Question. Please provide an updated ACICS outcomes data file as of
    April 2, 2018, (prior to when the Secretary restored ACICS'
    recognition) and June 12, 2018, that shows for all ACICS-accredited
    colleges:
        a. the date of a school's site visit, if any
        b. the date that a school's application to a prospective accreditor
    was denied, if applicable
        c. the date that a school's application to a prospective accreditor
    was withdrawn, if applicable
        d. Compliance status of each institution with the terms of the
    Program Participation Agreement (PPA) in control as of April 2, 2018
        e. Status of any colleges deemed non-compliant with their PPA
    terms, including provisions are they non-compliant with and
    corresponding consequences
        f. For any closed or announced to be closed institutions,
    information on the schools' plan for closing and teach-out agreements
        g. A summary of any revisions to the PPA made for each school after
    August 30, 2017.
        h. A list of colleges that were determined subject to the June 12,
    2018, deadline at the time of the Secretary's April 3rd decision to
    restore ACICS as a federally recognized agency and any updates in
    accredited status since then.
        i. The status and applicability of the June 12, 2018, deadline for
    each school to find a new accreditor.
        Answer. Please refer to the following attachments for responses to
    parts a-i of this question.

        a. Column L of attachment #1 provides the date of the institution's
    site visit by a prospective accreditor (as applicable) as of April 2,
    2018. Column L of attachment #2 provides the date of the institution's
    site visit by a prospective accreditor (as applicable) as of June 12,
    2018.
        b. Column J of attachment #1 provides the date of the institution's
    application to a prospective accreditor was denied (as applicable) as
    of April 2, 2018. Column J of attachment #2 provides the date the
    institution's application to a prospective accreditor was denied (as
    applicable) as of June 12, 2018.
        c. Column K of attachment #1 provides the date of the institution's
    application to a prospective accreditor was denied (as applicable) as
    of April 2, 2018. Column K of attachment #2 provides the date the
    institution's application to a prospective accreditor was denied (as
    applicable) as of June 12, 2018.
        d. Column G of attachment #1 provides the PPPA compliance status of
    each of the 269 institutions originally impacted by the December 2016
    decision to rescind ACICS's status as a federally recognized accreditor
    as of April 2, 2018
        e. Attachment #3 provides the status of the 17 institutions deemed
    to be out of compliance with the then-current PPA terms and conditions
    as of April 2, 2018, and their accreditation and eligibility status as
    of June 13, 2018. Attachment #4 is the original PPPA addendum which
    outlines the original terms and conditions governing participation
    while Attachment #5 contains the August 2017 letter modifying select
    terms and conditions of the December 2016 PPPA addendum. Taken
    together, these better explain the triggered conditions for each of the
    institutions deemed non-compliant as of April 2, 2018.
        f. As noted in attachment #4, condition 6, entitled, Teach Out
    Plans, instructed all institutions to submit a teach-out plan to the
    Department within 30 calendar days of the Secretary's final decision
    withdrawing recognition of the Institution's accrediting agency.
    Extensions could be granted by the Secretary, in the Secretary's sole
    discretion, for good cause shown. That said, the Department has teach-
    out plans on file for nearly all participating institutions that signed
    their PPPA in December 2016. We will ask for clarification from the
    Senator's staff on which plans she may like to receive and we will
    provide them to her electronically.
        g. Attachment #4 is the original PPPA addendum which outlines the
    original terms and conditions governing participation while attachment
    #5 contains the August 2017 letter modifying select terms and
    conditions of the December 2016 PPPA addendum. Attachment #6 is
    correspondence which describes the March 2018 United States District
    Court for the District of Columbia's Memorandum Opinion in Accrediting
    Council for Independent Colleges and Schools v. DeVos; its impact on
    the recognition petition that ACICS submitted to the Department in
    January 2016; and the disposition of the Addendum Conditions governing
    the participation of institutions.
        h. The 122 institutions with a coded status of ``Compliant with
    PPPA terms,'' ``Non-Compliant with PPPA terms'' or ``Intending to
    Close'' in column ```G'' Current Status of the attachment #1 serves as
    comprehensive listing of institutions which were subject to the June
    12, 2018, deadline as of April 2, 2018.
        i. Attachment #2 provides the status of each of the 269
    institutions originally impacted by the December 2016 decision as of
    June 12, 2018. The June 12, 2018, deadline required all institutions
    listed to be accredited (or, if applicable, pre-accredited) by a
    recognized accreditor as of that date.
                    evidence considered in acics recognition
        Question. You've indicated in response to other questions for the
    record from Representative Rosa L. DeLauro that the Department ``will
    not consider the application for initial recognition filed by ACICS as
    part of its review of the 2016 final agency decision, including
    evidence submitted as part of that application.'' Can you please
    clarify:
        a. What is the legal authority that allows the Department of
    Education to not consider this additional evidence without making the
    decision subject to being arbitrary and capricious?
        b. If ACICS submits any evidence or documents that are the same as
    ones submitted for the draft staff analysis, will the Department
    consider the staff's analysis of those exhibits?
        c. Will the Department of Education be consulting career staff at
    all around the forthcoming decision with ACICS?
        Answer. a. An agency that is already recognized need not submit an
    application for initial recognition, so the application for initial
    recognition submitted by ACICS in 2017 was withdrawn when the agency's
    recognition status was restored pending the review of the Part II
    submission.
        It would be inappropriate to consider a staff analysis that is no
    more than an incomplete draft, that consequently does not incorporate
    corrections to possible errors of fact from the Agency, and that uses a
    methodology that applies to petitions for initial recognition and not
    petitions for continued recognition. Under the ``focused review''
    methodology developed by the prior Administration, petitions for
    continued recognition can include attestations rather than narrative
    and documentation for certain criteria for recognition, unlike
    petitions for initial recognition. In addition, the Department has
    always required full compliance of agencies seeking initial
    recognition, whereas agencies seeking continued recognition may be
    given up to 12 months to rectify areas of non-compliance. As a result
    of these factors, it would be inappropriate to use the staff analysis
    of the petition for initial recognition for the purpose of considering
    ACICS' petition for continued recognition. In addition, because that
    petition was withdrawn before ACICS had the chance to respond to the
    draft staff analysis, the draft staff analysis potentially contains
    errors and an incomplete understanding of certain recognition criteria
    that the agency would typically be permitted to correct and clarify in
    its response to the draft staff analysis. The full and final staff
    analysis of the petition for initial recognition was never completed.
        In addition, because the 2016 decision was based on a specific set
    of negative findings, our current review is limited to those findings.
    Our responsibility is to review the Part II submission and consider it
    in determining whether or not ACICS had sufficiently addressed the
    deficiencies noted in 2016. Because so much time has passed since the
    2016 decision, ACICS was permitted to submit additional evidence to
    show its more recent performance in areas relevant to the 2016 negative
    findings. As a result, although we will not consider the application
    for initial recognition in our review of evidence regarding the 2016
    findings, it is likely that at least a portion of the additional
    evidence provided by ACICS in response to the 2016 findings may include
    evidence that was also provided in the agency's petition for initial
    recognition in 2017.
        b. As stated above, the draft staff analysis performed for a
    petition of initial recognition is very different from the analysis
    performed for a petition of continuing recognition. Therefore, the
    Department will not consider the draft staffs analysis, which was not
    final and which adhered to the ``full compliance'' standard required
    for petitions for initial recognition.
        c. No. The final decision on remand remains with the Secretary, who
    will consider the response submitted by ACICS on May 30, 2018, and the
    response of the Senior Department Official to be submitted on July 30,
    2018.
         title iv eligibility for schools no longer accredited by acics
        Question. There are currently 18 colleges that are no longer
    accredited by ACICS. They either voluntarily withdrew their
    accreditation or had their accreditation revoked or expired. Therefore,
    despite the Secretary's restoration of ACICS as a federally-recognized
    accrediting agency, these 18 colleges are still without accreditation
    and should not receive access to Title IV aid. The 18 colleges are:
    Ambria College of Nursing (IL), Camelot College (LA), Colegio
    Technologico y Comercial de Puerto Rico (PR), Detroit Business
    Institute--Downriver (MI), Dewey University (PR), Global Health College
    (VA), Key College (FL), MDT College of Health Sciences (OH), Northwest
    Suburban College (IL), Pacific Institute of Technology (GA), Pacific
    States University (CA), Pioneer Pacific College (OR), PPG Technical
    College (PR), SAE Institute of Technology--New York (NY), Seattle Film
    Institute (WA), South Coast College (CA), Southern California Health
    Institute (CA), and The Recording Conservatory of Austin (TX). Can you
    confirm the Title IV eligibility status for those 18 colleges?
        Answer. Please see the attached Excel file for current eligibility
    status. Note that pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1099c(h)(2), ``[W]henever
    the Secretary withdraws the recognition of any accrediting agency, an
    institution of higher education which meets the requirements of
    accreditation, eligibility, and certification of the day prior to such
    withdrawal, the Secretary may, notwithstanding the withdrawal, continue
    the eligibility of the institution to participate in the programs
    authorized by this title for a period not to exceed 18 months from the
    date of the withdrawal of recognition.'' Under this provision, the
    Secretary is authorized to permit institutions to participate in Title
    IV, without recognized accreditation, for a period of 18 months
    following a Departmental decision to withdraw those institutions'
    accrediting agency's recognition. The Secretary exercised that
    authority in this case with respect to ACICS-accredited institutions,
    and the 18 month period did not expire until June 12, 2018.
        [The information follows:]

        list of adverse actions taken against title iv and hea program
                                  participants
        Question. Please provide a list of all recertification denials,
    emergency actions, fine actions, suspension actions, termination
    actions, or limitation actions taken, released, or initiated by ED
    since January 20, 2017, relating to any participant in the Title IV,
    HEA programs (including, without limitation, institutions of higher
    education, loan servicers, and other third-party servicers).
        Answer. The list of adverse actions is attached.
        [The information follows:]

        proposed funding, staffing and investigation workload in fsa's
                                enforcement unit
        Question. The Office of Inspector General in its most recent
    management challenges report stated that ``The Department must provide
    effective oversight and monitoring of participants in the SFA programs
    under the HEA to ensure that the programs are not subject to fraud,
    waste, abuse, and mismanagement.'' During the hearing, you stated that
    ``the enforcement unit, part of Federal student aid, is very robust and
    functioning very well.'' Please provide the funding level, number of
    unduplicated full time equivalent staff, disaggregated by each of the
    four staff groups, and managerial and non-managerial employees, for the
    current fiscal year and the budget request. Additionally, please
    indicate the number of unduplicated, non-managerial employees of the
    Investigations Group who have been assigned to primarily conduct
    investigations work.
        Answer. For fiscal year 2018 and the fiscal year 2019 request, the
    budget for the Enforcement Unit is approximately $7.3 million, which
    includes personnel compensation and benefits, travel, and operational
    funds. In terms of staff disaggregated by group, please see the
    attachment.
        [The information follows:]

           compliance with gainful employment disclosure requirements
        Question. What actions is the Department taking to ensure that
    Gainful Employment disclosures required by the regulations are being
    appropriately posted and are current for each program?
        Answer. As part of its oversight authority, Federal Student Aid
    manages various actions such as program reviews, recertification, new
    program and new location additions, and annual audits to determine
    whether Title IV participating schools are meeting the requirements for
    institutional eligibility, financial responsibility, and administrative
    capability. The gainful employment disclosure templates are checked as
    part of these other actions.
                transparency and documentation for essa waivers
        Question. To date, you have approved 41 waivers of the Every
    Student Succeed Act (ESSA) with very little transparency to members of
    Congress or the public. Will you commit to posting not only the final
    letters approving or denying waivers of the law, but also the initial
    waiver request from States (or school districts as applicable), any
    supporting documentation required by statute in order to request a
    waiver, and if any waiver requests or waivers granted are amended, the
    amendment requests and approvals. If not, why not?
        Answer. States waiver requests are publicly available through the
    State in accordance with section 8401 of the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. States are
    required to provide the public, and any interested local educational
    agencies within the State, with notice and a reasonable opportunity to
    comment in a manner the agency customarily provides such notice. States
    are also required to submit any such comments and input as part of its
    waiver request to the Department, including a description of how the
    State addressed the comments and input. In practice this occurs through
    the posting of such waiver requests on States websites. In accordance
    with long standing historical procedures the Department will continue
    to post final approval and denial of such waivers.
                    bipartisan essa implementation briefings
        Question. Both Ranking Member Bobby Scott and I have requested
    numerous times that your staff conduct regular bipartisan
    implementation briefings on ESSA implementation as the Obama
    Administration did on a routine basis in 2016. Yet to date, you and
    your staff have failed to hold these regular briefings. Will you commit
    to beginning these bipartisan briefings on a biweekly basis and if not,
    why not?
        Answer. We appreciate the significant interest from our committees
    of jurisdiction in the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
    Act. The Office for Legislation and Congressional Affairs (OLCA) will
    continue to be responsive to all committee inquiries in a timely
    fashion and proactively convene bipartisan calls and meetings as
    necessary to ensure questions related to implementation are addressed.
    We believe this longstanding practice is the most responsive and
    efficient method in responding to inquiries and keeping Congress
    informed of activities. We look forward to continuing to work with
    Congress to ensure the successful implementation of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act.
             monitoring protocols and title i compliance under essa
        Question. Please provide an update on the development of the
    Department's monitoring protocols for ESSA, particularly for Title I of
    the law, and the Department's monitoring plans for ensuring State and
    school district compliance of Title I requirements.
        Answer. The Office of State Support (OSS) administers programs of
    financial assistance to State and local educational agencies, including
    Title I, Part A; Title II, Part A; and Title III, Part A of Elementary
    and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. OSS is organized
    specifically to provide high quality performance management and support
    to SEAs in administering and leveraging grant programs, focusing on SEA
    quality of implementation while continually reducing the burden of the
    Department's necessary stewardship and compliance responsibilities. The
    overall monitoring framework, referred to as the performance review
    system, ensures that grantees meet performance standards and grant
    requirements, identifies potential areas of concern through
    implementation of an annual risk assessment, documents and closes out
    instances of noncompliance through written correspondence with
    grantees, and regularly evaluates and updates the efficiency and
    effectiveness of monitoring practices, procedures, and controls. The
    system includes quarterly Progress Check conference calls to discuss
    implementation and transition issues related to OSS administered
    programs, along with regular desk and on-site monitoring of fiscal and
    administrative requirements.
        Since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), OSS is
    focused on monitoring the implementation of Title I, Part A; Title II,
    Part A; Title III, Part A; and School Improvement Grant programs to
    ensure SEA administration is consistent with the fiscal and
    administrative requirements contained in the Uniform Administrative
    Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements, 2 CFR Part 200,
    and the Education Department General Administrative Requirements
    (EDGAR). OSS focused on those fiscal requirements applicable to the
    covered programs under both the ESEA, as amended by NCLB and the ESEA,
    as amended by the ESSA. As a result, OSS developed its protocols in
    sections--piloting new sections each year, revising them after
    receiving State and OSS staff feedback, and then submitting the
    protocols for public comment through the Paperwork Reduction Act
    process.
        In fiscal year 2016 and 2017, OSS piloted a fiscal review protocol,
    which was finalized in 2018; the protocol is available for comment in
    the Federal Register. In fiscal year 2017, OSS added a data integrity
    protocol section that covers State internal controls related to data
    quality and reporting, and in fiscal year 2018, OSS is piloting an
    accountability section that assesses the fidelity of State
    accountability system implementation. As a result, fiscal year 2018
    performance reviews for selected States cover:
      --Fiscal requirements contained in Uniform Guidance, EDGAR, and ESEA,
            as amended by NCLB, where applicable, and ESSA (piloted in
            fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016)
      --Data Reporting and Quality requirements (for continued pilot)
      --Accountability requirements (for initial pilot)
        Throughout the ESSA transition, OSS has also tracked, compiled, and
    assessed performance of State administration of OSS formula programs
    based on data collected through the annual Consolidated State
    Performance Report. This process includes regular data definition
    reviews, data quality checks, and publication of demographic and
    performance data submitted by States via EDFacts. OSS has also
    continued to conduct quarterly progress checks with each State, which
    helps us understand implementation successes and challenges and informs
    our technical assistance plans. OSS recently shared an updated progress
    check protocol for public comment, adopting to improve the quality and
    utility of information collected during quarterly progress checks.
        compliance with evidence standards for school improvement funds
        Question. Please provide an update on the Department's effort to
    ensure compliance with the evidence-based requirements in section
    1111(d)(1)(B)(ii), 1111(d)(2)(B)(ii), namely how the Department will
    ensure that school districts and States are ensuring that the
    interventions provided in comprehensive support and improvement schools
    and targeted support and improvement schools are evidence-based.
        Answer. Our Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
    annually monitors a select number of State educational agencies to
    ensure they meet the ESEA requirements. As part of the monitoring
    process, OESE meets with two local educational agencies to examine the
    supports and guidance they are receiving from the State. A key focus of
    monitoring for 2019 will be the support and oversight that each State
    provides for its local educational agencies with schools identified for
    comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. In preparation for
    this effort, OESE is piloting a monitoring protocol in 2018 that
    includes questions on local school improvement plans and the
    implementation of school improvement requirements under section
    1003(a).
                   rationale for requested cut to impact aid
        Question. Your budget proposed cutting more than $500 million from
    Impact Aid Basic Support Payments that fund 1,000 school districts
    serving military families, Native American students, and other
    federally-connected children. This program is critical for school
    districts like Central Kitsap School District in my home State of
    Washington, where educating a high-percentage of military-connected
    children makes it difficult to raise local tax revenue. Fortunately,
    our budget agreement allowed you to restore these critical funds.
    Please explain your rationale for these cuts, given the historic
    Federal role in supporting school districts that educate federally-
    connected children. How would you explain to communities like those
    served by Central Kitsap School District, where so many families are
    valiantly serving their country, why you want to cut funding for a
    program that offsets the revenue challenges they face through no fault
    of their own?
        Answer. As acknowledged in your question, our initial request for
    Impact Aid Basic Support Payments was developed prior to the completion
    of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2018 (BBA), and reflected the
    tough decisions required to meet the President's overall goal of
    increasing support for national security and public safety without
    adding to the Federal budget deficit under the spending caps in effect
    prior to the BBA. We were pleased to be able to restore this funding,
    and we understand how important it is for districts that participate in
    the program.
      needs assessments for student support and academic enrichment grants
        Question. In fiscal year 2018, Congress appropriated $1.1 billion
    for the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants program under
    Title IV-A of the Every Student Succeeds Act and rejected your proposal
    to eliminate funding for the program. These grants have the potential
    to assist States, school districts, and schools to address many of
    their most pressing challenges. In order to ensure Title IV-A funds are
    used to do so, Congress required school districts to conduct a
    comprehensive needs assessment. How will you ensure school districts
    conduct this needs assessment with fidelity?
        Answer. We agree that conducting a comprehensive needs assessment
    can be a critical requirement to ensuring the effective use of Title
    IV-A funds by school districts. In addition to previously issued
    guidance on strengthening investments across ESEA programs by
    conducting needs assessments and identifying evidence-based responses
    (see https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceusese
    investment.pdf), the Department, through the National Center on Safe
    and Supportive Learning Environments, has developed an instrument to
    assist school districts in conducting needs assessments under Title IV-
    A. We are also developing a protocol for monitoring State
    administration of the Title VI-A program that will examine how States
    are ensuring school districts comply with comprehensive needs
    assessment requirements. It also is important to note that because the
    comprehensive needs assessment requirements apply only to school
    districts receiving $30,000 or more in Title IV-A funds, we estimate
    that less than one-third of districts will be subject to these
    requirements in fiscal year 2018.
        proposed elimination of 21st century community learning centers
        Question. Keeping young people safe in their schools and
    communities is one of the most important priorities for all of us.
    Striving To Reduce Youth Violence Everywhere (STRYVE)--which is the
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's national initiative to
    prevent youth violence--sites a host of key recommendations and
    evidence based strategies that can protect our children. One of those
    effective community level strategies recommended is providing youth
    with more structured and supervised afterschool opportunities in order
    to increase monitoring and healthy skills development. Yet the proposed
    elimination of the bipartisan-supported and authorized 21st Century
    Communities Learning Centers program directly contradicts this
    recommendation. Please explain why the Department does not support
    afterschool as part of a comprehensive solution to keep young people
    safe?
        Answer. We recognize that the 21st Century Community Learning
    Centers program often supports safe places for children to participate
    in a range of activities outside of the school day. However, we believe
    that afterschool activities are primarily the responsibility of
    families and communities, and not the Federal Government, and that
    limited Federal education resources should be dedicated to programs
    with a stronger emphasis and track record in improving student
    educational outcomes. And to the extent that local school districts
    seek to prioritize afterschool activities in meeting the educational
    needs of students and families, other Federal funds are available for
    this purpose, including the $15.8 billion Title I Grants to Local
    Educational Agencies program.
          enforcement of essa protections for children in foster care
        Question. I remain concerned about compliance with ESSA's
    educational stability requirements for children in foster care. These
    requirements, which ensure children in foster care are able to stay in
    their original school when they move foster care placements, have been
    in effect since December 10, 2016--over a year and a half. During that
    time, what have you done to monitor States and local educational
    agencies' compliance with the new requirements; and collaborate with
    HHS to ensure child welfare agencies are implementing these
    requirements with fidelity?
        Answer. Although the Department has not yet formally monitored
    State implementation of ESSA's new Title I, Part A educational
    stability requirements; the Department is currently developing a
    monitoring protocol that includes Title I, Part A provisions, and the
    protocol will include the educational stability requirements. In the
    absence of formal monitoring, the Department has engaged with SEAs and
    LEAs to provide technical assistance to support the implementation of
    these new provisions. Through this technical assistance, the Department
    has identified early implementation challenges and has worked with SEAs
    and LEAs to help them meet the requirements of the law.
        Since the passage of ESSA, the Department has closely collaborated
    with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support
    SEA and LEA implementation of the Title I, Part A educational stability
    requirements. Immediately following the passage of ESSA, for example,
    the Department and HHS collaborated on a number of projects to support
    the field. For instance, in June 2016, the Department and HHS jointly
    released non-regulatory guidance to help stakeholders both understand
    the law's new educational stability provisions and spotlight promising
    practices from across the Nation. Following the release of this joint
    guidance, the Department and HHS also jointly held a five-part webinar
    series to further discuss the non-regulatory guidance. Each webinar in
    the series featured speakers from the Department and HHS, who discussed
    the Title I, Part A requirements and the related provisions of the non-
    regulatory guidance; in addition, each webinar spotlighted State and
    local practitioners implementing promising practices aligned with the
    requirements. Recordings and materials from these webinars are
    available on the Department's website.
        The Department and HHS have also collaborated on other projects, in
    addition to the joint non-regulatory guidance and related technical
    assistance, to support State and local implementation of the
    educational stability requirements. For example, the Department's
    Office of State Support (OSS) hosted a webinar for SEA foster care
    points of contact in September 2017; representatives from HHS'
    Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF) participated in
    this webinar for education agency stakeholders. Similarly, OSS will
    hold a four-part series of technical assistance webinars for SEA foster
    care points of contact in July and August 2018, and representatives
    from ACYF will participate in those webinars and provide subject matter
    expertise on child welfare agencies. Finally, as States have reached
    out to OSS with questions about the implementation of the Title I, Part
    A educational stability requirements, OSS has at times worked with ACYF
    colleagues to provide responsive support to the field.
     effect of provisions limiting use of appropriations for desegregation-
                   related transportation on essa activities
        Question. Why does the budget propose to continue applicability of
    sections 301 and 302 to Federal funds available in the Departments of
    Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act? How is section 301 different from language in
    section 426 of the General Education Provisions Act? Does section 302
    limit the use of Federal funds provided in the Departments of Labor,
    Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act for any activity authorized by the Every Student
    Succeeds Act? If so, please describe the conflict.
        Answer. The Department engaged in extensive consultation with staff
    from Congressional authorizing and appropriations committees during the
    fiscal year 2018 appropriations process regarding these longstanding
    prohibitions in appropriations acts funding the Department's programs
    and activities. Congress addressed potential conflicts between these
    provisions and authorities in the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act, as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act, through
    additional bill language in the Department of Education Appropriations
    Act, 2018. The House and Senate fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills
    funding Department programs that now are moving through Congress no
    longer include sections 301 or 302, effectively eliminating those
    potential conflicts.
     proposed consolidation of office of english language acquisition into
                  office of elementary and secondary education
        Question. The Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA)
    provides invaluable resources to the education community in order to
    facilitate stronger instruction for our Nation's five million English
    learner students. As part of the Education Department's reorganization
    plan, you have proposed consolidating OELA into the Office of
    Elementary and Secondary Education, preventing the director of OELA
    from reporting directly to the Secretary and threatening the office's
    critical independence. What evidence do you have that making this
    change will improve outcomes for our Nation's English learners?
        Answer. The Department of Education recognizes the importance of
    ensuring that English learners are afforded equal access to education
    and the valuable role that the Director's position and OELA contribute
    to meeting that goal. The Department notes that the amendments made by
    the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act (ESEA) places a heightened emphasis on English learners.
    ESSA moved the accountability provisions relating to English learner
    progress from Title III to Title I. Thus, the statute requires State
    ESEA plans to address long-term goals for English learner progress,
    including an English learner indicator, as an integral part of State
    school accountability systems. Just as States are adjusting to this
    change by breaking down silos between Title I and Title III State-level
    offices, so too is the Department. The proposed reorganization will
    allow the Department to provide States with the technical assistance
    needed across programs. If implemented, the Department expects that its
    proposed changes will enhance Department operations and leverage
    resources to better serve English learner students and their families.
    The Department of Education is proposing to integrate the Office of
    English Language Acquisition (OELA) into the Office of Elementary and
    Secondary Education (OESE), not eliminate it or its functions. The
    Department is committed to maintaining an effective OELA that continues
    to support and helps to facilitate compliance by States and local
    educational agencies in their efforts to provide a high-quality
    education to English learners.
              reorganization plans for department's budget service
        Question. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2018 and
    accompanying explanatory statement state clearly the intention that
    funds available in the Act not be used for the purpose of reorganizing
    or decentralizing the Department's budget service. In fiscal year 2019,
    does the Department plan to implement a reorganization that
    decentralizes, reduces the staffing level, or alters the
    responsibilities, structure, authority, or functionality of the Budget
    Service of the Department of Education, relative to the organization
    and operation of the Budget Service as in effect on January 1, 2018? If
    yes, please describe the changes and timeline for implementation.
        Answer. No. The Department of Education does not plan to
    decentralize, reduce staffing levels, or alter responsibilities,
    structure authority or functionality of Budget Service in fiscal year
    2019. Pursuant to the Department's reorganization, Budget Service will
    move intact to the new Office of Finance and Operations.
       oversight efforts for disaster-related emergency education funding
        Question. Last year, Hurricanes Maria and Irma devastated the
    island of Puerto Rico and its students, teachers, and families. Save
    the Children estimates that 6 months after the hurricanes, school-age
    children had collectively missed out on more than 13 million full days
    of school. In addition, many children are struggling with trauma and
    desperately need both educational and psychological supports. In
    response to these challenges and those affected by those Hurricanes and
    California wildfires, Congress provided nearly $2 billion for restart
    of operations of elementary and secondary schools, of which Puerto Rico
    has received an initial allocation of $589 million. How will the
    Department conduct oversight and ensure that these resources are used
    effectively to rebuild schools and support students?
        Answer. The Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDE) has primary
    responsibility for developing and implementing a comprehensive plan for
    restarting schools and restoring the learning environment following
    Hurricanes Irma and Maria. We are providing regular technical
    assistance and other support to PRDE, including information on
    allowable uses of funds and reporting requirements designed to maintain
    strong accountability for the effective use of Federal resources.
          federal commission on school safety and proposals requiring
                              congressional action
        Question. I have written you two letters about the Federal
    Commission on School Safety (FCSS), which I believe you are using to
    shift the Nation's focus away from meaningful gun safety reforms that
    will save lives. I expect full responses to these letters and the
    questions I have posed concerning the scope of the FCSS's work and the
    NRA's involvement in setting its agenda. Do you believe there are any
    reforms Congress can make concerning gun safety that could reduce
    school shootings? Please list those reforms.
        Answer. President Trump launched the Federal Commission on School
    Safety (FCSS) on March 12, 2018, as part of a comprehensive plan to
    secure our schools in response to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman
    Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The March 12 announcement
    noted that as a part of the immediate actions of President Trump to
    secure our Nation's schools, Department of Justice (DOJ) assistance
    programs will be leveraged to enable schools to partner with State and
    local law enforcement to provide firearms training for school
    personnel. The President also called upon States to adopt Extreme Risk
    Protection Orders, which will allow law enforcement, with approval from
    a court, to remove firearms from certain individuals who are a threat
    to themselves or others.
        As a part of the President's charge to the FCSS, he requested the
    FCSS to study and make recommendations on, among other things, age
    restrictions for certain firearm purchases. To carry out the
    President's charge, the Commission has held formal meetings, field
    visits, and listening sessions to hear from the public and others. DOJ
    will provide key direction to the FCSS on this aspect of the
    Commission's work.
        Given the information gathering of the Commission is ongoing, no
    specific recommendations of the Commission have been proposed or
    adopted at this time.
          student performance under dc opportunity scholarship program
        Question. The most recent evaluation of the Washington D.C.
    Opportunity Scholarship Program showed math scores for students who
    accepted a voucher were 10 percentile points lower than students who
    applied but were not selected by lottery. This rigorous evaluation
    shows us what parents, teachers, students, and community members have
    been saying all along: vouchers do not work. In light of this
    evaluation, how will you change your position to better reflect current
    research on the effectiveness of private school voucher programs?
        Answer. While the treatment group did not score as high in
    mathematics as the control group in the second year of the evaluation,
    it is important to note that students in both the treatment and the
    control groups scored higher after 2 years than they did at the time of
    application; achievement for the treatment group has not decreased. We
    know from other research, including studies of charter schools, that
    the impact of new choice options on student achievement may increase
    over time. Consequently, we are eager to see the third and final impact
    report of the current evaluation expected during fiscal year 2019.
     implementing collective bargaining agreement without union negotiation
        Question. AFGE has been in negotiations with the Department for a
    new collective bargaining agreement, but earlier this year, the agency
    ended those negotiations and imposed its opening proposal on over 4,000
    Dept. of Education staff represented by AFGE. Please explain why you
    eliminated all but 8 of 44 contract articles without negotiating with
    the Union on the substance of your proposals?
        Answer. The Department of Education commenced its effort concerning
    a new national collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in October 2016.
    The new 2018 CBA is a streamlined contract that covers in eight
    articles everything that the 2013 CBA and 2017 Past Practice Document
    covered in 44 articles. This CBA came into effect only after months of
    good faith attempts by the Department to engage the Union in interest-
    based bargaining. The current CBA (implemented in March 2018) is
    shorter but covers the same issues.
        Unfortunately, the Union refused to negotiate with the Department.
    The Department employed multiple methods to support the parties in the
    renegotiation. The Union's unprecedented resistance to negotiations,
    mediation support, and training disallowed any progress. With its eight
    articles, the current CBA was implemented only after the Union ignored
    the many opportunities provided by the Department to negotiate, to
    issue a proper and timely demand to bargain, and to make a counter-
    proposal to the current CBA; the Union repeatedly failed to do so in a
    timely manner.
        Department employees retain all of the benefits and rights not
    dependent on the collective bargaining agreement. The Department does
    not know why the Union abandoned mediation and assistance from the
    Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the Federal Service
    Impasses Panel or why it failed to file a proper and timely demand to
    bargain through its designated chief negotiator.
            deadlines, statute and good faith in union negotiations
        Question. My understanding is that at the time your management team
    curtailed these negotiations, there were additional days of
    negotiations already scheduled for January, February and March. Why
    would the Department not move forward with negotiations on those
    agreed-upon dates when the substantive provisions of the entire
    contract remained to be negotiated?
        You have said the Union missed a deadline in the negotiations. Are
    you referring to a statutorily set deadline?
        If you are not referring to a statutorily set deadline, will you
    commit to restoring the status quo contract, return to the bargaining
    table, and negotiate in good faith for a successor contract?
        Answer. The Department of Education set additional dates for
    negotiation; however, despite multiple requests from the Department to
    negotiate the Agency's last and best offer on ground rules, as well as
    outreach to the Union by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
    Services (FMCS), the Union declined to proceed with the negotiating
    sessions and failed to preserve its right to bargain ground rules. As a
    result, the Department moved forward with notice of the proposed
    collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
        The statute does not contain specifically prescribed timeframes;
    rather, it prescribes the framework for conducting labor-management
    relations. The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) has the
    authority to interpret and oversee the functions of the statute, and
    this includes issuing precedential case law decisions to guide the
    parties. The dates set by the Department were based upon well-
    established FLRA case law. Despite multiple requests from the
    Department to negotiate the Agency's last and best offer on ground
    rules, as well as outreach to the Union by the Federal Mediation and
    Conciliation Services (FMCS), the Union declined to proceed with
    negotiating sessions.
        Litigation regarding the 2018 CBA is pending with the FLRA, which
    provide direction to the parties.
      office for civil rights jurisdiction over sexual discrimination and
                                   harassment
        Question. In order for the Committee to understand how changes in
    the Department's views of the jurisdiction of the Office for Civil
    Rights and in the procedures used to review and resolve complaints,
    please provide the Committee with a complete list of all complaints
    involving sexual discrimination and harassment open for investigation
    as of today disaggregated by docket number, whether the recipient is an
    elementary or secondary school, the issue code, and an issue
    description.
        Answer. Please see the attachment that follows.

                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
      for-profit college sector influence in administration's approach to
                   student aid investigation and enforcement
        Question. Over the last several years nearly every major for-profit
    college has been investigated or sued by one or more Federal or State
    agency for some form of deceptive and abusive practices. Some--notably
    Corinthian, ITT Tech, and Westwood Colleges--have collapsed under the
    weight of years of abuse and wrongdoing. But the abuse didn't end with
    these companies. The abuse in this industry is more than a one-off--
    it's systemic and it continues. Unfortunately, you're taking the cops
    off the beat at the Department of Education. According to a New York
    Times article entitled, ``Education Department Unwinds Unit
    Investigating Fraud at For-Profits'' you have gutted the Student Aid
    Enforcement Unit's Investigations Team which was set up in the wake of
    Corinthian to ensure that fraud would be detected and stopped to avoid
    a repeat where thousands of students are harmed and hundreds of
    millions of taxpayer dollars are lost. The article notes that what
    included a dozen or so attorneys and investigators by the end of the
    Obama Administration has dwindled to just three employees under you
    because those employees have been ``marginalized, reassigned, or
    instructed to work on other matters.'' The result is that important
    investigations into fraud by major for-profit college companies have
    ``ground to a halt.'' Conveniently, several of the investigations that
    have been disrupted by gutting the Enforcement Unit's Investigations
    Team were of companies that formerly employed some of your top
    officials--including Julian Schmoke, Robert Eitel, Diane Auer Jones,
    and Carlos Muniz.
        a. When these individuals began working at the Department, either
    as a result of your hiring or presidential appointment, were you aware
    that they had been employed by for-profit education companies that the
    Department had or was, at the time, investigating?
        b. Your spokesperson has denied the allegation in the New York
    Times article that the Enforcement Unit's investigatory work has been
    hampered or ``ground to a halt.'' Does the Enforcement Unit currently
    have open investigations of DeVry University and Bridgepoint Education?
    If so, how many dedicated staff are assigned to each investigation?
        c. You and I disagree about the Department's responsibilities to
    students under Borrower Defense when fraud has been committed, but
    would you agree that preventing the types of fraudulent and illegal
    activities that lead to large numbers of Borrower Defense claims is the
    best way to protect students and prevent taxpayers from losing money to
    student loan discharges?
        d. If so, how can you explain gutting the Department's resources,
    including personnel, dedicated to proactively investigating,
    identifying, and stopping fraudulent practices by institutions?
        e. How many new investigations has the Investigation Team opened in
    2018?
        Answer. a. Julian Schmoke, Robert Eitel, Diane Auer Jones, and
    Carlos Muniz were hired for their qualifications, years of experience,
    and total body of work that spans multiple sectors across higher
    education. These individuals have spent more years working in
    Government or in sectors outside of the proprietary sector than years
    working in the proprietary sector, a fact which is ignored by those who
    wish to impugn their characters.
        b. It is not Department policy to comment on any deliberative,
    preliminary, or ongoing investigative work.
        c. I do not believe that we disagree about the Department's
    responsibilities to students who have been defrauded in connection with
    their educational programs and suffered financial harm. The Department
    has honored its commitment to borrowers of Corinthian Colleges; it
    continues to process those claims to identify victims of
    misrepresentation who relied on those misrepresentations to make
    enrollment decisions and were harmed financially by those decisions. We
    will continue to review claims and provide appropriate student loan
    relief; however, we cannot forgive loans where misrepresentations did
    not occur or did not cause harm to the borrower; the Department also
    has a duty to the taxpayer. FSA continues to perform its oversight
    duties to enforce compliance with its rules and requirements.
        d. Staff reduction in the Enforcement Unit is due to attrition, not
    a Department-initiated reduction in force, and FSA is working to hire
    qualified employees to fill vacancies. That said, oversight is not
    relegated solely to the Enforcement Unit, which was not established
    until 2016. We have teams of people across the agency, including in our
    regional offices and in the Office of the General Counsel, who play
    critical roles in performing program reviews and evaluating the
    compliance of institutions with all FSA regulations.
        As part of its oversight duties, Federal Student Aid requires the
    submission of annual compliance and financial audit reports, and it
    routinely conducts program reviews to confirm that a school meets FSA
    requirements for institutional eligibility, financial responsibility,
    and administrative capability. Final Program Review Determinations
    (FPRD) are screened for any necessary redactions and posted publicly at
    https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/school/program-reviews.
        In fiscal year 2017 alone, Program Compliance (PC) staff commenced
    over 200 new program reviews at institutions determined to present a
    risk to Title IV dollars. Additionally, PC staff issued over 300 FPRDs
    to institutions and collectively assessed over $75 million in
    liabilities due the Department via those FPRDs issued in fiscal year
    2017.
        In addition to program reviews and audits, FSA also reviews
    financial statements, 90/10 compliance, and cohort default rates as
    part of our review process and to inform our investigations and related
    activities. When appropriate, the Department places institutions on
    heightened cash monitoring (HCM) or collects and maintains Letters of
    Credit to hold institutions accountable and to reduce risks to students
    and taxpayers. For example, in Award Year 2015, the Department
    requested and received 426 LOCs from 396 institutions or main OPEIDs
    totaling approximately $932 million.
        Additionally, all institutions are required to undergo a
    recertification for continued participation in the Title IV programs at
    least once every 6 years. This recertification includes a comprehensive
    review of the institution. In fiscal year 2017, PC staff completed over
    1,150 recertification reviews/applications and processed another 2,300
    eligibility updates and approval applications.
        Finally, in fiscal year 2017, PC staff reviewed and resolved over
    6,000 inquiries, concerns, or institutional complaints submitted by
    students and constituents.
        e. There has been one new investigation opened by the
    Investigations Group in 2018, but there are investigations from 2017
    that are still ongoing.
                        pending borrower defense claims
        Question. How many borrower defense claims are currently pending
    review, decision, or adjudication by any Department official in total
    and disaggregated by State?
        a. How many pending claims are from students who attended
    Corinthian or ITT, respectively, disaggregated by State?
        b. After Corinthian and ITT, what are the next three largest
    sources of borrower defense claims, disaggregated by institution?
        c. How many borrowers who have a pending borrower defense
    application have had their forbearance expire?
        d. How many borrowers who have a pending borrower defense
    application will have their forbearance expire within the next 6
    months?
        e. What is the total dollar value of accumulated interest and fees
    for borrowers whose claims are pending?
        Answer. For parts (a) and (b), please refer to Tables (A) and (C)
    in the following attachment.

        [Table A continues:]

        As of May 1, 2018, there are a total of 99,335 claims are currently
    pending review, decision or adjudication. State level data is provided
    in Table A.
        a. As of May 1, 2018, there are approximately 45,675 pending claims
    associated with students who attended Corinthian and 13,175 claims
    associated with students who attended ITT. State level data is provided
    in Table A.
        b. (May 1, 2018): The next three largest sources of borrower
    defense claims are associated with DeVry University with approximately
    10,275 claims, Education Management Corporation (EDMC) with
    approximately 4,435 claims, and the Apollo Group (University of
    Phoenix) with approximately 3,965 claims. Institution level data is
    provided in Table C.
        c. Borrowers who have submitted a substantially complete
    application have not had their forbearance expire within the last 12
    months.
        d. The Department has no borrowers with a pending borrower defense
    application that will have their forbearance expire within the next 6
    months.
        e. Outstanding interest for borrowers with pending claims total
    approximately $368.8 million for all loans, including loans unrelated
    to the Borrower Defense claim. This includes all unpaid interest on all
    outstanding loans (some of which may have accrued prior to submission
    of the claims). Previously paid or capitalized interest is not
    included.
                 disaggregated borrower defense claims by state
        Question. How many borrower defense claims has the Department
    received on or after January 20, 2017, disaggregated by State?
        a. How many of those claims received are from students who attended
    Corinthian or ITT, respectively, disaggregated by State?
        Answer. Please refer to Table (B) in the following attachment.

        [Table B continues:]

        The Department has received approximately 63,525 borrower defense
    claims since January 20, 2017. State level data is provided in Table B.
        a. As of May 1, 2018, the Department has received 23,555 claims
    that are associated with students who attended Corinthian; 7,935 are
    associated with students who attended ITT. State level data is provided
    in Table B.
                   approved borrower defense claims by state
        Question. How many total borrower defense applications has the
    Department approved between January 20, 2017 and today? What is the
    total dollar amount of relief?
        a. How many of any approved borrower defense claims during this
    time period are from students who attended Corinthian or ITT,
    respectively, disaggregated by State?
        Answer. Please refer to Table (D) in the following attachment.

        [Table D continues:]

        Between January 20, 2017 and May 1, 2018, 12,385 approved borrower
    defense to repayment claims were from borrowers who attended Corinthian
    Colleges, and 10 approved BD claims were from borrowers who attended
    ITT Tech. The Department has prioritized claims from Corinthian College
    borrowers, so very few claims from ITT Tech borrowers have been
    reviewed to date. State level data is provided in Table D.
         borrower defense refunds discharged under trump administration
        Question. Of the borrowers whose borrower defense claims were
    approved (as designated by an email from Federal Student Aid) but who
    had not yet received a discharge or full refund on or before January
    19, 2017, how many have since received a discharge or full refund
    posted to their accounts?
        a. How many attended Corinthian, ITT, or ACI, respectively,
    disaggregated by State?
        b. What is the total dollar value of accumulated interest and fees
    for these borrowers whose applications have not yet received their
    previously-approved discharge or refund, if any?
        Answer. All borrowers who were notified of the decision on their
    claim prior to January 20, 2017, have received the appropriate loan
    discharge, unless the borrower was notified that he or she did not have
    a qualified loan and needed to first consolidate their loans so that it
    could be discharged and the borrower has not done so.
        a. As of May 1, 2018, approximately 11,715 students who received
    discharges attended Corinthian, 35 students attended ITT, and 2,705
    students attended ACI. State level data is provided in Table E.
        [The information follows:]

        [Table E continues:]

        b. As of May 1, 2018, the outstanding interest for borrowers with
    pending claims totals approximately $143.2 million. This includes all
    unpaid interest on all outstanding loans (some of which may have
    accrued prior to submission of the claims).
      institutions and programs with students granted refund or discharge
                             under borrower defense
        Question. Please indicate which institutions and programs have
    borrowers with approved claims that are eligible for or have been
    granted:
      --Full refund of amounts paid; or
      --Discharge of loan balances outstanding.
        Answer. The following institutions and programs have borrowers with
    approved claims:
        Corinthian-Direct Loans, Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL), and
    Federal Perkins Loan (Perkins); American Career Institute (ACI)--Direct
    Loans; and ITT-Direct Loans and FFEL.
     wage garnishment and collections affecting former corinthian college
                                    students
        Question. How many former students of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
    with first enrollment dates between 7/1/2010 and 9/30/2014 are in the
    Debt Management Collection System (DMCS)? Please also provide the
    number of those borrowers in wage garnishment or in the Treasury Offset
    Program (TOP).
        Answer. There are 143,318 former Corinthian Colleges, Inc. students
    who have accounts in the Debt Management Collection System (DMCS).
    5,305 of those borrowers are subject to Administrative Wage
    Garnishment. 59,951 of those borrowers are in the Treasury Offset
    Program.
                  quarterly reports on borrower defense claims
        Question. Per Senate Report 115-150, the Department is directed to
    issue quarterly reports on borrower defense claims that include the
    total and median dollar amount of outstanding debt from borrowers prior
    to discharge, the percentage of the total approved claims receiving
    partial relief, the median student loan debt remaining as part of
    claims receiving partial relief, the total number of pending borrower
    defense claims, total number of approved borrower defense claims, total
    dollar amount of relief, and total number of denied claims, all
    disaggregated by State. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the
    fiscal year 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-41) required
    the Department to include additional information in these reports: the
    total and median dollar amount of outstanding debt from borrowers prior
    to discharge, the percentage of total approved claims receiving partial
    relief, and the median student loan debt remaining as part of claims
    receiving partial relief.
        a. Why has the Department not yet provided these quarterly reports?
        b. When will the Department provide the first report?
        c. Will the Department post these reports on its website as
    encouraged by Senate Report 115-150?
        Answer. a. FSA had not yet developed metrics that would allow it to
    provide these reports. Additionally, time was needed to develop,
    document, and communicate the new processes to the servicers.
        b. FSA anticipates the first report will be published on July 31,
    2018 for the reporting period ending June 30, 2018.
        c. Yes, the Department will post these reports.
       response to report recommending actions to help defrauded students
        Question. In November 2017, Senator Warren and I published a report
    entitled, ``Insult to Injury: How the DeVos Department of Education is
    Failing Defrauded Students.'' The report included nine recommendations.
    On November 14, 2017, Senator Warren and I, along with 14 of our
    colleagues, sent you a letter asking for your response to the
    recommendations. We have yet to receive one. Please respond here to
    each of the nine recommendations.
        Answer. Recommendation #1: Immediately provide full discharges for
    borrowers with borrower defense claims approved prior to January 20,
    but who have still not received relief.
        The Department has completed nearly all discharges on the claims
    that were approved by the previous administration prior to January 20,
    2017. The few that have not have special circumstances, namely that
    affirmative action is needed by the borrower to consolidate their
    Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) Loans in order to receive
    a discharge. Unfortunately, the previous Administration gave borrowers
    unrealistic and unnecessary timeframes for them to expect discharge and
    had not developed the procedures to process the more complex claims.
        Recommendation #2: Immediately begin processing pending borrower
    defense claims.
        Processing of pending borrower defense applications has been on-
    going, and in December 2017, the Department resumed adjudicating
    claims.
        Recommendation #3: Provide full relief for approved borrower
    defense claims.
        The borrower defense regulation gives the Secretary the discretion
    to fashion relief and a borrower with an approved claim may be
    ``relieved of the obligation to repay all or part of the loan...that
    the borrower would be otherwise obligated to pay.'' 34 C.F.R.
    Sec. 685.206. The Department has determined that relief in the full
    amount of the loan may not be appropriate in every case.
        Recommendation #4: Provide full, automatic discharges to Corinthian
    students covered by Department of Education findings.
        The Department's Corinthian job placement rate findings require a
    borrower to attest to multiple certain facts in order to be eligible
    for borrower defense relief, including that the borrower was enrolled
    in certain programs at certain times and received information from
    Corinthian on job placement rates and that they enrolled at Corinthian
    in substantial part on the information received about those rates.
    Accordingly, the Department requires applications from borrowers in
    order to determine eligibility.
        Recommendation #5: Issue findings of wrongdoing against ITT Tech
    that will allow the Department to provide full, automatic discharges to
    covered students.
        The Department continues to review borrower defense applications
    related to various institutions, including ITT. As part of this review
    the Department is considering whether the allegations in the claim
    would give rise to a cause of action under applicable State law as
    required by the Department's regulations. The Department is working to
    evaluate the merits of these claims, including applicable evidence
    related to an institution's alleged wrongdoing.
        Recommendation #6: Extend forbearance for all borrowers with
    pending claims.
        A borrower who submits a Borrower Defense application and is in
    repayment with monthly installments due will have their loans placed
    into forbearance or collections activity will be stopped if the loan is
    defaulted, unless they opt out. The borrower remains in that status
    until the claim has been decided.
        Recommendation #7: Use evidence and information submitted by state
    Attorneys General to provide full, group discharges to affected
    students.
        Due to pending litigation the Department is unable to provide a
    response to this question.
        Recommendation #8: Immediately implement the directive in the
    fiscal year 2018 Senate Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations
    Subcommittee Report (S. Rept. 115-137) to provide quarterly public
    reports on the receipt and processing of borrower defense claims.
        Quarterly reports on the receipt and processing of borrower defense
    applications will begin with the period ending June 30, 2018, with the
    first report released by July 31, 2018.
        Recommendation #9: Immediately halt collections activity on
    defaulted borrowers with pending applications for borrower defense and
    all defaulted Corinthian borrowers.
        Collection activities for defaulted borrowers with pending
    applications cease unless the borrower opts out of forbearance.
     inspector general report on loan discharges under borrower defense to
                                   repayment
        Question. On December 8, 2017, the Department's Office of Inspector
    General (OIG) released a report entitled ``Federal Student Aid's
    Borrower Defense to Repayment Loan Discharge Process.''
        a. The report indicates that FSA's Borrower Defense Unit (BDU)
    reduced contractor staffing by more than two-thirds from November 2016
    to September 2017. In response to previous questions to the OIG from
    me, OIG noted that FSA did not provide a specific rationale for the
    decrease in staff in the BDU. What was the specific rationale for the
    decrease in contractor staffing for the BDU from November 2016 to
    September 2017, even as the number of pending claims continued to
    increase?
        b. The OIG also found that, ``[a]s of January 20, 2017, BDU had
    identified additional categories of claims warranting further
    research.'' In response to previous questions to the OIG from me, OIG
    clarified that FSA's BDU had started research and analysis for five
    additional categories of claims at Corinthian schools. What is the
    current status of research in these five additional categories, and
    other potential categories not yet publicized, for Corinthian schools?
        c. The OIG report on borrower defense, on page 16, noted that
    further research into additional categories of borrower defense claims
    was ``placed on hold'' during the current Administration. In response
    to previous questions to the OIG from me, OIG noted that, in early
    2017, the Enforcement Unit was instructed not to continue developing
    new memoranda on additional categories of claims at the direction of
    then-Acting Under Secretary James Manning and the Review Panel. Why did
    then-Acting Under Secretary Manning instruct BDU not to continue
    developing new memoranda on additional categories of evidence for
    borrower defense claims?
        d. The OIG report also found that one category of evidence for
    borrower defense claims relates to ITT Tech guaranteed employment
    misrepresentation. In response to previous questions to the OIG from
    me, OIG noted that FSA ``maintained one legal memorandum related to
    misrepresentations of ITT guaranteed employment. The memorandum applies
    only to only the California locations but does not indicate the number
    of potential borrowers.'' Has the Department continued to process
    claims from ITT Tech applicants using this specific category of
    evidence, and has it gathered any additional categories of evidence for
    ITT Tech of other types or for other States? If not, why not?
        Answer. a. As previously announced, the Department put a hold on
    Borrower Defense (BD) claim processing during the change of
    Administration while it requested that the Inspector General review the
    overall BD adjudication process and the new Administration reviewed BD
    policies.
        When new leadership placed a hold on BD claims processing and
    requested that the IG review the BD adjudication process, there were
    fewer than 20 contractor staff in place.
        At that point in time, career staff was supporting a number of
    issues including:
      --developing a database to manage BD claims and migrating the
            existing legacy excel-based system into it;
      --supporting the IG review (due to its accelerated pace);
      --assessing the population of BD claims beyond just those from
            Corinthian; and
      --developing and pilot-testing various review process streams while
            working with ED leadership and legal counsel to ensure they met
            policy objectives and legal requirements.
        After the Administration announced its new BD policies, FSA began
    ramping up contractor staff to support BD claim processing under the
    new policies. While that ramp-up process is ongoing, FSA currently has
    approximately 16 contractor staff (as of July 9, 2018) in place
    supporting BD processing.
        b. Additional categories of claims warranting further research are
    still under review at this time.
        c. As previously announced, the Department put a hold on certain
    borrower defense activities in order to conduct a comprehensive review
    of the program. This review was done by high-level career and political
    leaders. One of the recommendations based off of the review was a
    request that the Inspector General review the overall BD adjudication
    process.
        Additionally, the review focused initially on the over 16,000
    claims that had been approved in the previous administration but not
    yet discharged. Given the significant fiscal implications of full
    discharge of these claims and because there were numerous complexities
    involved with many of the claims, the Department focused on those
    claims first to ensure a smooth discharge process for those borrowers.
        Once the processes to discharge those loans were finalized,
    Department leadership decided to prioritize updating its relief
    methodology and assessing the large number of existing Corinthian
    claims not yet adjudicated, including how to handle large numbers of
    claims that the previous administration had flagged for denial but had
    not developed any processes or procedures to effectuate.
        Meanwhile, there were other time sensitive projects that, when
    completed, would result in long term efficiencies. These projects
    included:
      --developing a database to manage BD claims and migrating the
            existing legacy excel-based system into it;
      --supporting the IG review (due to its accelerated pace);
      --assessing the population of BD claims beyond just those from
            Corinthian; and
      --developing and pilot-testing various review process streams while
            working with ED leadership and legal counsel to ensure they met
            policy objectives and legal requirements.
        Consideration and discussion of other pending claim categories have
    been ongoing throughout this period.
        d. The Department continues to review and make progress on borrower
    defense applications related to various institutions, including ITT. As
    part of this review the Department is considering whether the
    allegations in the claim would give rise to a cause of action under
    applicable State law. The Department is working to evaluate the merits
    of these claims including applicable evidence related to an
    institution's alleged wrongdoing. However, the Department's top
    priority is to complete the review of Corinthian claims since the
    Department instructed Corinthian students and graduates to file BD
    claims. In the case of ITT Tech, the prior administration recommended
    for qualified students to submit closed school discharge claims. We
    will review those claims once we complete the review of claims made by
    Corinthian students.
        use of social security administration earnings data for partial
                            borrower defense relief
        Question. On December 20, 2017, the Department announced, via the
    release entitled Improved Borrower Defense Discharge Process Will Aid
    Defrauded Borrowers, Protect Taxpayers, that it would use earnings data
    received from the Social Security Administration (SSA) through a
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to limit relief to defrauded
    borrowers. However, the Department, through its legally dubious delay
    and rewriting of the Gainful Employment Rule, has been unwilling to use
    the same data for its intended purpose--to hold poor performing Title
    IV programs accountable.
        a. Why does the Department believe that it is appropriate to use
    earnings data to punish defrauded borrowers be limiting relief, but not
    to limit Title IV access to poor performing programs--for which the
    Department's access to the data was legally intended?
        b. Why does the Department believe it is appropriate to use a
    student's earnings to reduce loan relief if the student cannot find a
    job in the field of study and is working in a field unrelated to their
    program? How can the program be considered to have had any value to the
    student?
        c. Did the Department consult with SSA about using the Gainful
    Employment earnings MOU for the purposes of the partial relief scheme
    prior to its December announcement? If so, did SSA assent to the use of
    data for purposes of informing limited relief?
        d. Please provide any correspondence (prior to or after December
    20, 2017) between SSA and the Department related to the latter's use of
    earnings data obtained through the MOU for purposes of informing
    limited relief.
        e. With the expiration of the MOU on May 24, 2018, has the
    Department ceased basing partial relief to defrauded borrowers on the
    earnings data obtained through the MOU? If so, has the Department
    developed a new basis for providing partial relief?
        Answer. a. The Department stands by its commitment to provide
    relief to borrowers who were harmed by an institution's fraudulent
    actions. However, borrowers should be eligible for relief from their
    Federal student loan obligations only to the extent they were harmed by
    an institution's misrepresentations. For example, when publicly
    available data reveal that programs associated with successful borrower
    defense claims perform quite well when compared to their peer programs,
    the Department's commitment to safeguarding taxpayer dollars and the
    integrity of Federal student loan programs demand that it consider such
    information when assessing any relief owed to borrowers.
        b-d. Due to pending litigation, the Department is unable to provide
    detailed information about its use of aggregate earnings data from the
    SSA.
        e. In accordance with the recent ruling in the case of Manriquez v.
    U.S. Department of Education, No. 17-7106 (N.D. Cal.), the Department
    is not currently adjudicating any additional borrower defense claims
    utilizing the improved discharge process.
           alternative earnings appeals under gainful employment rule
        Question. On January 9, 2017, the Obama Department of Education
    released the first round debt-to-earnings rates under the Gainful
    Employment Rule. The Department under your leadership provided an
    extension from June 2017 to February 2018 for schools to submit an
    alternative earnings appeal.
        a. To date, how many schools have filed a notice of intent to
    appeal?
        b. To date, how many schools have submitted a viable appeal?
        c. To date, how many schools have abandoned their request for an
    appeal?
        d. To date, how many appeals has the Department approved?
        e. To date, how many schools submitted incomplete requests for
    appeals and how many schools did the Department give the opportunity to
    provide missing information?
        f. To date, how many appeals has the Department denied?
        g. When does the Department plan to issue the second round of debt-
    to-earnings rates?
        Answer. a. 872 Notices of Intent have been filed.
        b. 252 appeal packages have been received.
        c. 620 schools have abandoned their request for an appeal.
        d. The Department has issued 66 approvals.
        e. To date, FSA has followed up with 150 schools to request
    additional information or clarification. Among these 150 schools were
    those that submitted materially complete appeals packages; however, as
    a result of reviewer questions or requests for source materials, some
    have been asked to provide additional information. The Department has
    made three attempts, by email and phone calls, to try to gather
    outstanding information from the schools.
        f. The Department has not yet denied any appeals.
        g. The Department does not yet know when it will issue the second
    round of debt-to-earnings ratios because of outstanding litigation
    regarding the use of IRS or Social Security data, and the need to issue
    a new Memorandum of Understanding with the IRS or SSA subsequent to the
    judge's decision.
        g. This is to be determined; no confirmed date at this time.
       deliberations, meetings, evidence, and decision-making regarding
                             reinstatement of acics
        Question. In 2016, then-Secretary King denied the appeal of the
    Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) to
    remain a federally-recognized accreditor after a staff report, the
    National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, and
    the Senior Department Official (SDO) all concurred that ACICS should
    lose Federal recognition. In March 2018, the U.S. District Court for
    the District of Columbia found that Secretary King erred in not
    considering ACICS's Part II submission. The Court did not, however,
    order that ACICS be reinstated as you did in April--erroneously citing
    the Court's decision as requiring it. This week, the Department was
    forced to release its draft staff analysis which found that ACICS
    failed to meet 57 of the 93 criteria required under Federal law.
        a. On April 10, 2018, Senators Brown, Warren, Blumenthal, and I
    wrote to you demanding release of ACICS' Part II submission, which
    includes the 27-page narrative responding to each of the Department's
    questions regarding specific recognition criteria and approximately
    36,000 additional pages of documentation filed by ACICS. We did not
    receive a response by the letter's April 17 deadline. Will the
    Department release this information? If so, when?
        b. As stated in your remand, the Department provided ACICS until
    May 30, 2018, with the opportunity to provide additional supporting
    data in response to the negative findings in 2016. Please provide a
    copy of that data and the date it was submitted.
        c. Is the Department's review of the additional evidence ACICS
    provided by May 30, 2018, restricted to the agency's actions and
    enforcement in 2016, or will it consider additional evidence of the
    agency's actions and enforcement in 2017 and 2018 as well?
        d. Will the Department provide new opportunities for public comment
    or consider the public comments already submitted for the May 2018
    NACIQI meeting at which review of ACICS was scheduled? If a new
    opportunity for public comment is planned, when can the public expect
    such a request?
        e. The Department has indicated that Diane Auer Jones will serve as
    the Senior Department Official for reviewing the May 30, 2018,
    materials submitted by ACICS as well as prior items submitted in 2016.
    However, 34 CFR 602.3 states that the SDO must be a ``senior official
    in the U.S. Department of Education who reports directly to the
    Secretary regarding accrediting agency recognition.'' [Emphasis added.]
    Ms. Auer Jones's title is senior adviser to the assistant secretary for
    postsecondary education, a position that does not report directly to
    the Secretary. Can you clarify how Ms. Auer Jones is legally allowed to
    be the SDO in the ACICS case while complying with 34 CFR 602.3?
        f. Please provide a list of any meetings between yourself, Mr.
    Robert Eitel, Ms. Diane Auer Jones, Mr. James Manning, Ms. Kathleen
    Smith, Mr. Frank Brogan, The Honorable Carlos G. MuNiz, Steven Menashi,
    and any institution that currently has or on December 12, 2016, had
    ACICS accreditation and, on that list, please include any institution
    in question and the complete roster of participants.
        Answer. a. With the exception of student transcripts included in
    that submission, the Department will release the Part II submission as
    soon as the Agency and the Department have had sufficient time to
    complete their review of those documents for personally identifiable
    information, which must be redacted. The Department does not currently
    have an estimate for when that process will be completed.
        b. Those data were submitted by the May 30, 2018, deadline and are
    currently under review. The Department will release them once it has
    completed its necessary review and redaction of personally identifiable
    information.
        c. The Department will consider the Part II submission, as well as
    any additional evidence submitted by May 30, 2018, in response to the
    negative findings of the 2016 staff analysis and the letter issued by
    Secretary King. If the Agency submits evidence of its actions and
    enforcements in 2017 and 2018 and they are relevant to the 2016
    findings, those pieces of evidence will be considered in the review
    process.
        d. No. The Department received public comments in 2016 while the
    Agency's petition for continued recognition was pending before the
    National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Improvement.
        e. Recently promoted, Ms. Jones currently serves as Principal
    Deputy Under Secretary Delegated to Perform the Duties of Under
    Secretary and Assistant Secretary for the Office of Postsecondary
    Education. As such, she reports directly to the Secretary as the senior
    official in the Department concerning accreditation agency recognition.
        f. These persons have attended meetings with representatives of a
    diverse group of institutions of higher education since coming to the
    Department but have not checked the accreditation affiliation of those
    institutions in connection with those meetings. To the best of their
    recollections, this question is answered as follows:
        Secretary DeVos. To the recollection of Secretary DeVos and her
    scheduler, the Secretary has not knowingly participated in any meetings
    with an institution that has, or on December 12, 2016 had, ACICS
    accreditation. Secretary DeVos' full schedule can be found through the
    Department of Education website.
        Robert Eitel. On April 11, 2017, Mr. Eitel, Jim Manning, Robin
    Minor, Josh Venable, and Susan Crim met with Jeanne Herrman of
    Broadview Education Consortium; John Ladd and Steve Gunderson also
    attended that meeting. On May 22, 2017, Messrs. Eitel, Manning,
    Venable, and Justin Riemer met with Stuart Reed and John Carreon of
    Education Corporation of America; Tonnie Wybensinger also attended that
    meeting. On May 24, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice conducted a
    conference with representatives of the U.S. Department of Education and
    ACICS. To the best of his recollection, Mr. Eitel recalls that the
    following attended that conference: Justin Riemer, ED OGC; Jay Urwitz,
    ED OGC; Roger Williams, ACICS; Michelle Edwards, ACICS; and former U.S.
    Representative John Klein. DOJ litigation counsel also attended the
    settlement conference; Mr. Eitel does not remember their names. Other
    persons from ED and ACICS-accredited institutions attended the
    settlement conference, but Mr. Eitel does not specifically recall them,
    and his calendar does not reflect a list of meeting participants.
        Diane Auer Jones. Ms. Jones has not knowingly participated in any
    meetings with an institution that currently has, or on December 12,
    2016 had, ACICS accreditation. It is possible that an ACICS accredited
    institution was present in the audience at one or more events where she
    delivered remarks, but, to the best of her recollection and memory, she
    does not recall meeting with any such institutions. Michelle Edwards,
    ACICS, introduced herself to Ms. Jones at the May 22, 2018 meeting of
    the National Advisory Council for Institutional Quality and
    Improvement, but no conversation took place.
        James Manning. On April 11, 2017, Mr. Eitel, Jim Manning, Robin
    Minor, Josh Venable, and Susan Crim met with Jeanne Herrman of
    Broadview Education Consortium; John Ladd and Steve Gunderson also
    attended that meeting. On May 22, 2017, Messrs. Eitel, Manning,
    Venable, and Justin Riemer met with Stuart Reed and John Carreon of
    Education Corporation of America; Tonnie Wybensinger also attended that
    meeting.
        Kathleen Smith. In the limited circumstances that Ms. Smith has met
    with or spoken before institutions. She does not inquire as to
    accreditors--she has not knowingly participated in any meetings with an
    institution that currently has, or on December 12, 2016 had ACICS
    accreditation. It is possible that an ACICS accredited institution was
    present in the audience at any event at which she has spoken or
    attended--however she is not aware of any such institution with which
    she has interacted.
        Frank Brogan. Mr. Brogan has not knowingly participated in any
    meetings with an institution that currently has, or on December 12th
    2016 had, ACICS accreditation.
        Carlos G. MuNiz. Mr. Muniz has not knowingly participated in any
    meetings with an institution that currently has, or on December 12,
    2016 had, ACICS accreditation.
        Steven Menashi. Please note that Mr. Menashi is no longer at the
    Department of Education. He is now serving in the White House Counsel's
    office.
          proprietary institutions converting to not-for-profit status
        Question. In recent years, several for-profit colleges have
    attempted to convert to not-for-profit status in an effort to avoid the
    stigma associated with the predatory for-profit college industry and to
    avoid regulations meant to protect students and taxpayers. Please
    provide a list of all for-profit conversions in the last 10 years
    including those pending (with current status), previously approved, and
    denied or withdrawn.
        Answer. Please find attached the validated data set of all for-
    profit conversions applications the Department has received.
        [The information follows:]

            data supporting need for fsa prepaid card pilot program
        Question. What data has FSA collected demonstrating the need for
    this prepaid card pilot program, including:
        a. data regarding the number of students who lack access to an
    account in which their student financial aid can be deposited;
        b. data regarding the effectiveness of the Department's existing
    cash management regulations and the benefits of those regulations for
    students; and
        c. information about the existing options students have for student
    aid disbursement under the cash management regulations, including
    information about current account providers, the number of higher
    education institutions and students served by each of those account
    providers, the average fees paid by those students, and any other
    information about relationships between higher education institutions
    and account providers or any compensation paid by providers to
    institutions?
        d. Please provide this data.
        Answer. a. Please note that this question and many others refer to
    the Payment Vehicle Account as a prepaid card, which is inaccurate. The
    Payment Vehicle Account will not be a prepaid card. While the Payment
    Vehicle Account will have payment utility functions, the physical
    aspect will be most like a bank debit card. However, the Payment
    Vehicle Account will also have virtual payment and check payment
    capabilities, as well as connectivity to an overall student loan
    information portal.
        According to publically available National Postsecondary Student
    Aid Study (NPSAS) data, about 10 percent of undergraduate students
    reported not having a checking or savings account. Further, the NPSAS
    data show that students receive their student aid funds in a variety of
    ways. In addition to having funds directly deposited to bank accounts
    for which they often pay a fee, students reported other methods of
    receiving funds, including by cashing or depositing checks at a bank,
    or somewhere other than a bank, once again for which they often pay a
    fee; and receiving funds via a prepaid debit card or student
    identification card linked to a prepaid or debit cards, again often
    with fees. Please note that the fees mentioned here are not unique to
    Title IV funds but are common characteristics of the general fund usage
    and transaction methods applicable to most types of funds.
        The goals of the pilot are such that even those students who
    currently receive their funds via electronic funds transfer to an
    existing bank account (about 37 percent of students) could benefit from
    the Payment Vehicle Account we envision. One of the primary benefits
    will include no cost to the customer for the Payment Vehicle Account.
        b. The Department's existing cash management regulations became
    effective on July 1, 2016, and benefit students by ensuring they:
      --Have convenient access to their Federal student aid funds;
      --Do not incur unreasonable and uncommon financial account fees on
            their Title IV funds; and
      --Are not led to believe they must open a particular financial
            account to receive their Federal student aid.
        Already, there is more transparency for students and the public by
    virtue of institutions now publicly disclosing certain contracts they
    have entered into with financial account providers. This increased
    transparency will help ensure accountability and encourage
    institutional practices that are in the interests of students. The
    intended actions by FSA regarding the Payment Vehicle Account serve to
    foster enhanced awareness.
        c and d. The following is based on analysis of FSA data. For the
    2016-2017 Academic Year, there were 14 Account Providers (Financial
    Institutions) identified by colleges that have 1.3 million students
    across 573 schools. The aggregate compensation paid to schools by those
    Financial Institutions totaled $16.7 Million. Furthermore during this
    time period, 116 colleges reported they collectively received an
    average of $36.52 per active account in payout from financial services
    providers. In contrast, 457 colleges collectively reported they
    received an average of $11.93 per active account.
        The Department's cash management regulations define two different
    types of arrangements between institutions and financial account
    providers: ``tier one (T1) arrangements'' and ``tier 2 (T2)
    arrangements.'' A T1 arrangement is an arrangement between an
    institution and a third-party servicer under which the servicer
    performs one or more of the functions associated with processing direct
    payments of title IV funds on behalf of the institution, and (2) offers
    one or more financial accounts under the arrangement or that directly
    markets the account to students itself or through an intermediary. A T2
    arrangement is an arrangement between an institution and a financial
    institution or entity that offers financial account through a financial
    institution under which financial accounts are offered and marketed
    directly to students. If no or relatively few students receive Title IV
    student aid credit balances at an institution, certain requirements do
    not apply to T2 arrangements.
        Under the regulations, institutions that enter into T1 arrangements
    are required to post their T1 contract(s) to their websites (with
    certain personal and security information redacted). Institutions with
    T1 arrangements are also required to post annually the total
    consideration paid or received by the parties under the contract, the
    mean and median costs that student account holders incurred, and the
    number of student account holders for whom these mean and median costs
    were calculated. Institutions must send the URL for the contract and
    contract data to the Department for the Department to make publically
    available. Institutions with T2 arrangements that enroll at least one
    student who received a Title IV credit balance in each of the three
    most recent award years also are required to disclose the contract and
    send the related URL to the Department. Institutions that have a T2
    arrangement and average Title IV credit balance recipients in numbers
    at or above applicable thresholds also will be required to disclose the
    total consideration paid or received by the parties under the contract,
    the mean and median costs that student account holders incurred, and
    the number of student account holders for whom these mean and median
    costs were calculated; they will also be required to send the related
    URL to the Department.
        To protect student privacy and data validity, institutions at which
    fewer than 30 students open an account offered under a T1 or T2
    arrangement are not required to disclose usage data. The Department, in
    turn, has provided links to these URLs on FSA's virtual data center,
    which can be accessed at https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-
    center/school/cash-management-contracts.
            data supporting prepaid card pilot over direct deposits
        Question. What data has FSA collected demonstrating that this pilot
    program will benefit students more than direct deposit of student
    financial aid into an account selected by the student? Please provide
    this data.
        Answer. This will not be a prepaid card; the Payment Vehicle
    Account refund method's features and benefits will exceed direct
    deposit. Moreover, a direct deposit is a simple financial transaction,
    whereas the Payment Vehicle Account Program will provide a free method
    for students that provide benefits beyond a simple financial
    transaction. The Payment Vehicle Account will be an essential part of a
    larger FSA initiative to improve communication and build meaningful
    relationships with students throughout the entire student aid
    lifecycle. The Payment Vehicle Account will allow the student to see
    real-time account balances, to use refund funds free from fees, and to
    connect to the FSA Super Portal App, which contains a wealth of
    additional financial literacy resources. Establishing these early and
    consistent connections will allow students to gain a better
    understanding of their rights and obligations, improve repayment
    outcomes, and work to minimize unnecessary borrowing.
           planned resource allocation to support prepaid card pilot
                                 implementation
        Question. Please list the staffing and resources that FSA intends
    to devote to developing and implementing this pilot program. Please
    also describe how FSA will ensure that the fee information required
    under the Department's cash management regulations is accurately
    reported by colleges.
        Answer. Regarding staffing and resources, there is a two person
    core project team and ``as needed'' team members that participate when
    necessary. Additional oversight is provided by the Core NexGen project
    team to ensure alignment of the Payment Vehicle Account with the
    overarching NextGen project and its successful integration into the new
    FSA mobile app.
        FSA will continue to monitor institutions for reporting activity on
    cash management regulations.
                  public hearings regarding prepaid card pilot
        Question. Will FSA or the Department hold any public hearings to
    gather input on the appropriate features of any prepaid card pilot
    program?
        Answer. FSA does not plan to conduct public hearings; however, FSA
    has received instrumental input from multiple sources, including
    Congress, public interest groups, and the BCFP. For example, all
    parties approve of; agree that a ``no fee'' Payment Vehicle Account
    would be beneficial for students. The Department will ensure the pilot
    is introduced in a transparent manner.
     treasury department direct express card program applicability to fsa
                                     pilot
        Question. Will FSA utilize the Treasury Department's Direct Express
    card program for its pilot program, or is FSA considering a separate
    program? If a separate program, will the FSA program provide equal or
    better terms for students as those offered under the Direct Express
    program?
        Answer. FSA will not utilize the Treasury Department Direct Express
    card program and will pursue a better solution through its New Payment
    Vehicle Account. FSA did consult with Treasury regarding the
    possibility of using the Treasury Direct Express card program during
    the course of creating the initial design for the Payment Vehicle
    Account and it decided that borrowers would be better served with an
    alternative product.
    consultation with consumer financial protection bureau on prepaid card
                                     pilot
        Question. Will FSA consult with experts at the Consumer Financial
    Protection Bureau regarding the pilot program?
        Answer. FSA and the BCFB have met several times, and FSA
    understands that the BCFP is favorable and supportive of the Payment
    Vehicle Account program.
     prepaid card pilot compliance with cfpb safe student account scorecard
        Question. Will prepaid cards issued under the pilot program comport
    with the CFPB's Safe Student Account Scorecard?
        Answer. Although the Payment Vehicle will not be a prepaid card,
    the Payment Vehicle Account will comport with the BCFP Safe Student
    Account Scorecard and will assist schools in comparing products in
    order to make the best choice for student financial products.
       fsa prepaid card effect on schools with pre-existing card options
        Question. Does FSA intend that its card would replace existing card
    options currently offered by schools or function alongside them? If
    FSA's card would replace existing card options, please describe FSA's
    authority for doing so and explain why students would benefit from such
    measures.
        Answer. The Payment Vehicle would serve as an alternative for
    students.
     authority to disburse state and institutional aid through fsa prepaid
                                      card
        Question. Does FSA intend to allow State and institutional aid to
    be disbursed on prepaid cards issued as part of this pilot program? If
    so, please describe FSA's authority for doing so and explain why
    students would benefit from such measures.
        Answer. Although not a prepaid card, funds would be disbursed onto
    the Payment Vehicle Account in the same manner, and from the same
    sources, that funds are disbursed by way of ACH.
          transparency and competition in prepaid card implementation
        Question. What steps will FSA take to ensure that any contracting
    with third parties to implement this pilot program will occur on a
    transparent and competitive basis?
        Answer. The public will be well-informed on the process for
    selecting any participants in the pilot and on the parameters for
    administering the pilot.
      student outreach and informed choice regarding prepaid cards versus
                                 direct deposit
        Question. Will FSA or the Department take any steps to prevent
    students from being steered or pushed into this prepaid card option,
    rather than giving students a clear option to have their funds
    deposited into the account of their choice?
        Answer. Student customers are free to open or close accounts;
    students will have the option to determine their account of choice for
    the deposit of funds.
     plans and authority to restrict spending permitted with prepaid cards
        Question. Will FSA allow this pilot program to be used to restrict
    the ability of students to spend financial aid dollars for certain
    types of products or at certain types of merchants? If so, please
    describe FSA's authority for doing so and explain why students would
    benefit from such measures.
        Answer. The pilot will not include purchasing restrictions.
            consultation over merchant fees under prepaid card pilot
        Question. As you know, interchange fees and other card transaction
    fees that are imposed on merchants result in increased retail prices of
    consumer goods, such as college textbooks. Will FSA consult with
    merchants regarding the interchange fees and other fees that might be
    imposed on merchants that are involved in transactions under this pilot
    program to ensure that such fees are not unreasonable?
        Answer. The Department's plan is that the FSA Payment Vehicle Pilot
    will include no fees for students or schools.
       authority to permit industry marketing efforts to promote use of
                                 prepaid cards
        Question. Will FSA allow industry providers of prepaid card
    services to engage in marketing or other efforts to encourage students
    to use FSA prepaid cards under this pilot program? If so, please
    describe FSA's authority for doing so and explain why students would
    benefit from such measures.
        Answer. This will not be a prepaid card. FSA plans to execute an
    agreement with one or more ``Pilot Implementers'' to implement the
    program. Pilot Implementers will develop and execute a communication
    campaign for each school participating in the Pilot. The communication
    campaign will explain the Program Vehicle Account to students.
      authority to permit industry access to personal and financial data
                            under prepaid card pilot
        Question. As part of this pilot program, will FSA allow industry
    providers of prepaid card services to use students' personal and
    financial information, including purchasing behavior, to market
    unrelated services or to sell such information to third parties without
    the students' knowledge and affirmative opt-in consent? If so, please
    describe FSA's authority for doing so and explain why students would
    benefit from such measures.
        Answer. FSA will ensure that appropriate safeguards exist to
    prohibit improper access and use of Payment Vehicle Account data. Any
    use of detailed Payment Vehicle Account information will be authorized
    only with an explicit opt-in (on a by-occurrence only basis and not
    through general blanket opt-in methods) by the student.
    protective measures for student privacy and financial health under card
                                 pilot program
        Question. What steps will FSA take to ensure that the pilot program
    safeguards students' personal and financial information from fraud,
    data breach, and misuse?
        Answer. FSA will ensure that Pilot Implementers deploy state of the
    industry fraud protection, adhere to data privacy and security
    requirements, and comply fully with applicable laws and regulations.
         safeguards against conflicts of interest in card pilot program
        Question. What steps will FSA take to safeguard against conflicts
    of interest in the pilot program?
        Answer. FSA will ensure that participants in the program comply
    with Federal requirements concerning conflicts of interest.
                industry data received in developing card pilot
        Question. In order to provide transparency on any relationships FSA
    has initiated, or may initiate, with industry providers regarding this
    pilot program, please provide all data FSA has obtained from industry
    providers (including, but not limited to, Visa, MasterCard and American
    Express) regarding this pilot program.
        Answer. Industry provider information was shared with FSA on a
    market research basis, with an understanding of confidentially.
    role of data drawn from prepaid card pilot in fsa's management of other
                                    programs
        Question. Does FSA intend to use the data that it gleans from this
    pilot program to inform changes to other programs it manages, such as
    student aid funding? If so please identify the programs FSA plans to
    address using these data.
        Answer. FSA currently has no intention to use the data that it
    obtains the pilot program to inform changes to other programs.
            outside groups consulted in fsa payment card development
        Question. Which outside companies, particularly financial
    institutions, institutions of higher education, advocacy organizations,
    or governmental agencies were consulted in drafting the solicitation
    for the FSA payment card or otherwise had interactions that discussed
    the proposal?
        Answer. To date, FSA has met with a wide variety of groups
    regarding the Payment Vehicle Account Program including:
      --Financial Institutions: Mastercard; Visa; American Express; U.S.
            Bank, Customers Bank, BankMobile division; Citizens Bank;
            Fidelity Information Services (FIS); Total Systems (TSYS); and
            First Data Corporation (FDC)
      --Government Agencies: United States Department of the Treasury; the
            Treasurer of the U.S.; and the Bureau of Consumer Financial
            Protection
      --Members of Congress
      --Associations: National Association of Student Financial Aid
            Administrators; National Association of College & University
            Business Officers; National Association of College Stores; and
            the Association of American Publishers, including McGraw-Hill
            Education in conjunction with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP,
            Cengage, and Pearson
      --Advocacy Organizations: Center of American Progress; New America;
            The Institute for College Access & Success; Student Veterans of
            America; and the National Consumer Law Center
        Additionally, FSA received numerous inquiries to the draft
    solicitation of January 19, 2018. The companies inquiring were:
    Citibank, Berkeley College, Capella University, NCC Group, Conduent,
    Knewton, PayPal, Shazam, Deltek, Teleperformance, Discover, IDEMIA, and
    Black Dog Merchant Solutions.
     unauthorized withdrawals for improper title iv payments under prepaid
                                   card pilot
        Question. Does FSA intend to make unauthorized withdrawals from
    students' FSA Payment Card that are not initiated by students, such as
    withdrawing funds from a student's account for improper Title IV
    payments without their consent? If so, from what statutory authority
    does FSA derive this function?
        Answer. FSA does not intend to, nor will it have any authority to,
    make unauthorized withdrawals from a student's Payment Vehicle Account.
        expectation of vendor capacity to segregate different forms of
                       financial aid in fsa payment card
        Question. How does FSA intend for potential vendors to be able to
    segregate Federal financial aid types into discrete categories, as
    requested in the solicitation for the FSA Payment Card?
        Answer. Based upon input form interested parties, FSA has changed
    its approach and does not intend for potential vendors to be able to
    segregate Federal financial aid types into discrete categories.
                  third party access to fsa payment card data
        Question. Will FSA allow any user information (such as purchase
    history, amounts, merchant type, or frequency) to be accessible by a
    potential vendor, institution of higher education, or third-party to
    operate a merchant discount or reward program through the FSA Payment
    Card?
        Answer. No potential merchant or other third party will have access
    to any user information.
       fsa payment card ``opt-in'' information sharing with third parties
        Question. What specific types of information will a student be able
    to opt-in to share with a potential vendor, institution of higher
    education, or third-party to participate in a merchant discount or
    reward program through the FSA Payment Card?
        Answer. All information added to the Payment Vehicle Account is the
    property of the student and sharing of this can only be allowed by the
    student on a specific case-by-case, opt-in basis.
     protecting students from vendor privacy violations under fsa payment
                                 card contracts
        Question. What types of oversight or enforcement actions may FSA
    take or conduct to protect students' right to privacy if a vendor
    violates the terms of any contract of the FSA Payment Card?
        Answer. In the event of a contract violation of a student's privacy
    rights, FSA will have the authority to terminate a vendor agreement.
    Students will also have the right to seek redress from the issuing
    bank.
    allocation of revenue derived from merchant reward or discount programs
        Question. How will revenue be divided or shared between FSA, a
    potential vendor, institutions of higher education, a third-party, or
    any other applicable party, under a merchant discount or reward
    program?
        Answer. FSA will not receive any revenue or be charged for any
    expense associated with the Payment Vehicle Account Program. Similarly,
    institutions will not receive any revenue. Students are the beneficiary
    of all aspects of the Payment Vehicle Account Program.
       terms and conditions of student participation in fsa payment card
                                    program
        Question. Will the terms and conditions for fees charged by a
    vendor change over the lifecycle of a student's participation in the
    FSA Payment Card Program?
        Answer. Terms and conditions for fees will not change over the
    lifecycle of a student's participation in the Payment Vehicle Account
    Program.
                      fsa payment card warnings or alerts
        Question. In which scenarios does FSA envision sending students
    warnings or alerts when accessing funds in their FSA Payment Card
    Program account?
        Answer. FSA envisions that a student would receive payment use
    fraud alerts by way of the Payment Vehicle Account; this is an
    effective and proven method to deter fraud.
        preventing payment card alerts from steering students away from
                              necessary purchases
        Question. How will FSA ensure that notifications do not dissuade
    students from making purchases that are necessary to meet basic needs?
        Answer. FSA will not impose purchasing restrictions nor send
    purchasing cautions in relation to the Payment Vehicle Account Program.
     preventing payment card ``nudging'' from limiting students' access to
                              their financial aid
        Question. How will FSA ensure that ``nudging'' behaviors in this
    pilot do not result in additional bureaucratic hurdles that may pose
    barriers for students to access their financial resources, including
    Federal student aid?
        Answer. Nothing from FSA in the Pilot will prevent students from
    accessing funds related to their account; however, students have always
    been required to agree that Title IV funds will be used only to pay
    educational and education-related expenses.
    scope, intent, and capabilities of ``payment card authorization stream"
        Question. Please define the scope, intent, and capabilities of a
    ``Payment Card Authorization stream,'' which is otherwise not specified
    in the solicitation.
        Answer. The scope of access to the Payment Vehicle Account Program
    authorization stream is based on ISO 8583, which is the international
    standard for financial and transaction messaging utilized by the
    payment networks. This capability would enable student elected real-
    time fraud alerts and student administered real-time transaction
    controls (as determined by the student) to provide updates, such as
    current balance information, open to buy, card on/off functionality,
    etc.
                 metrics to determine fsa payment card success
        Question. Please identify and explain what ``satisfactory
    determination of success of the pilot'' means, including metrics of
    success.
        Answer. FSA will use a mixed-methods research approach to evaluate
    the efficacy of the Payment Vehicle Account Program, measuring Program
    adoption and engagement using both quantitative and qualitative
    elements. The Pilot presents a ``test and learn'' period to identify
    the best long-term approach for a successful Program.
        The quantitative measurements for Program adoption will measure
    numerous items, including: the number of Super Portal Mobile App
    myMoney tile clicks and subsequent downloads; views of the Vendor
    Mobile App; and the number of FSA borrowers that elect to use the FSA
    Payment Vehicle Account option.
        The qualitative measurements for Program engagement will assess,
    through interview-based research, how Payment Vehicle Account students
    and institutions rate and evaluate the customer experience associated
    with the new Payment Account Alternative compared to alternative
    balance refund methods.
        In evaluating performance, an independent party or organization
    will assist FSA.
    ensuring students with limited technology access equitably benefit from
                                fsa payment card
        Question. What specific steps will FSA take to ensure students
    without smartphones or high-speed Internet can equitably benefit from
    the FSA Payment Card Program?
        Answer. FSA will work with all Pilot Implementers to ensure that
    the Pilot Implementation accommodates access to Payment Vehicle
    Accounts for all students.
     input and feedback to be solicited before expanding fsa payment card
                                     pilot
        Question. What type of public comment, Congressional review, and
    stakeholder feedback processes will FSA conduct before expanding the
    pilot?
        Answer. The extent of public comment feedback processes will be
    determined depending on the evaluation of the Pilot.
                       open textbook pilot implementation
        Question. Can you please provide an update on the Department's
    implementation of this Pilot and how you expect it to achieve savings
    for students?
        Answer. The Notice Inviting Applications for the Open Textbook
    Pilot Program will be published in late July. We anticipate conducting
    peer review of applications in August and making new awards by late
    September. We believe several features of the program will contribute
    to savings for students, including the focus on addressing gaps in the
    open textbook marketplace, the emphasis on providing open textbooks
    that can be used in high enrollment courses and high demand fields, the
    promotion of open source textbooks for multiple courses along a degree
    pathway, and the engagement of subject matter and educational
    technology experts to ensure that materials are high quality.
      leveraging state success to inform department's open textbook pilot
        Question. Georgia, New York, North Dakota, and Washington are among
    several States that have distributed grants to support programs at
    institutions of higher education that expand the creation and use of
    open textbooks and have successfully achieved savings for students many
    times more than the amount originally invested. Has the Department
    consulted with these States and to what extent will the Department
    leverage successful State-level models to expand the savings created by
    open textbooks to the millions of students nationwide in need of
    relief?
        Answer. The Department did use information available about the
    investments in these States to inform the development of our Notice
    Inviting Applications. For example, many of these State-led efforts
    require that institutions work in consortiums and/or partnerships and
    we made a similar requirement a key absolute priority in our
    competition. Additionally, we solicited input from institutions at
    various meetings about existing efforts to expand open textbooks, and
    we will build on these efforts by requiring applicants to describe how
    they will disseminate information about the results of the project to
    other IHEs.
                  stakeholder outreach in open textbook pilot
        Question. What other stakeholders has the Department consulted to
    date about implementation of the Pilot? Please provide a list.
        Answer. While consultation was limited due to the tight timeframe
    for implementing the pilot, Department staff consulted with a wide
    range of experts in this area, including representatives of publishing
    companies, college book stores the Task Force on Apprenticeship
    Expansion, the American Council of Community College Trustees, American
    Association of Community Colleges, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
    Foundation, and other institutions of higher education that
    participated in conferences or meetings where Department staff were in
    attendance.
         anticipated grants to be awarded through open textbook funding
        Question. How many grants does the Department expect to offer as
    part of the Pilot? What does the Department expect the average size of
    grants to be awarded under the Pilot?
        Answer. The Department expects to award between 1 and 3 grants
    through the Open Textbook Pilot. We estimate that the grants will range
    from $1,500,000 to $4,950,000.
               activities supported through open textbook grants
        Question. What primary activity or activities will the grants
    support?
        Answer. The grants will provide funding to one or more institutions
    of higher education that leads a consortium that includes other
    institutions of higher education, subject matter experts, experts in
    educational technology or electronic curricular design, and workforce
    stakeholders to create new open textbooks that have the greatest
    potential to lead to the highest level of savings for students. Grants
    will support the review of existing open source materials, the
    development of new materials that either build upon or fill gaps among
    existing materials, the assessment of the efficacy of those materials
    in improving learning and reducing cost, and widespread implementation
    of the materials through a well-designed dissemination plan that
    includes faculty from other institutions.
        compliance with congressional directive to support children who
                          experience traumatic events
        Question. Chicago is a great city that I am proud to represent. In
    recent years, the city has experienced an epidemic of gun violence.
    Through the end of May, there had been over 1,000 shootings in the city
    of Chicago. That number is significantly lower than the previous 2
    years, but it is still unacceptably high. Common-sense changes to our
    gun laws are an important part of solving the problem. But we must also
    address the underlying issues present in communities that experience
    high incidents of violence including high unemployment, lack of
    resources, and the trauma that children who are exposed to these
    environments experience. According to the Department of Health and
    Human Services nearly half of children nationwide experience at least
    one traumatic event before they reach the age of 17. We know that
    having experienced trauma as a child makes a person more likely to
    become involved in the criminal justice system and suffer negative
    health, educational, and social outcomes. However, too few children who
    experience trauma are currently identified and provided with the right
    care and support. Frankly, your fiscal year 2019 budget would only
    exacerbate this problem so I want to focus on something Congress did in
    fiscal year 2018 to actually help. In addition to ignoring many of the
    harmful and shortsighted cuts put forward by this Administration,
    Congress also directed the Department of Education--and other agencies
    funded in the Labor-HHS bill--to enhance coordination of activities
    that address child trauma, identify trauma-informed best practices, and
    promote programs to identify, appropriately refer, and implement
    supportive interventions for children and families who have experienced
    trauma.
        In April, Senator Capito and I sent you a letter about this
    directive and the critical nature of this issue across the country--not
    just in Chicago. Can you please provide us with an update on the
    Department of Education's activities to comply with this directive to
    support children who have experienced traumatic events?
        Answer. The Department is engaged in a wide range of activities to
    support State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies
    (LEAs), and schools in meeting the needs of children who experience
    trauma on and off school grounds, including identifying and adopting
    best practices in trauma-informed care. For example, the Project
    Prevent program currently helps 20 school districts: (1) increase their
    capacity to identify, assess and serve students exposed to pervasive
    violence; (2) ensure that affected students are offered mental health
    services for trauma or anxiety; (3) provide support for conflict
    resolution programs; and (4) implement other school--based violence
    prevention strategies to reduce the likelihood that these students will
    commit violent acts at a later time.
        The Department's longstanding School Climate Transformation Grant
    (SCTG) program makes competitive grants to SEAs and LEAs to develop,
    enhance or expand systems of support for schools implementing multi-
    tiered behavioral frameworks for improving behavioral outcomes and
    learning conditions for all students. These frameworks help schools
    identify, adopt, and implement evidence-based interventions, which, in
    response to locally determined needs, may include trauma-informed care.
        Our Project School Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV)
    program funds short-term and long-term education-related services for
    LEAs and institutions of higher education to help them recover from a
    violent or traumatic event in which the learning environment has been
    disrupted.
        We also fund technical assistance that is provided to youth who
    have experienced trauma. Our Office of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS)
    funds the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments,
    which offers information and technical assistance related to youth and
    trauma, including sexual assault trauma and the effects of the opioids
    crisis on children and families. OSHS also funds the National Center
    for Homeless Education TA Center, which provides a variety of resources
    related to youth trauma, including Child Trauma Toolkit for Educators,
    a Trauma-Informed Care and Trauma-Specific Services brief, a Trauma-
    Informed Organizational Toolkit, and an Understanding Traumatic Stress
    in Children guide.
       planned use of authority to expand performance partnership pilots
        Question. The Performance Partnership Pilot program provides States
    and local communities, like Chicago, with flexibility to improve
    services for disconnected youth. It encourages coordination among
    participating Federal agencies--including the U.S. Departments of
    Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, the Corporation for
    National and Community Service, the Institute for Museum and Library
    Services, and Department of Justice. This flexibility enables
    communities to pursue the most innovative and effective ways to use
    their existing funds to improve outcomes for the neediest youth,
    including those who have experienced trauma and gun violence. Section
    525 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of fiscal year 2018 allows
    agencies to use Federal discretionary funds to carry out up to 10
    additional Performance Partnership Pilots. Do you plan to carry out any
    new Pilots using this authority? If so, how many?
        Answer. The Department plans to announce a competition for
    Performance Partnership Pilots under the fiscal year 2018 authority
    later this year. The number of pilots awarded will depend on the
    quality and quantity of applications received.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
             proposed cuts in context of supporting great teachers
        Question. When you testified at the House Education and Workforce
    Committee last month, you said, ``I think great teachers need to be
    supported. I think they should be better compensated, and I think they
    should be treated as professionals . . . '' Yet when teachers across
    the country have stood up for their profession and for their students,
    insisting that States invest in public education you told them that
    they should ``keep adult disagreements and disputes in a separate
    place.'' Given that your budget eliminates the Teacher Quality
    Partnership Grant and over $2 billion in the Supporting Effective
    Instruction State Grants to support recruitment, induction, and
    professional development for our Nation's educators, how are you, in
    fact, supporting ``great teachers?''
        Answer. Recruiting, training, supporting, and retaining effective
    teachers is a core State and local responsibility under our education
    system, and the proposed reduction of $2.4 billion for teacher programs
    represents about one-third of 1 percent of the more than $700 billion
    that our Nation spends annually on public elementary and secondary
    education. Moreover, our research and evaluation efforts consistently
    have shown that Federal funds largely have been used for activities
    that have not been shown to be effective.
     evidence for claim that supporting effective instruction state grants
                                are ineffective
        Question. You have also claimed that the Supporting Effective
    Instruction State Grant program is ineffective, but States are only in
    the early stages of implementation. What is your evidence that the new
    law is ineffective?
        Answer. The reauthorized Supporting Effective Instruction State
    Grant program largely continues the activities supported under the
    antecedent program, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, and there
    is no evidence that the changes would make a difference in program
    effectiveness. If States and districts have identified teacher
    practices that they would like to continue, they may do so with other
    Federal funds, such as Title I, or with State and local funds.
     performance evaluation and corrective measures regarding teach grants
        Question. Thank you for agreeing to provide information on steps
    the Department is taking to address the servicing issues with the TEACH
    Grant Program. Specifically, please provide information on the on-going
    review of the program and how the Department plans to resolve issues
    related to TEACH Grants that were unfairly converted into loans.
    Additionally, please provide information about the guidance the
    Department has given to FedLoan Servicing regarding administering the
    TEACH Grants and tracking the service requirement. What specific
    metrics are the Department using to evaluate the performance of FedLoan
    Servicing in administering this program?
        Answer. The Department reaffirms its commitment to improve its
    administration of the Teacher Education Assistance for College and
    Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program. Taking note of past servicing
    issues, the Department is studying all aspects of the program to
    determine necessary modifications so as to align servicing of the TEACH
    Grants with Congressional intent. This will ensure that students who
    agree to teach for 4 years at an elementary school, secondary school,
    or educational service agency that serves students from low-income
    families have the resources and support that they need.
        In the interim, the Department will continue to perform oversight
    and review of TEACH Grant-related disputes and escalated issues
    resulting from interactions with recipients. Moreover, the Department
    will continue to perform periodic on-site and off-site monitoring to
    ensure adherence to existing TEACH Grant regulations, requirements, and
    other issues.
             federal laws applicable to opportunity grants proposal
        Question. You have previously testified that private schools
    receiving Federal funds would have to comply with Federal law. With
    regard to your Opportunity Grants proposal, please provide a detailed
    list of Federal laws that would apply to schools receiving voucher
    funds. For example, would all voucher schools be required to comply
    with all civil rights laws? Would these schools have to provide the
    same rights and protections as required under IDEA? Would they have to
    meet the accountability and reporting requirements of the Every Student
    Succeeds Act?
        Answer. We have consistently stated that all recipients of Federal
    education funds must comply with all applicable civil rights laws. As
    we are flexible on many aspects of program design and intend to work
    out the details of our proposals with Congress, it is impossible to be
    more precise regarding any applicable laws and requirements, including
    those related to accountability.
              negative achievement outcomes in dc voucher program
        Question. The Department of Education's evaluation of the D.C.
    voucher program found the program to have a negative impact on student
    achievement. Given your stated aim to promote evidence-based models,
    why do you continue to promote this program?
        Answer. We know from other research, including studies of charter
    schools, that the positive effects of educational interventions may
    increase over time. Consequently, we believe it is too soon to reach a
    final conclusion on the effectiveness of private school choice options,
    and we look forward to the third and final impact report of the current
    evaluation expected during fiscal year 2019.
        projected impact of department's proposed student aid budget on
                enrollment, retention, completion and borrowing
        Question. Please provide an analysis of the impact on student
    enrollment, retention, completion, and borrowing if the Department's
    student aid budget were to be implemented. What would be the impact on
    unmet need for students from low- and moderate income families?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2019 Budget for the Federal student aid
    programs focuses on simplifying funding for college and addressing the
    unique needs of today's students. To these ends, the Budget proposes
    expanding Pell Grant recipients' eligibility to include high-quality
    short-term programs that provide students with a credential,
    certification, or license in an in-demand field, with sufficient
    requirements in place to balance student needs with taxpayer interests.
    The Department estimates that in Award Year 2019-2020, 88,000 new
    recipients will avail themselves of this expanded eligibility. These
    numbers are expected to grow steadily to 168,000 new recipients by
    Award Year 2028-2029. As far as impact on overall student enrollment,
    it is difficult to estimate, because some of these recipients would
    have already been enrolled or planning to enroll. Nevertheless, this
    proposal can be seen as an important component of the Administration's
    overall strategy for improving America's workforce and expanding
    alternative pathways to postsecondary education.
        The fiscal year 2019 Budget for the student aid programs is not
    expected to have a demonstrable impact on unmet need. Borrowing is
    expected to remain roughly level, with undergraduate volume largely
    shifting to Unsubsidized Loans. At page 36 of the Department's fiscal
    year 2019 Budget Summary, the first effects of this shift can be seen
    in the 2019 column. Although reductions are proposed in the Campus-
    Based Aid programs, these reductions amount to about 1.2 percent of
    Title IV aid available and less than 0.9 percent of all Federal aid
    available; however, these reductions are offset by the proposal to
    expand Pell eligibility. In addition, we propose to target aid more
    effectively (such as through Federal Work Study), which should improve
    the overall effectiveness of Federal student aid dollars. The
    Department does expect that its proposals will simplify student aid
    from the student perspective, which could have positive effects on
    enrollment, retention, and completion.
         funding necessary to close achievement gap in adult education
        Question. In your budget justification, you noted, ``there
    continues to be a need for Federal investment in adult education
    programs, in part because the United States is increasingly losing
    ground in employment related skills to many of its economic
    competitors.'' Yet your budget request once again recommends a cut for
    Adult Education State Grants. Congress provided an increase of $35
    million for adult education for fiscal year 2018. Do you support
    increasing the Federal investment in adult education? What level of
    Federal, State, and local investments would be necessary to close the
    gaps between U.S. adults and our international competitors?
        Answer. The Administration does not currently support an increase
    for Adult Education State Grants. Although we recognize that adult
    education may generally improve literacy, employment, and other
    outcomes, this program has not demonstrated its effectiveness. The
    Department has commenced a program evaluation that should provide
    insight into whether the program is making an impact that could justify
    increased Federal investment.
     plans and stakeholder engagement in shifting from private collection
                                    agencies
        Question. It has been reported that the Department plans to move
    away from hiring collection agencies and instead contract with other
    types of companies to provide enhanced services to borrowers who are
    delinquent. Please provide more details about these plans and the
    services you envision these companies providing. Do you plan to base
    outreach and enhanced services regionally or by some other borrower
    characteristics? How have you engaged stakeholders, including
    institutions of higher education, student loan borrowers, State and
    non-profit student loan entities, and consumer advocates in developing
    the proposal?
        Answer. The Department is in the process of reviewing and refining
    our approach to delinquency prevention and default collection, with the
    goal of improving outcomes for borrowers and enhancing our stewardship
    of the over $1.5 trillion Federal student loan portfolio. Past
    experience, the results of pilots and other analyses, market research
    activities, and input from a broad range of sources within and outside
    of government will continue to inform this process. Details of our
    plans have not been finalized but will be made public as they are
    completed.
                      allocation of trio funding increase
        Question. Congress provided a 6 percent increase for the TRIO
    programs for fiscal year 2018. How does the Department plan to allocate
    that increase to address the issues with the 2017 applications and
    ensure that current grantees have sufficient funds to meet program
    requirements and provide for cost of living adjustments for program
    staff?
        Answer. The Department is using the $60 million increase provided
    for the Federal TRIO programs consistent with the language included in
    the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations
    Act, 2018. For example, we are currently reviewing the applications
    from 40 applicants from the fiscal year 2017 competitions whose
    applications were previously rejected for budget errors and will
    provide funding to any and all of these applicants that achieve scores
    that would have put them in the funding range in last year's
    competitions. We also plan to use a portion of the additional funding
    to provide an across-the-board increase to all current TRIO grantees.
                 policy shifts favoring private education loans
        Question. A June 1, 2018, article on MarketWatch quoted Federal
    Student Aid's Dr. A. Wayne Johnson as having said at a recent
    conference that the Department ``was mainly supportive of Federal loan
    programs, but that would likely change in the near future'' and the
    article noted that a Department spokeswoman didn't respond to requests
    for comment about the speech. Is the Department currently considering
    changes to FSA websites that would no longer encourage borrowers to
    exhaust their Federal loan eligibility before turning to private
    educational loan products?
        Answer. The Department fully supports the current Federal student
    loan programs. We are committed to ensuring that our websites provide
    customers with clear, complete, and accurate information on the full
    range of options available to help finance their education, The
    Department is committed to working with Congress to do more to ensure
    that students fully understand the hazards of over-borrowing, of
    defaulting on their loans, and of the long-term cost of borrowing.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
              effect of proposed work-study cut on undergraduates
        Question. Secretary DeVos, you testified that the proposed funding
    cut for the Federal Work Study Program requested in your Department's
    budget for fiscal year 2019 would only impact graduate students. Given
    that your budget requests $500 million for Federal Work Study, which is
    56 percent below the $1.13 billion the program was funded at in fiscal
    year 2018, how do you anticipate that the undergraduate students who
    rely on the program would not be impacted?
        Answer. As I stated in my response, our budget proposal was focused
    on providing the greatest opportunity for the students with the
    greatest need. Therefore, the Department proposes to focus Federal Work
    Study (FWS) dollars on undergraduate students and prioritize funding to
    institutions enrolling high numbers of Pell Grant recipients. Our
    proposal would also reform Federal Work Study to ensure that it
    supports workforce and career-oriented training opportunities for low-
    income undergraduate students as opposed to subsidizing employment as a
    means of financial aid. Overall, coupled with our other student aid
    proposals such as Expanding Pell Grant Eligibility to Short-Term
    Programs, I feel that this budget will positively impact undergraduate
    students with the most need, providing them alternative pathways to
    successful careers while minimizing costs to students and families.
               appeal process for teach grant-to-loan conversion
        Question. I am concerned about reports of problems within the
    Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH)
    Grant program, particularly regarding high rates of erroneous
    conversions of participants' grants to loans. What is the current
    process for a TEACH Grant recipient to appeal a grant-to-loan
    conversion?
        Answer. 34 C.F.R. Sec. 686.43(d) states that, once a TEACH Grant is
    converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan, it cannot be reconverted to a
    grant; however, this does not preclude the Department from reinstating
    TEACH Grants when it has been determined that a TEACH Grant was
    converted to a loan due to a servicing error. The Department has taken
    steps to define what constitutes a servicing error and has formalized
    this step in contractual servicing requirements for TEACH Grant
    servicers. Recipients who contend that a servicer converted their TEACH
    Grant(s) in error may appeal to the Department. Moreover, recipients
    whose TEACH Grants converted for reasons other than a defined servicing
    error may also appeal to the Department, which will review the appeal.
      number of teach loan conversions disputed, reviewed, and reconverted
        Question. How many TEACH Grant recipients have disputed the
    conversion of their grants to loans? In how many of those cases did ED
    staff review the disputes? In what share of the cases were the loans
    reconverted to grants?
        Answer. The Department does not track the number of recipients
    submitting disputes and instead maintains data on the number of total
    TEACH Grant disputes received since FedLoan Servicing began originating
    TEACH Grants. There have been 10,908 TEACH Grant disputes related to
    grant-to-loan conversions since April 2013; of those disputes, 3,232
    were appealed to the Department. The following table delineates the
    number of disputes approved for TEACH Grant reinstatement.
      --FedLoan Approvals 5,175
      --FSA Approvals 1, 508
      --Total Approvals 6,683
             fedloan servicing corrective actions for teach errors
        Question. Please provide any actions FedLoan Servicing has taken to
    correct grant-to-loan conversions that were or are suspected to have
    been made in error, including details on whether loans were reconverted
    into grants, whether any payments were returned to teachers, and any
    communication to consumer credit bureaus.
        Answer. In 2014, the Department detected anomalies in conversion
    rates that it later determined to be incorrect conversions. Although
    discovered while FedLoan Servicing was the designated TEACH Grant
    servicer, the errors occurred prior to its involvement in the program.
    Therefore, the actions taken consisted of contractual changes that
    required FedLoan Servicing to perform outreach to recipients whose
    TEACH Grants were incorrectly converted to a loan and to offer the
    option of TEACH Grant reinstatements. In general, the reinstatement of
    a TEACH Grant requires the following:
      --Written communication to recipients explaining the TEACH Grant(s)
            reinstatement
      --Application of previous loan payments to Department-held loans
            serviced at FedLoan Servicing. If no other Ed-held loans are
            serviced by FedLoan Servicing, payments are refunded
            automatically to the recipient; and
      --Updated information to any credit reporting agencies.
                 fedloan customer service for teach recipients
        Question. Does FedLoan Servicing have specialized customer
    representative teams to respond to TEACH Grant recipients whose grants
    have been converted to loans?
        Answer. FedLoan Servicing has dedicated Customer Service
    Representatives (CSR) for TEACH Grant servicing, and converted
    recipients are not hindered from handling disputes directly with them.
    Generally, converted recipients initially contact FedLoan Servicing's
    CSRs, who have the specialized training necessary to launch a TEACH
    Grant dispute. Once a dispute has been initiated, it would then be
    assigned to the dedicated TEACH Grant team for review and handling.
                  fedloan timeline for correcting teach errors
        Question. Does FedLoan Servicing have clear timeframes for
    reviewing TEACH Grant paperwork for errors and communicating those
    errors to recipients? If so, what are those timeframes?
        Answer. The review and response period for TEACH Grant
    certification is 10 days, which includes the review and the decision
    (approval, denial, or pending, if incomplete) Additionally, the
    Department reviews on a weekly basis various indicators, such as call
    center statistics, data on disputes, and denial reasons to ensure that
    processing anomalies are addressed. In the event an error does occur,
    FSA reviews to ensure a timely remediation, communications to the
    recipient, and completion of any remediation.
     involuntary collection resulting from erroneous teach loan conversions
        Question. How many TEACH Grant recipients are or have been the
    subject of involuntary collection proceedings for repayment of TEACH
    Grants converted to loans?
        Answer. The Department is committed to providing the information
    requested to support the review and oversight of the TEACH Grant
    program; however, the Department does not typically calculate the
    requested metric. The Department is actively reviewing the data
    available to determine the most efficient means to provide this data as
    soon as it becomes available.
          specific public institutions characterized as ``bad actors''
        Question. As part of your confirmation hearing and in response to
    several questions for the record related to fraud and misconduct at
    colleges that misuse taxpayer dollars, you repeatedly stated that
    ``Fraud should never be tolerated. Period. Bad actors clearly exist--in
    both public and nonpublic institutions''. While there have been
    individual bad actors across many types of institutions, I am not aware
    of a public institution of higher education that has systematically
    defrauded the Federal student aid program with actions such as making
    false statements about graduates' earnings or misrepresenting the
    purpose of a degree program. Which public institutions were you
    referring to with your statement?
        Answer. In 2012, an investigation revealed that the University of
    Illinois Law School had published inflated median grade-point averages
    and Law School Admission Test scores for six entering law school
    classes (2005 and 2007-2011, graduating in 2008 and 2010-2014). As a
    result, the American Bar Association (ABA) levied an unprecedented
    $250,000 fine and public censure against the institution.
        Unfortunately, no sector of higher education is immune to this kind
    of conduct. By way of illustration, in 2012, it was reported that
    Claremont McKenna College, Emory University, and George Washington
    University submitted false data to U.S. News about undergraduate
    admissions, as did Tulane University's business school with regard to
    MBA degree admissions. Bucknell University has similarly admitted that,
    from 2006 through 2012, the institution misreported SAT and ACT
    averages to make the institution appear to be more selective than it
    was. More recently, Temple University admitted to misrepresentations
    regarding the percentage of its online MBA students who took entrance
    exams prior to being admitted--a misrepresentation that put Temple's
    online graduate business school at the top of U.S. News rankings.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
          ``enforcement disclosure'' policy explanation, requests and
                                 documentation
        Question. It was recently reported that the Department has issued a
    memorandum interpreting the requirements of the Privacy Act to deny
    access to State agencies seeking Federal student loan records from
    student loan servicers, which can include call recordings, and other
    work product created by these Federal contractors. The Department's
    Statement of Records Notice (SORN) for the Direct Loan Program (Common
    Services For Borrowers (CSB), 18-11-16), establishes through its
    ``Enforcement Disclosure'' provision that ``in the event that
    information in this system of records indicates, either on its face or
    in connection with other information, a violation or potential
    violation of any applicable statute, regulation, or order of a
    competent authority, the Department may disclose the relevant records
    to the appropriate agency, whether foreign, Federal, State, Tribal or
    local, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting
    that violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute,
    Executive Order, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.''
        a. Please provide a detailed explanation of the Department's policy
    that governs such a disclosure, including the name of the official
    responsible for making determinations related to this disclosure and
    the criteria used to determine the scope of records relevant to a
    request from an appropriate agency.
        b. Please provide a detailed list of all individual requests made
    to the Department under the ``Enforcement Disclosure'' provision over
    the last 5 years, including the identity of the third party making the
    request, the identity of the student loan servicer or debt collector
    subject to investigation or oversight, and the date on which such a
    request was made.
        c. Please indicate any requests for which the Department of
    Education has not yet made a determination under the ``Enforcement
    Disclosure'' provision and indicate the number of days such a request
    has been pending.
        d. Please indicate any requests that have been denied under the
    ``Enforcement Disclosure'' provision over the last 5 years, along with
    the grounds for denial and the name of the Education Department
    official responsible for making this determination.
        e. Please provide a copy of the memorandum cited in the Politico
    reporting on December 27, 2017, regarding the ``Enforcement
    Disclosure'' policy.
        Answer. a. The Department's policies regarding disclosure of
    records subject to the Privacy Act reflect our utmost concern to
    protect borrowers' privacy and individually identifiable information.
    The Department has discretion (``may disclose the relevant records . .
    .) and generally considers Privacy Act requests from local, State, and
    Federal law enforcement agencies ``on a case-by case basis.'' Common
    Services for Borrowers (CSB) SOR (18-11-16) published at 81 F.R. 60686.
    FSA consults with the Department's Office of the General Counsel
    concerning decisions related to disclosing the applicable records.
        b. The Department does not maintain a list of these applicable
    requests and so is unable to provide the requested information.
        c. The Department does not maintain a list of pending Privacy Act
    requests and will not comment on any deliberations regarding any
    potential disclosure of Privacy Act-protected records requests made
    pursuant to the Privacy Act.
        d. The Department does not maintain a list of the denied requests
    and is unable to provide you with the requested information. The
    decisions related to disclosing the applicable records are made by the
    office of Federal Student Aid in consultation with the Department's
    Office of the General Counsel.
        e. Please see the enclosed memorandum (an example of the letter
    that was transmitted).

    clarification of stance on obama administration borrower defense policy
        Question. You have previously said that a cheated student loan
    borrower simply had to ``raise his or her hands to be entitled to so-
    called free money'' under the Obama Administration's borrower defense
    process. Given that the previous Administration simply provided a
    discharge of outstanding loan obligations that students would otherwise
    have otherwise been required to repay for an education that was
    determined to have been fraudulently provided, what did you mean by
    these comments?
        Answer. The policies in this area introduced by the prior
    administration lacked the analytical rigor needed for an adjudicative
    process, without which could result in the loss of billions of taxpayer
    dollars. Borrowers who relied upon and were harmed by fraudulent
    misrepresentations should be eligible for borrower defense relief. The
    standards for evaluating such claims should be rigorous to ensure the
    approval of only valid claims from eligible borrowers.
    institutional liability for debt relief expenses under borrower defense
        Question. Is the Department considering any steps to recoup funds
    for the cost of debt relief from the institutions of higher education
    that are subject to borrower defense claims under the current borrower
    defense regulations and process?
        Answer. Consistent with the Secretary's authority under 34 C.F.R.
    Sec. 685.206(c)(3), the Department will initiate proceedings against an
    institution that had engaged in acts or omissions that would give rise
    to a cause of action under State law. To date, the Department has
    approved borrower defense claims related only to institutions that are
    insolvent and for which the appropriate statute of limitations stated
    in the borrower defense regulation has already run.
     extradepartmental instructions regarding budgetary impact of borrower
                                    defense
        Question. Has the Department ever been advised or directed to
    reduce the budgetary impact of borrower defense relief from senior
    officials within the Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Department
    of the Treasury, or the White House?
        Answer. No, it has not.
             delay of borrower defense rule and student protection
        Question. In a press release produced by your agency concerning the
    delay of the borrower defense to repayment (``borrower defense'')
    rules, you stated that ``It is the Department's aim, and this
    Administration's commitment, to protect students from predatory
    practices.'' Please describe specifically how the delay of the borrower
    defense rule protects students from predatory practices.
        Answer. The Department continues to protect students from predatory
    practices through its program reviews, oversight activities and
    investigations, and we continue to process the nearly 170,000 borrower
    defense claims already received. The implementation of the borrower
    defense to repayment regulations was delayed in order to provide time
    for negotiated rulemaking to address the many elements of the
    regulation that were unworkable, costly, and unfair. The Department
    believes that students who have been deceived by predatory practices
    should receive financial compensation and be made whole, but this
    should be at the expense of the institution rather than the taxpayer.
    In addition, judicial proceedings or arbitration are the best ways for
    borrowers to pursue restitution for acts of consumer fraud since those
    proceedings can include not just reimbursement for Federal student
    loans, but for the total cost of attendance (including cash and other
    forms of credit) and for the opportunity costs associated with
    attending an institution that committed an act of fraud.
      total volume and accrued interest on loans receiving partial relief
                             under borrower defense
        Question. In cases where the Department has granted ``partial
    relief'' to borrower defense claims, what is the current total volume
    and average amount of accrued interest on such loans from the period
    during which the claims were under review, and at the point in which
    the borrowers were expected to re-enter repayment on the remaining
    balance?
        Answer. 15,029 borrowers were approved for partial discharge. The
    average amount of interest that accrued on those loans during the
    review period was $0.00 since borrowers at the time they entered
    repayment received a credit for the approximate amount of interest that
    had accrued during the time the claim was pending.
                     student aid enforcement unit staffing
        Question. What is the number of currently employed, full-time
    equivalent, non-managerial employees in each of the Student Aid
    Enforcement Unit's four staff groups: Investigations, Borrower Defense,
    Administrative Actions and Appeals, and Clery?
        Answer. There are four full-time employees in the Investigations
    Group; six full-time employees and one part-time employee in the
    Borrower Defense Unit; 10 employees in the Administrative Actions and
    Appeals Service Group; and 16 employees in the Clery Act Compliance
    Division.
                    investigations group staffing allocation
        Question. How many staff are currently dedicated to the work of
    conducting investigations within the Investigations Group--not
    including managers and others who have been assigned to other tasks?
        Answer. Each member of the staff is dedicated to the work of
    conducting investigations. This investigatory work can be conducted as
    a standalone investigation or in support of other FSA teams, such as
    Program Compliance, the Administrative Actions and Appeals Service
    Group, and the Borrower Defense Unit.
                         status of devry investigation
        Question. The Department announced in October 2016 that it would
    ``continue to support the FTC's ongoing lawsuit against DeVry, while
    also continuing its own investigations of the institution.'' Has this
    investigation continued in your Administration?
        Answer. To preserve the integrity of investigations, program
    reviews and other enforcement activities, the Department's practice is
    to neither confirm nor deny current or potential investigations.
          response to staff requests to continue devry investigations
        Question. Has the Department responded to staff requests during
    your tenure (since January 20, 2017) to continue or move forward with
    investigations into DeVry?
        Answer. To preserve the integrity of investigations, program
    reviews and other enforcement activities, the Department's practice is
    to neither confirm nor deny current or potential investigations.
              new investigations in fsa under trump administration
        Question. How many new investigations have been opened by the
    Investigations Group under your Administration (since January 20,
    2017)?
        Answer. Nine new investigations have been opened.
        investigations prompting enforcement under trump administration
        Question. How many investigations--not minor compliance reviews--
    conducted by the Investigations Group have resulted in an enforcement
    action under your Administration (since January 20, 2017)?
        Answer. Not all investigations result in an enforcement action, but
    thus far there have been no enforcement actions taken as a result of
    investigations by the Investigations Group that have begun since
    January 20, 2017.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Brian Schatz
          bilingualism in national security and cognitive development
        Question. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences released a
    report last year that details the advantages of bilingualism. It calls
    for the U.S. to prioritize investments in language education for the
    purpose of increasing our national security and providing better social
    and cognitive development opportunities to our youth.
        How will you utilize the findings and recommendations in this
    report to inform your work?
        Answer. National security is one of this Administration's top
    priorities. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences' report entitled
    ``America's Languages: Investing in Language Education for the 21st
    Century'' cites a number of recommendations to improve access to
    language education for people of all ages, ethnicities, and
    socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as preparing language teachers and
    promoting public-private partnerships in language education.
        The report aligns with a number of the major priorities in the
    President's 2019 Budget Request. For example, President Trump's
    emphasis on providing every student the opportunity to attend a school
    of his or her choice will lead to more options for students and
    families, including both public and private schools that give priority
    to bilingualism and foreign language instruction.
        At the same time, the Administration is committed to strengthening
    the Federal investment in education by eliminating funding for programs
    that are duplicative, ineffective, or more appropriately supported with
    State, local, or private funds. For this reason, no funds are requested
    for the International Education programs at the Department. The
    Department of Defense, the State Department, and other Federal agencies
    offer a number of programs that support similar activities;
    consequently, the Administration's overall fiscal year 2019 request
    provides sufficient resources for programs critical to our national
    security and global competitiveness.
                   dual language immersion in charter schools
        Question. In Hawaii, public charter schools play a significant role
    in language immersion education. Dual language immersion schools
    empower students to achieve fluency and literacy in multiple languages.
        Will you commit to studying the impact of high quality dual
    language immersion schools as part of the Charter Schools Program?
        Answer. The Department agrees that language immersion programs
    offer an important educational option for our Nation's students,
    including English learners. We will consider including effective
    charter school immersion programs in our efforts to disseminate best-
    practice information under the Charter Schools Program.
    authority to fold office of english language acquisition into office of
                       elementary and secondary education
        Question. The legal basis for the Office of English Language
    Acquisition (OELA) derives from the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Lau
    v. Nichols. Under this landmark 1974 case, school districts that
    receive Federal funding are required to ensure all students have equal
    educational opportunities, including through the establishment of
    multi-lingual programs for language minority students.
        What legal authorities do you believe you have to eliminate the
    independent Office of English Language Acquisition and disperse its
    staff across the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education?
        Answer. The Department of Education is proposing to integrate the
    Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) into the Office of
    Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), not eliminate it or its
    functions. The Secretary has general authority to reorganize the
    Department pursuant to section 413 of the Department of Education
    Organization Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 3473), and any reorganization of the
    Department would comply with this provision. The Department is working
    closely with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), its Office of
    the General Counsel (OGC), and others to ensure that the reorganization
    is conducted in accordance with the law.
        The Department recognizes the importance of ensuring that English
    learners are afforded equal access to education and the valuable role
    that the Director's position and OELA contribute to meeting that goal.
    The Department notes that the amendments made by the Every Student
    Succeeds Act (ESSA) to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
    (ESEA) places a heightened emphasis on English learners. ESSA moved the
    accountability provisions relating to English learner progress from
    Title III to Title I. Thus, the statute requires State ESEA plans to
    address long-term goals for English learner progress, including an
    English learner indicator, as an integral part of State school
    accountability systems. Just as States are adjusting to this change by
    breaking down silos between Title I and Title III State-level offices,
    so too is the Department. The proposed reorganization will allow the
    Department to provide States with the technical assistance needed
    across programs. Once implemented, the Department expects that its
    proposed changes will enhance Department operations and leverage
    resources to better serve English learner students and their families.
    The Department is committed to maintaining an effective OELA that
    continues to support and helps to facilitate compliance by States and
    local educational agencies in their efforts to provide a high-quality
    education to English learners.
                    oela reorganization and essa compliance
        Question. Do you believe the elimination of an independent OELA
    complies with the legislative provisions authorized in the Every
    Student Succeeds Act?
        Answer. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) amendments to the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) place a heightened
    emphasis on English learners. ESSA moved the accountability provisions
    relating to English learner progress from Title III to Title I. Thus,
    the statute requires State ESEA plans to address long-term goals for
    English learner progress, including an English learner indicator, as an
    integral part of State school accountability systems. Just as States
    are adjusting to this change by breaking down silos between Title I and
    Title III State-level offices, so too is the Department with its
    proposed reorganization.
                 oela reorganization and statutory obligations
        Question. OELA is charged with preserving heritage languages and
    cultures in addition to ensuring educational support for English
    learners. How does the proposed reorganization serve the purposes of
    other statutes such as the Native American Languages Act?
        Answer. The Department is committed to maintaining an effective
    Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) that continues to support
    and helps to facilitate compliance by States and local educational
    agencies in their efforts to provide a high-quality education to
    English learners. The integration of OELA into the Office of Elementary
    and Secondary Education will not reduce its functions.
                  student debt and federal role in addressing
        Question. 44 million Americans currently have student loan debt.
    College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.4
    trillion dollars. This is the highest category of consumer debt behind
    mortgages. It surpasses even credit card debt and auto loans. We are
    already seeing the economic drag of student loan debt. It is a major
    reason that homeownership is down--as many as 360,000 young Americans
    didn't buy a house in 2015 because of the costs of college.
        a. Do you believe we have a student debt problem?
        b. Do you believe that the Federal Government has a role in
    addressing student debt?
        c. What are your justifications for undermining the Federal
    programs that help address student loan debt, like public service loan
    forgiveness and income-based repayment?
        d. What steps will you take to ensure public higher education is
    affordable and accessible?
        Answer. a. Student loan debt is a tremendous problem for students
    and parents, with potentially catastrophic consequences on the Federal
    budget and the national deficit in the not-so-distant future. The
    Department believes that income-based repayment plans and loan
    forgiveness programs, although beneficial to borrowers in repayment,
    also create perverse incentives that encourage students to borrow to
    the maximum limit because they believe (mistakenly) that income-driven
    repayment programs will reduce the repayment burden. Some institutions
    also promote income-driven repayment plans as a strategy for reducing
    student and parent concerns about tuition costs.
        b. The Department believes that the Federal Government has an
    important role to play in addressing student debt. For too many years
    the Government has promoted student and parent borrowing, first by
    introducing the unsubsidized loan program and raising the cap on
    ParentPLUS loans in 1992, and subsequently by continuing to increase
    borrowing limits. Increased borrowing limits, coupled with prohibitions
    on institutions interfering with a student's right to borrow (except in
    narrowly-defined situations), cost of attendance definitions that
    require institutions to include local housing costs (including for non-
    residential campuses) and policy objectives that emphasized the
    importance of every American earning a college degree have all
    contributed to the $1.45 trillion dollar student loan problem.
        The Department is very concerned that, despite the best intentions,
    income-based repayment plans and loan forgiveness programs have created
    a set of perverse incentives that enable students to justify borrowing
    to the limits with the belief that they will not be burdened by large
    monthly payments and that they will receive loan forgiveness. What many
    of these borrowers do not understand is that loan forgiveness is taxed
    as income, resulting in unexpected tax liabilities that many borrowers
    may be unable to pay. Despite their usefulness in helping low-income
    borrowers manage their repayment obligation, research has shown that
    students who benefit most from income-driven repayment plans are those
    who earn a graduate education, meaning that resources intended to help
    the lowest income borrowers are being reappropriated to more affluent
    borrowers with higher earning potentials.
        In addition, for far too long the Federal Government has encouraged
    all students to go to college, even when this may not be the best
    option for all students. The majority of our post-secondary resources
    and most of the major policies of the last four decades have been to
    encourage more and more students to enroll in college, thus using fear
    and threats of lifelong consequences to drive students into taking
    loans. It is time to provide lower-cost, shorter-term options that
    enable Americans prepare for careers and continue to upgrade their
    skills throughout their career, rather than saddling them with such
    large debts before they ever experience work in their chosen career.
        c. Public service loan forgiveness puts the Government in the
    inappropriate position of deciding which jobs or occupations are more
    important than others or signaling, perhaps incorrectly, where
    workforce shortages exist. In addition, PSLF discriminates against
    students who completed the same program as their peers and work for the
    same wages, simply because their employer has a different tax status.
    The notion that private sector jobs always pay more than public sector
    jobs is outdated, and often times public sector jobs have benefits
    beyond a wage premium that make these jobs more desirable, especially
    during times of economic challenge. It seems unfair that a nurse who
    works at a public hospital, for example, receives loan forgiveness but
    a nurse who works in a private hospital does not, even though both
    nurses might have taken on the same level of debt and earn the same
    wages. We believe that institutions, not taxpayers, must be called upon
    to solve the debt crisis by developing innovative ways to reduce
    educational costs and help students manage debts. The Department gives
    tremendous credit to institutions like Perdue University for
    experimenting with Income Share Agreements as a new way for students to
    pay for college without taking on debt.
        d. The most important way to ensure that postsecondary education is
    affordable and accessible is to expand the number of shorter-term
    programs and earn-and-learn opportunities available to students,
    thereby reducing the direct cost and the opportunity cost of education
    and enabling students to enter the workforce more quickly. We have
    proposed that Pell grants be made available to students enrolled in
    short-term programs that help them enter the workforce or update their
    skills throughout their career. We also believe that summer Pell grants
    help reduce the cost of higher education since students who take
    classes through the summer are more likely to graduate early or on
    time, thus saving money. The Department also encourages States to
    invest in public higher education and to resist the urge to give out-
    of-State students priority in enrollment decisions because they pay a
    higher tuition rate.
                proprietary institutions and student protections
        Question. Students graduate from for-profit schools at less than
    half the rate of students at public colleges. They also graduate with
    more debt and their student loan default rate is twice as high. Every
    indicator suggests that for-profit schools are expensive and low-
    quality. Many of these for-profit colleges have been under
    investigation for fraud and deception by State attorneys general and
    several Federal agencies, including your own department.
        a. What will you do to protect students at for-profit colleges?
        b. What specific steps will you take to ensure quality outcomes?
        c. What is your justification for dismantling the team at your
    department responsible for investigating abuses by for-profit colleges?
        Answer. a. The Department believes that all students, and not just
    those who enroll at proprietary institutions, deserve the same rights
    and protections. Through its program reviews and investigatory
    functions, the Department will continue to hold institutions
    accountable for adhering to all Title IV requirements.
        b. Accreditors play the primary role in evaluating academic
    quality, and they will continue to do so. The Department is working to
    develop new methods for measuring quality and providing more accurate
    data to inform consumer choice.
        c. Staff reduction in the Enforcement Unit can be attributed to
    attrition. The investigations conducted by the Enforcement Unit were
    one part of the department's broad effort to provide oversight.
    Oversight is not relegated solely to the Enforcement Unit which was set
    up in 2016. We also have teams of people working together across the
    Program Compliance Unit and in coordination with the Department's
    Office of General Counsel.
        As part of its oversight duties, Federal Student Aid requires the
    submission of annual compliance and financial audit reports and
    routinely conducts program reviews to confirm that a school meets FSA
    requirements for institutional eligibility, financial responsibility,
    and administrative capability.
        During a program review, reviewers evaluate the school's compliance
    with FSA requirements, assess liabilities for errors in performance,
    and identify actions the school must take to improve its future
    administrative capabilities. After completing a program review, FSA
    issues a Program Review Report (PRR) to the institution and eventually,
    a Final Program Review Determination (FPRD). The FPRD includes each
    finding identified in the PRR, the institutional response, and the
    Department's final determination. The FPRD may or may not require
    additional action by the institution. Once FPRDs are shared with the
    institutions and screened for any necessary redactions, they are posted
    publicly at https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/school/
    program-reviews.
        In fiscal year 2017 alone, Program Compliance staff commenced over
    200 new program reviews at institutions determined to present a risk to
    Title IV dollars. Additionally, PC staff issued over 300 FPRDs to
    institutions and collectively assessed over $75 million in liabilities
    due the Department via FPRDs issued in fiscal year 2017.
        Annually, each school is required to submit a compliance audit, and
    Program Compliance staff resolved approximately 1,400 deficient
    compliance audits in fiscal year 2017. Each audit also is accompanied
    by a financial statement and, in fiscal year 2017, staff resolved over
    1,500 financial statements which had been flagged for additional
    review.
        While audit reports and program reviews are critical instruments,
    they are not the only tools available to the Department to conduct its
    required monitoring and oversight activities. In fact, program reviews
    and audits are but two of a spectrum of tools FSA deploys to monitor
    and manage compliance while gathering the evidence essential to
    implement enforcement actions. Oversight is also inherent via the
    analysis of financial statements which could lead to financial
    composite score issues, the requesting of backup data regarding 90/10
    compliance, the role of heightened cash monitoring (HCM) in performing
    oversight, and in the collection and maintenance of Letters of Credit
    to mitigate financial risk for taxpayers. For example, in Award Year
    2015, the Department requested and received 426 LOCs from 396
    institutions or main OPEIDs in the amount of approximately $932
    million.
        As previewed above and as a result of any of the Department's
    oversight activities, an institution may be placed on a payment method
    other than advance payment, which may require varying degrees of
    documentation and Departmental approval before the institution may
    receive Title IV disbursements on behalf of eligible students. PC staff
    monitored the financial performance of the approximately 550
    institutions which on average participated under the HCM method of
    payment throughout fiscal year 2017.
        Additionally, all institutions are required to undergo a
    recertification for continued participation in the Title IV programs at
    least once every 6 years. This recertification includes a comprehensive
    review of the institution. In fiscal year 2017, PC staff completed over
    1,150 recertification reviews/applications and processed another 2,300
    eligibility updates and approval applications.
        Finally, in fiscal year 2017, PC staff reviewed and resolved over
    6,000 inquiries, concerns or institutional complaints submitted by
    students and constituents.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
                   short-term pell grant expansion guardrails
        Question. On June 5, 2018, you shared in response to a question
    from Senator Blunt that you would like to work with Congress to expand
    Pell Grants to short-term programs with ``appropriate guardrails.''
    Please discuss how the Department is thinking about guardrails. What
    are guardrails does the Department believe are work exploring for
    expanding Pell eligibility to short-term programs, and what is an
    example of a program that should not be eligible?
        Answer. We believe it is important to help low-income or out-of-
    work individuals access training programs that can equip them with the
    skills to secure well-paying jobs in high-demand fields more quickly
    than traditional 2-year or 4-year programs. However, we also believe
    there should be sufficient guardrails in place to ensure taxpayer
    dollars are being used wisely and we are balancing students' needs with
    taxpayers' interests. Rather than opine on which programs should or
    should not be eligible, we look forward to discussing with you and your
    colleagues how to find the appropriate balance between access and
    accountability.
                  debt relief scams and departmental tracking
        Question. Has the Department maintained a list of known student
    debt relief scams and their owners that can be shared with major
    technology companies, web publishers, social media platforms, and
    search engines to filter out potentially fraudulent advertisements? If
    not, why not?
        Answer. The Department collects information on debt relief scams
    and affiliated companies from customers through the Customer Feedback
    System. In addition, the Department and its Federal loan servicers work
    together to collect and transmit information to the Federal Trade
    Commission and other Federal enforcement agencies for further
    investigation.
        The Department aggressively pursues all companies, including debt
    relief companies that mislead borrowers by using the name or trademarks
    of the Department in any way.
        The Department provided Google with a list of third-party debt
    relief companies that have had enforcement action taken against them or
    are the subject of borrower complaints received by FSA. Based on those
    efforts and information provided by other agencies, the Department has
    developed and provided recommendations to Google on how to help
    borrowers.
        A common practice among companies engaged in debt relief scams
    involves the frequent creation and dissolution of numerous company
    names over a short period of time, often to avoid detection or bad
    publicity and to allow fraudulent debt relief actors to make
    unsolicited telemarketing calls. These tactics makes online advertising
    restrictions largely ineffective.
        efforts to control debt relief scams through servicing contracts
        Question. Has the Department issued any contract change requests to
    require loan servicers to build appropriate procedures to prevent and
    address the use of the debt relief scams, including proactively
    contacting borrowers whose accounts demonstrate the likely activities
    of a scam?
        Answer. The Department and Federal servicers share information on
    potential and confirmed debt relief scams. The Department and its
    Federal loan servicers work jointly and independently to collect and
    transmit information to the Federal Trade Commission and other Federal
    enforcement agencies for further investigation.
        Through the use of data analytics, the Department actively scans
    records to identify possible debt relief scams and has provided these
    data to servicers in order to contact the borrower and determine if
    they might be a victim of a debt relief scams. The Department also
    reaches out to borrowers affected by improper debt relief activity when
    Federal enforcement agencies have identified fraudulent debt relief
    companies. Under this arrangement, the Department recently supported
    the Federal Trade Commission's 2017 sweep of companies engaged in debt
    relief activity--Operation ``Game of Loans''--by contacting
    approximately 12,000 impacted borrowers to make them aware of the
    possible scam and equip them with the name of their assigned Federal
    loan servicer, contact information, and additional resources. The
    Department continues to support Federal enforcement agencies on similar
    cases that may result in contact with additional borrowers.
        Sharing of information also includes coordinated activities. For
    example, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department have worked to
    provide awareness of improper debt relief activity through social media
    and website postings. Additionally, the Department, Federal servicers,
    and enforcement agencies recently contributed to the May 15, 2018,
    Borrower Protection Summit hosted by MOHELA and Great Lakes to share
    important information on debt relief fraud with loan servicers and
    consumer advocacy groups. Presenters included the Federal Trade
    Commission and Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    cease-and-desist orders for falsely claiming connection with department
        Question. Since January 20, 2017, how many unique cease-and-desist
    orders has the Department filed against any company or its owner that
    engages in fraudulent, illegal, unfair, or deceptive behavior at the
    expense of students and taxpayers for alleging a connection with the
    Department?
        Answer. Since January 20, 2017, the Department has sent cease-and-
    desist letters to two companies based on alleged violations of the
    Lanham Act.
        requirements for loan servicers regarding third-party operations
        Question. Does the Department require loan servicers to identify
    and track student debt relief scams, and any other incidents of
    undisclosed operations of third parties, and to promptly report these
    findings to a dedicated point of contact within the Department?
        Answer. The Department maintains dedicated points of contact for
    Federal servicers and enforcement agencies on matters related to
    improper debt relief activity. The Department and Federal servicers
    share information on potential and confirmed activity, including names,
    addresses, and other identifying information. The Department keeps this
    information on record and uses it to address borrower service calls and
    complaints, including calls to the FSA Ombudsman Group and borrower
    complaints submitted via the FSA Feedback System. Additionally, all
    reports of suspicious activity received in the FSA Feedback System are
    routinely uploaded to the FTC's Consumer Sentinel Network.
      role of evidence and best practices in student support and academic
                    achievement grant program administration
        Question. How does the Department plan to use data collection,
    research, and/or best practices to support State and local education
    agencies as they administer the funds provided under ESSA's Title IV-A
    Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant program?
        Answer. The Department is committed to assisting States and local
    school districts in using Federal education program funds for
    activities that best meet their needs and are based on evidence of
    effectiveness. In addition to previously issued guidance on using
    evidence to strengthen education investments under the ESEA (see
    https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf),
    the Department is providing a variety of technical assistance
    opportunities under Title IV-A (including general and individualized
    technical assistance to States through a new contract to be awarded
    later this fiscal year) that are designed to help stakeholders identify
    areas of need, connect them with content-area experts, and direct them
    to appropriate evidence-based interventions and programs. The
    Department also intends to collect data on uses of Title IV-A funds
    through the EDFacts system and are currently considering whether to
    conduct an in-depth analysis of how Title IV-A funds are being spent,
    including the extent to which they are used for evidence-based
    activities as intended by Congress.
                  guidance on eligible use of title iv-a funds
        Question. Does the Department intend to update or alter the current
    guidance to State and local education agencies regarding the
    permissible uses of Title IV-A funds? If so, what is the timeline for
    any revisions?
        Answer. The Department is currently studying how Title IV-A funds
    may be used to promote school safety and security. We continue to
    respond to questions from States and school districts on Title IV-A
    program implementation, including questions about allowable uses of
    funds. These responses may be found at https://
    safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/ESSA-TitleIVPartA-SSAE.
    department outreach with leas to allocate funds for all three statutory
                                    purposes
        Question. How does the Department plan to work with districts to
    determine how these funds are spent across the three program areas--
    well-rounded education, student health and safety, and meaningful use
    of educational technology--provided for under the statute?
        Answer. States and school districts are responsible for determining
    how funds will be spent under the Title IV-A program. The Department,
    on the other hand, will collect data on uses of Title IV-A funds,
    including by program area, through the EDFacts system. In addition, we
    are developing a protocol for monitoring State administration of the
    Title IV-A program that will examine how States are ensuring school
    districts comply with the content-area expenditure requirements
    applicable to districts receiving $30,000 or more in Title IV-A funds.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin
                        federal handle with care program
        Question. As you may know, there is a program in West Virginia
    called Handle with Care that works in collaboration between the West
    Virginia State Police and local West Virginia schools. This program
    connects children who interact with law enforcement at traumatic
    events, including domestic violence situations, drug raids, overdoses,
    and more, to school resources that are designed to provide the child
    with trauma-informed care.
        The alert enables the school to exercise its trauma-informed
    training that Handle With Care provides participating schools to ensure
    that the student is provided with the support they need to help handle
    the traumatic event.
        The goal of the program is to promote safe homes, schools, and
    communities, while ensuring that every child is able to thrive in
    school.
        I have introduced a bipartisan bill in the Senate alongside
    Senators Capito and Kaine to establish 5-year demonstration grants for
    States to address the impact of substance use related and other trauma
    by building a Federal Handle With Care program.
        My bill calls on the Secretary of Health and Human Services in
    conjunction with you, as the Secretary of Education, to award these
    demonstration pilots to states.
        Are you familiar with this program?
        If not, would you commit to learning more about the Handle With
    Care program in West Virginia and how we can collaborate together to
    make sure that schools have access to trauma-informed training?
        Answer. The Department is familiar with the Handle With Care
    program, and it is always interested in exploring options for improving
    State and local efforts to strengthen school climate and safety.
    Trauma-informed care and related training are an important of these
    efforts.
       impact on students under proposed cuts to 21st century community
                                learning centers
        Question. I have always strongly supported funding for the 21st
    Century Community Learning Centers and afterschool programs. In fact,
    this was one of the few programs that was not consolidated into the
    larger block grant when the Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds
    Act, reauthorizing No Child Left Behind.
        That Congressional support for this program comes from the fact
    that we recognize the critical need for safe and secure places for
    students to learn and be before and after school and during the summer
    months.
        That is why I was so disappointed to see that the President's
    budget completely eliminated funding for this program--a $1.2 billion
    cut to Federal funding for afterschool and summer programs.
        Too many students do not have a safe place to go afterschool or
    during the summer and do not have the academic resources or assistance
    at home. And in States like West Virginia, the State budget cannot
    replace the Federal funding needed to run these programs.
        If this program is cut, where will the 7,353 West Virginia students
    go?
        How will they get the academic assistance that they need?
        Answer. We know that the 21st Century Community Learning Centers
    program often supports safe places for children to participate in a
    range of activities outside of the school day. However, we believe that
    afterschool activities are primarily the responsibility of families and
    communities, and not the Federal Government. Limited Federal education
    resources should be dedicated to programs with a stronger emphasis and
    track record of improvement in student educational outcomes. Local
    school districts seeking to prioritize afterschool or summer school
    activities in meeting the educational needs of students and families
    may use other Federal funds for this purpose, including the $15.8
    billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program.
          effect of eliminating full-service community schools funding
        Question. McDowell County in southern West Virginia is one of the
    poorest counties in the entire country.
        Reconnecting McDowell is a comprehensive effort to make educational
    improvements to give those students a chance to succeed despite the
    county's complex problems--poverty, underperforming schools, drug and
    alcohol abuse, limited medical services, and inadequate access to
    technology and transportation.
        This program highlights the benefits and importance of full
    community schools and having the school be a place that serves the
    whole student. Through this program, schools don't just offer academic
    education, but physical and mental healthcare, counseling, and
    afterschool academic support. For the kids of McDowell County, these
    supports are as necessary to their education as the academic classes
    themselves.
        That is why, when the Senate considered the Every Student Succeeds
    Act, I worked with my colleagues to push for the Full-Community Schools
    program, which provides funding to programs like Reconnecting McDowell.
        So I was so disappointed to see that the President's budget request
    completely eliminates the $10 million in funding for the Full-Community
    Schools program.
        I have seen firsthand how a small investment like this program can
    make a huge difference in the life of a child and can help rebuild a
    community. Reconnecting McDowell is lucky that they are able to attract
    some private funding to support these efforts, but the Federal funding
    is still a critical part of what they do.
        What will happen to the students in communities like McDowell
    County if their schools are forced to cut back on the important health
    and wellness programs that set these students up for academic success?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2019 request reflects the President's
    commitment to spend taxpayer dollars efficiently, in part by
    eliminating duplicative programs funding activities that can be
    supported with other Federal, State, or local resources. For example,
    to the extent that the problems that students face in McDowell County
    contribute to poor educational outcomes, the County's schools may use
    Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies to address those problems
    as part of their comprehensive Title I schoolwide programs.
              department's process for reviewing trio applications
        Question. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141)
    included report language instructing the Department to review all
    applications under fiscal year 2017 TRIO competitions that had minor
    technical issues, including those with minor budget issues. Please
    provide all the relevant information regarding the Department's process
    for reviewing and scoring and a timeline for awarding grants to newly
    funded applicants.
        Answer. The Department is currently in the process of reviewing
    applications from all 40 applicants affected by the report language and
    intends to make awards to applicants scoring within the funding range
    of the fiscal year 2017 competitions by September 30.
          determination and transparency regarding gear up priorities
        Question. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-
    141), Congress provided $350 million in GEAR UP funding. The 2018
    notice inviting State and Partnership applications for the Gaining
    Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP)
    initiative includes a series of expansive and complex absolute
    priorities that if not met, would deem a State or community ineligible
    to receive a new award under this competitive grant program (1-
    Fostering Flexible and Affordable Paths to Obtaining Knowledge and
    Skills; 2-Promoting STEM, with a Particular Focus on Computer Science;
    3-Protecting Freedom of Speech and Encouraging Respectful Interactions;
    4-Fostering Knowledge and Promoting the Development of Skills that
    Prepare Students to be Informed, Thoughtful, and Productive Individuals
    and Citizens). Given the high stakes nature of an absolute priority,
    ensuring that the public understands how the absolute priority will be
    administered is important to ensure fairness, transparency, and clarity
    among applicants. Relative to this absolute priority:
        a. When will the determination that an applicant has met or not met
    the absolute priority be determined? Will that determination precede
    the peer-review, occur during the peer-review, or following the peer-
    review?
        b. Who will be making the determination if the absolute priority
    has been met or not? Will that be staff from the U.S. Department of
    Education, or the peer-reviewers themselves?
        c. Will those individuals' names be made public or anonymous?
        d. What assurances do you have that the individuals making the
    determination have the relevant expertise to effectively evaluate an
    applicant's response to each of the four categories, each of which
    require substantially different context expertise from one another?
        e. What specific training and support will the individuals making
    the determination receive in advance of making the determination?
        f. Will those training materials and support strategies be made
    public?
        g. What specific steps are you taking to specifically assist
    applicants understand the intricacies of the absolute priority, the
    review process, and the determination process so that applicants may
    take the appropriate steps to meet this challenging priority?
        Answer. a. The Department will determine whether a particular
    application meets the absolute priorities as soon as possible--ideally,
    prior to peer review. However, it is possible that some applications
    may be referred to peer review and subsequently deemed ineligible
    during the peer review process or after the conclusion of the full peer
    review process.
        b. Department staff make eligibility determinations. Peer reviewers
    determine the extent to which an applicant addresses the selection
    criteria in the context of the absolute priorities established for the
    competition by evaluating the entire application.
        c. The Department does not intend to make public the names of
    Department staff making eligibility determinations.
        d. The Department staff making eligibility determinations have the
    relevant content knowledge and expertise to make those determinations
        e. The Department will ensure that all staff making eligibility
    determinations receive specific training and support on the various
    requirements of the absolute priorities.
        f. As a general practice, the Department does not make internal
    training documents publicly available. Applicants will have all of the
    information and support that they need to understand the requirements
    of the absolute priorities in advance of the application deadline.
        g. Department staff held two pre-application technical assistance
    webinars and posted the materials on the Department's website to ensure
    that all potential applicants are aware of the competition
    requirements. In addition, the Department has published a Frequently
    Asked Questions document that discusses the absolute priority,
    available online at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/gearup/faq.html.
        rationale for applying trio funding boost to one-time supplement
        Question. In West Virginia, we have a lot of students who are first
    time college students, many of whom come from low-income families that
    don't have the resources or experience to help their children navigate
    things like AP classes, SAT tests, college applications, financial aid,
    and finally college itself.
        That is why programs like TRIO are so important. TRIO programs
    provide the support that first time college students need to thrive in
    higher education. Without them, we'd see too many students who wouldn't
    know what opportunities are available or who wouldn't have the
    emotional and academic support to succeed.
        As you are well aware, two schools in West Virginia--West Virginia
    University and West Virginia State University--had their applications
    thrown out during the fiscal year 2017 competition because of very
    minor budgeting errors. You and I have spoken about this issue multiple
    times, and I believe you understand how important this issue is for me
    and my State.
        As you should be aware, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018
    (P.L. 115-141) Congress appropriated an additional $60 million to TRIO
    in the fiscal year 2018 Omnibus and included report language
    specifically directing you to read and score the applications from the
    2017 competition that were rejected because of minor technical and
    budgeting errors. Most recently, I joined several of my colleagues in
    sending you a letter reiterating congressional intent for the
    additional $60 million for TRIO. However, it has come to my attention
    that Linda Byrd-Johnson, Senior Director of the Student Service
    Division at the U.S. Department of Education, shared that the
    Department would earmark most of the funds for a one-time supplemental
    increase for Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math/Science grantees
    interested in increasing their STEM activities. What is the
    Department's intent in sponsoring this one-time supplemental increase?
        Why did the Department choose to sponsor a one-time supplemental
    increase over providing a larger increase in funding to existing
    grantees and reserving a greater amount of funds to review and fund
    fiscal year 2017 grant proposals that had been rejected or had minor
    budget formatting errors?
        Answer. As you note, in fiscal year 2017, approximately 40
    applications were deemed ineligible under the Upward Bound, Upward
    Bound Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and Ronald McNair Post-
    Baccalaureate Achievement competitions due to budget errors. I have
    appreciated the opportunity to discuss these issues with you and the
    specific implications those decisions have had for the students in your
    State. Our first priority when allocating the $60 million increase for
    Federal TRIO Programs this year is to review those 40 applications and
    make awards to all applicants that receive peer review scores within
    the funding range from last year's competitions. After ensuring we have
    sufficient funding to meet that need, we saw an opportunity to provide
    supplements this year to Upward Bound and Upward Bound Math and Science
    grantees that want to implement new or enhanced STEM activities. Like
    you, this Administration believes deeply in the importance of a high-
    quality STEM education so that all students are prepared for
    postsecondary education and careers. Finally, the additional funding
    provided in fiscal year 2018 will allow the Department to provide all
    TRIO grantees with an across-the-board increase--the third such
    increase in 3 years.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Blunt. The subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., Tuesday, June 5, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]