[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.]