[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNDERPAID TEACHERS AND
CRUMBLING SCHOOLS:
HOW UNDERFUNDING PUBLIC
EDUCATION SHORTCHANGES
AMERICA'S STUDENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 12, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: https://edlabor.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-269 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
Susan A. Davis, California Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Tim Walberg, Michigan
Northern Mariana Islands Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California Francis Rooney, Florida
Donald Norcross, New Jersey Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Pramila Jayapal, Washington Jim Banks, Indiana
Joseph D. Morelle, New York Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania James Comer, Kentucky
Josh Harder, California Ben Cline, Virginia
Lucy McBath, Georgia Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Kim Schrier, Washington Van Taylor, Texas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Steve Watkins, Kansas
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut Ron Wright, Texas
Donna E. Shalala, Florida Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Andy Levin, Michigan* William R. Timmons, IV, South
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Carolina
David J. Trone, Maryland Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 12, 2019................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 144
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
and Labor.................................................. 146
Prepared statement of.................................... 147
Statement of Witnesses:
Contreras, Ms. Sharon L., Superintendent, Guilford County
Schools.................................................... 151
Prepared statement of.................................... 152
King, Ms. Anna, Board Member, National PTA, Past President,
Oklahoma PTA............................................... 157
Prepared statement of.................................... 159
Scafidi, Dr. Ben, Professor of Economics and Director,
Education Economics Center, Kennesaw State University...... 164
Prepared statement of.................................... 166
Weingarten, Ms. Randi, President, American Federation of
Teachers................................................... 170
Prepared statement of.................................... 172
Additional Submissions:
Dr. Scafidi:
Letter dated February 26, 2019 to Chairman Scott......... 226
Chairman Scott:
Letter dated January 2, 2019 from Rebuild America's
Schools................................................ 5
Report: No Time to Lose.................................. 6
Report: How Money Matters for Schools.................... 34
Report: A Punishing Decade for School Funding............ 63
Report: the Case for Federal Funding for School
Infrastructure......................................... 80
Report: State of Our Schools............................. 86
Report: Fixing Chronic Disinvestment in K-12 Schools..... 133
Coalition for Healthier Schools, Support: Rebuild
America's Schools Act, H.R. 865........................ 228
Release: Build America's School Infrastructure Coalition
(BASIC)................................................ 230
Letter dated January 31, 2019, from the National
Association of Federally Impacted Schools.............. 232
Letter dated January 31, 2019, from North American
Concrete Alliance...................................... 233
Release: AFT's Randi Weingarten on the Rebuild America's
Schools Act............................................ 234
Release: AFSCME Applauds Congressional Proposal to Invest
$100 Billion in America's Public Schools............... 235
Letter of Support for ``Rebuild America's Schools Act''
(RASA) - H.R. 865...................................... 236
Ms. Weingarten:
Article: Dennis Smith: words of caution from experience
in failed charter system (Gazette Opinion)............. 237
Article: Evidence shows collective bargaining-especially
with the ability to strike............................. 240
Letter from Portland Public Schools, Lincoln High School. 243
Article: We can expect more from teachers when we pay
them like pros: Bloomberg and Weingarten............... 246
Questions submitted for the record by:
Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oregon
Chairman Scott
Responses to questions submitted for the record:
Ms. Contreras............................................ 254
Ms. King................................................. 256
Dr. Scafidi.............................................. 258
UNDERPAID TEACHERS AND CRUMBLING
SCHOOLS: HOW UNDERFUNDING PUBLIC
EDUCATION SHORTCHANGES AMERICA'S STUDENTS
----------
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
----------
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert C.
``Bobby'' Scott
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Scott, Grijalva, Courtney, Fudge,
Sablan, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, Jayapal, Morelle, Wild,
Harder, McBath, Schrier, Underwood, Hayes, Shalala, Omar, Lee,
Castro, Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Guthrie, Grothman, Stefanik,
Allen, Banks, Walker, Comer, Cline, Fulcher, Taylor, Watkins,
Wright, Meuser, Timmons, and Johnson.
Also present: Representative Horn.
Staff present: Tylease Alli, Chief Clerk; Jacque Chevalier
Mosely, Director of Education Policy; Mishawn Freeman, Staff
Assistant; Christian Haines, General Counsel, Education; Ariel
Jona, Staff Assistant; Stephanie Lalle, Deputy Communications
Director; Andre Lindsay, Staff Assistant; Richard Miller,
Director of Labor Policy; Max Moore, Office Aide; Veronique
Pluviose, Staff Director; Loredana Valtierra, Education Policy
Fellow; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of Information
Technology; Lakeisha Steele, Professional Staff; Cyrus Artz,
Minority Parliamentarian; Marty Boughton, Minority Press
Secretary; Courtney Butcher, Minority Coalitions and Members
Services Coordinator; Blake Johnson, Minority Staff Assistant;
Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of Education and Human
Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority Legislative
Operations Manager; Kelley McNabb, Minority Communications
Director; Jake Middlebrooks, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director; Alex Ricci,
Minority Professional Staff Member; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority
Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy; Meredith
Schellin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Advisor;
and Brad Thomas, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor.
Chairman Scott. Good morning. A quorum being present, the
Education and Labor Committee will come to order.
I would like to welcome everyone here for this legislative
hearing on Underpaid Teachers and Crumbling Schools: How
Underfunding Public Education Shortchanges America's Students.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), opening statements are
limited to the Chair and Ranking Member. This allows us to hear
from our witnesses sooner and provides members an adequate time
to ask questions. And I now recognize myself for the purpose of
making an opening statement.
This morning, we are here to discuss how chronically
underfunding public education is affecting students, parents,
teachers, and communities. This is a discussion our
constituents are eager for us to have and a challenge the
American people were calling us to solve. In Oklahoma, West
Virginia, Virginia, Arizona, Los Angeles, and many other cities
and States in between, voters are demanding greater support for
public education.
In a time of extreme polarization, support for public
education is a rare bridge across our political and cultural
divisions. A poll conducted after the 2018 midterm elections,
in that poll, an overwhelming majority of Americans, both
Democrats and Republicans, said increasing K-12 funding is a,
quote, extremely important priority for the 116th Congress.
Widespread support for public education makes our
longstanding unfortunate tradition of failing to prioritize
public education both confounding and frustrating. You can look
no further than Title IA of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, the largest grant program in K-12. Title IA
supports public schools with large numbers of students living
in poverty. In the 2017-2018 school year, Congress gave schools
less than a third of the full authorization amount for this
basic grant program.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as
IDEA, is another example. IDEA protects students with
disabilities in making sure they can receive a free and
appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment. To help achieve this goal, it authorizes grants to
offset extra costs associated with supporting students with
disabilities. IDEA has not been fully funded at any point in
its 44-year history. In fact, funding levels for IDEA have
never reached even half of the authorized levels.
And despite the evidence linking well-resourced facilities,
well-supported teachers, and healthy buildings to better
economic and life outcomes, the Federal Government dedicates no
money to public school infrastructure improvements. The lack of
Federal support--the lack of Federal support has exacerbated
the issues caused by lack of commitment to robust public
education funding at the state level.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
adjusted for inflation, 29 states spent less per student in
2015 than they had in 2008 before the Great Recession. In 17 of
those states--in 17 of those states, funding per pupil was cut
at least 10 percent.
Today, despite the long and growing list of school
buildings' failures that have endangered students and
educators, 12 states contributed no money to support school
facilities, and an additional 13 states cover between 1 and 9
percent of school facility costs.
A combination of chronic Federal and State underfunding in
public education has left many schools at a literal breaking
point. According to one study published in 2016, public K-12
facilities are, on average, underfunded about $46 billion
dollars every year compared to building industry and best
practice standards.
In 2014, the Department of Education estimated that it
would cost $197 billion dollars to bring all schools into good
condition. This problem is not limited to physical
infrastructure. As technology becomes increasingly central to
providing quality education, the lack of funding for basic
school upgrades is for schools to put off needed investments in
digital infrastructure.
In a 2017 Education Super Highway report, that report found
that more than 19,000 schools serving nearly a quarter of
public school students are without the minimum connectivity
necessary for digital learning.
Now, our nation primarily funds public education using
property taxes, so the erosion of Federal and State support has
had a particularly harmful effect on low-income districts where
revenue is lacking and where schools are, therefore,
chronically underfunded. And this underfunding has
consequences.
For example, in September 2018, dozens of New Jersey
schools closed for weeks because of mold. Baltimore closed
schools the same month during a heat wave because many schools
did not have air-conditioning. And notably, in Baltimore, only
3 percent of the schools are less than 35 years old.
Five years after the discovery of lead in--lead
contamination in the water, schools in Flint, Michigan, finally
have a water filtration system, incredibly only because of a
private donation. So 2 weeks ago, I joined Congressman Norcross
and Senator Jack Reed, along with 180 Members of Congress, to
introduce the Rebuild America's Schools Act. This bill would
create a $70 billion grant program and a $30 billion tax credit
bond program targeted at improving the fiscal and digital
infrastructure at high-poverty schools. In doing so, it would
create roughly $1.9 million good paying jobs. In fact, Rebuild
America's Schools Act would actually create more jobs than the
recent $1.9 trillion Republican tax bill at approximately 5
percent of the cost.
At the start of his Presidency and again in the State of
the Union last week, President Trump called on a massive
infrastructure package to rebuild America. School
infrastructure must be part of that package when we consider
it. And this should be a bipartisan effort. An overwhelming
majority of Americans understand the correlation between
consistent nationwide failure to support public schools and
inequality in educational opportunity.
We can do better. The total U.S. spending on education
accounts for 2 percent of the Federal budget. That is less than
most other developed nations. It will take a long-term
commitment to public schools in order to see the consistent
results we expect. We must be willing to make that commitment.
And I want to close by recognizing the burden we continue
to place on America's educators. While crumbling schools are a
visible risk to students, the effect of chronic underfunding on
our teachers is equally, if not more, concerning.
Accounting for inflation, teacher pay actually fell $30 a
week from 1996 to 2015. Public school teachers already earn
just 77 percent of what other college graduates with similar
work experience earn in weekly wages. Teachers who live at the
intersection of declining salaries and undersourced schools
continue to demonstrate their dedication to their students. And
making matters worse, as an example of that they spend an
average of $485 of their own money every year to buy classroom
materials and supplies.
If we cannot attract and retain the most talented,
passionate teachers in the classroom, we will fail to fulfill
our promise to students of their quality education.
And so without objection, I would like to enter into the
record the following documents: First, a list of organizations
that endorse the Rebuild America's Schools Act and their
endorsing statements, and the following reports: One by the
National Conference of State Legislatures, No Time to Lose: How
to Build a World-Class Education System State By State; the
Learning Policy Institute, How Money Matters to Schools; by the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Punishing Decade for
School Funding; by the Center for American Progress, the Case
for Federal Funding for School Infrastructure; one by the 21st
Century School, U.S. Green Building Council, and the National
Council on School Facilities, the State of our Schools:
America's K-12 Facilities; and finally, Fixing Chronic
Disinvestment in K-12 Schools, the Center for American
Progress. I ask all those documents be placed in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. I look forward to discussion.
And now I recognize our distinguished ranking member, Dr.
Foxx, for her opening statement.
[The statement of Chairman Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor
This hearing is now called to order. This morning, we are here to
discuss how chronic underfunding of public education is affecting
students, parents, teachers, and communities.
This is a discussion our constituents are eager for us to have, and
a challenge the American people are calling on us to solve. In
Oklahoma, West Virginia, Virginia, Arizona, Los Angeles, and many
cities and states in between, voters are demanding greater support for
public education.
In a time of extreme polarization, support for public education is
a rare bridge across our political and cultural divisions. In a poll
conducted after the 2018 midterm elections, the overwhelming majority
of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, said increasing K-12
funding is an ``extremely important priority'' for the 116th Congress.
The widespread support for public education makes our longstanding
tradition of failing to prioritize public education both confounding
and frustrating.
Look no further than Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act the largest grant program in K-12 education. Title I
supports public schools with large concentrations and numbers of
students living in poverty. In the 2017-2018 school year, Congress gave
schools less than a third of the full authorization amount for the
basic grant program.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, known as IDEA, is
another example. IDEA protects the right of children with disabilities
to receive a free, appropriate, public education in the least
restrictive environment.
To help achieve this goal, it authorizes grants to offset extra
costs associated with supporting students with disabilities. IDEA has
not been fully funded at any point in its 44-year history. In fact,
funding for IDEA has never reached even half of the authorized levels.
And despite the evidence linking well-resourced facilities, well-
supported teachers, and healthy buildings to better academic and life
outcomes, the Federal Government dedicates no money to public school
infrastructure improvements.
The lack of Federal support has exacerbated the issues caused by a
lack of commitment to robust public education funding at the State
level.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 29 states
spent less per student in 2015 than they had in the 2008 school year,
before the Great Recession. In 17 states, funding per student was cut
by at least 10 percent.
Today, despite the long and growing list of school building
failures that have endangered students and educators, 12 states
contribute no money to support school facilities, and 13 states cover
between 1 percent and 9 percent of school facility costs.
The combination of chronic Federal and State underfunding in public
education has left many schools at a literal breaking point. According
to a State of our Schools report published in 2016, public K-12 school
facilities are on average underfunded by $46 billion every year
compared to building industry and best-practice standards.
In 2014, a Department of Education study estimated that it would
cost $197 billion to bring all public schools into good condition.
This problem is not limited to physical infrastructure. As
technology becomes increasingly central to providing a quality
education, the lack of funding for basic school upgrades has forced
schools to put off needed investments in digital infrastructure.
A 2017 ``Education Super Highway'' report found that more than
19,000 schools serving more than
11.6 million students, nearly a quarter of public school students,
``are without the minimum connectivity necessary for digital
learning.''
In a nation that primarily funds public education using property
taxes, the erosion of Federal and State support has had a particularly
harmful impact on low income school districts, where schools are
chronically underfunded, and the needs are the greatest.
For example, in September 2018, dozens of New Jersey schools closed
for weeks because of mold. Baltimore also closed schools the same month
during a heatwave because many schools did not have air conditioning.
Notably, only 3 percent of Baltimore schools are less than 35 years
old.
Five years after the discovery of lead contamination in the water,
schools in Flint, Michigan finally have water filtration systems, but
only because of a private donation.
Two weeks ago, I joined Congressman Norcross and Senator Jack Reed,
along with 180 Members of Congress, to introduce the Rebuild America's
Schools Act.
This bill would create a $70 billion grant program and $30 billion
tax credit bond program targeted at improving the physical and digital
infrastructure at high-poverty schools.
In doing so, it would also create roughly 1.9 million good-paying
jobs. In fact, the Rebuild America's Schools Act would create more jobs
than the Republican tax bill, at just 5 percent of the cost.
At the start of his presidency, and again in the State of the Union
last week, President Trump called for a massive infrastructure package
to rebuild America. School infrastructure must be part of any package
we consider.
This should be a bipartisan effort. An overwhelming majority of
Americans understand the clear line between the consistent, nationwide
failure to support public schools and its role in perpetuating
inequality in education. Unfortunately, not everyone has drawn the same
conclusion.
Rather than understanding the achievement gap as the inevitable
result of structural inequality and chronic underfunding of low-income
schools, some attribute the achievement gap to the failure of
individual parents, students, and educators.
Rather than seeing the urgent need for a robust public education
system, some see an opportunity to cut funding and expand the role of
private schools and voucher programs.
Others have also argued that our existing investment has not
produced uniformly positive results and, therefore, it is time to
divert funding into private options. But those individuals fail to
acknowledge the larger community-based issues that contribute to
student performance. Students succeed when they are surrounded by
strong local economies, thriving businesses, successful human services
programs.
They need access to health care, adequate transportation,
affordable housing, and nutritious food. As other developed nations
have demonstrated, this support system is a critical component for
students' success.
Critics of public schools also ignore the chronic underfunding of
education to date. Total U.S. spending on education accounts for 2
percent of the Federal budget, which is less than many other developed
countries.
And supporters of funding cuts for public schools do not
acknowledge the devastating impact that efforts to privatize public
education have had on low-income communities.
It will take a long-term commitment to public schools in order to
see the consistent results we all expect. And we must be willing to
make that commitment.
I want to close by recognizing the burden we continue to place on
America's educators. While crumbling school buildings are a visible
risk to students, the effect of chronic underfunding on America's
teachers is equally, if not more concerning.
Accounting for inflation, teacher pay fell by $30 per week from
1996 to 2015. Public school teachers earn just 77 percent of what other
college graduates with similar work experience earn in weekly wages.
Teachers who live at the intersection of declining salaries and
under-resourced schools continue to demonstrate their dedication to
their students. Teachers spend an average of $485 of their own money
every year to buy classroom materials and supplies.
If we cannot attract and keep talented and passionate teachers in
the classroom, we will fail to provide students the promise of a
quality education. That is simply not an option.
I look forward to this discussion and I now recognize the Ranking
Member, Dr. Foxx.
______
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Teachers work hard on behalf of American students and
families, and they deserve paychecks that reflect their
tireless efforts. And all students deserve access to safe,
clean, and healthy school facilities regardless of zip code. To
dispute these two facts would make anyone out of touch with
reality.
Over the past year, there has been a steady stream of well-
publicized strikes across the country. Teachers' unions in West
Virginia, Oklahoma, Colorado, Arizona, Los Angeles, and most
recently Denver, all called attention to these matters. So
given the recent uptick in teachers union strikes, a reasonable
person would assume that State and local governments are
cutting budgets and disinvesting in public schools. Quite the
contrary.
In fact, most states have actually increased public school
spending, but instead of increasing salaries, improving
structures, and investing in classroom equipment, many school
districts have ended up pouring taxpayer funds into
administrative bloat that leaves students and teachers high and
dry.
It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing
the same thing over and over again and expecting different
results. When it comes to these two issues, teacher pay and
school construction, Democrats have not had a new idea in
decades.
Any time a challenge arises, Democrats look to refill the
same prescription of more money, more bureaucracy, and more
power punted to distant figures in Washington. Is the answer
more control from Washington? Well, having just emerged from a
government shutdown, I think most Americans would agree that
the less politicians can control and leverage, the better.
Teachers and students deserve more than the same tired
fights over money. We need to find new and innovative
approaches to public school success. Republicans still and will
always believe that the best solutions for serving children
emerge from the communities in which they live and grow.
I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve
my community as a member of the local school board, so I know
firsthand how complicated it can be trying to make resources,
regardless of whether they are local or Federal resources
coming from taxpayers, actually serves students in a way they
can recognize. That is why we need to engage thoughtfully and
hopefully in new initiatives to make education a central focus
in community development.
Community development can come in all shapes and sizes, and
one of the most interesting new concepts to emerge has been
opportunity zones. Opportunity zones are areas of the country
that look very much like the community in which I was raised
and which I proudly represent today. These are communities
where the poverty rate exceeds 30 percent and local industry
has struggled to rebound from the 2008 recession. Opportunity
zones, which are home to over 50 million Americans, will spur
private industry and make long-term investments in these
communities.
This bipartisan community development initiative was
initially championed by Senators Tim Scott and Cory Booker, and
in 2017, was signed into law by President Trump as a provision
of the Republican Tax Cuts & Jobs Act.
The provisions in this law have the potential to unleash
trillions of dollars in private capital for long-term
investment in impoverished parts of the country. Time will tell
if opportunity zones and other new initiatives will finally
help us solve the problems of low teacher pay and poor school
facilities, but time has already told us that higher price tags
and more bureaucracy in Washington don't deliver higher
results.
Today we are going to be listening for fresh ideas and
signs of innovation as we pursue our shared goals of better
environments for students and teachers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The statement of Mrs. Foxx follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and Labor
Teachers work hard on behalf of American students and families, and
they deserve paychecks that reflect their tireless efforts. And all
students deserve access to safe, clean, and healthy school facilities,
regardless of zip code. To dispute these two facts would make anyone
out of touch with reality.
Over the past year, there's been a steady stream of well-publicized
strikes across the country. Teachers unions in West Virginia, Oklahoma,
Colorado, Arizona, Los Angeles, and most recently Denver, all called
attention to these matters.
So, given the recent uptick in teachers union strikes, a reasonable
person would assume that State and local governments are cutting
budgets and disinvesting in public schools. Quite the contrary. In
fact, most states have actually increased public school spending. But
instead of increasing salaries, improving structures and investing in
classroom equipment, many school districts have ended up pouring
taxpayer funds into administrative bloat that leaves students and
teachers high and dry.
It's been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting different results. When it
comes to these two issues--teacher pay and school construction--
Democrats have not had a new idea in decades. Any time a challenge
arises, Democrats look to refill the same prescription of more money,
more bureaucracy, and more power punted to distant figures in
Washington.
Is the answer more control from Washington? Well, having just
emerged from a government shutdown, I think most Americans would agree
that the less politicians can control and leverage, the better.
Teachers and students deserve more than the same tired fights over
money. We need to find new and innovative approaches to public school
success.
Republicans still, and will always believe, that the best solutions
for serving children emerge from the communities in which they live and
grow. I've been fortunate to have had the opportunity to serve my
community as a member of the local school board. So I know firsthand
how complicated it can be trying to make resources, regardless of
whether they're local or Federal resources, coming from taxpayers,
actually serve students in a way they can recognize.
That's why we need to engage thoughtfully and hopefully in new
initiatives to make education a central focus in community development.
Community development can come in all shapes and sizes, and one of
the most interesting new concepts to emerge has been ``Opportunity
Zones.'' Opportunity Zones are areas of the country that look very much
like the community in which I was raised and which I proudly represent
today. These are communities where the poverty rate exceeds 30 percent
and local industry has struggled to rebound from the 2008 recession.
Opportunity Zones, which are home to over 50 million Americans, will
spur private industry to make long-term investments in these
communities.
This bipartisan community development initiative was initially
championed by Senators Tim Scott and Cory Booker, and in 2017 was
signed into law by President Trump as a provision of the Republican Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act. The provisions in this law have the potential to
unleash trillions of dollars in private capital for long-term
investments in impoverished parts of the country.
Time will tell if Opportunity Zones and other new initiatives will
finally help us solve the problems of low teacher pay and poor school
facilities. But time has already told us that higher price tags, and
more bureaucracy in Washington, don't deliver higher results. Today, we
are going to be listening for fresh ideas and signs of innovation as we
pursue our shared goal of better environments for students and
teachers.
______
Chairman Scott. Thank you, Dr. Foxx, and I wanted to thank
you for your comments. I was especially delighted to hear your
compliment that we have been consistent in our refrain that we
need more Federal funding for education, and we haven't backed
off on that. And I want to thank you for that compliment.
Without objection, all other members who wish to insert
written Statements can do so by notifying the committee clerk
within 7 days.
In introducing the witnesses, I note that the first witness
is from North Carolina, and two members have insisted on the
privilege of introducing her. So I will first yield to the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to introduce Dr. Sharon Contreras to our
committee today. Dr. Contreras is the Superintendent for the
Guilford County Schools in my district in North Carolina. We
have enjoyed working together on several occasions since she
first joined the Guilford County School District in 2016. She
has an extensive career in education, since she first began her
career as a high school English teacher in Rockford, Illinois.
Dr. Contreras has a real heart to serve the students of
Guilford County. She is a woman of faith, if I might add. We
don't always agree with exact approach, but most importantly,
she is my friend.
Dr. Contreras has accomplished all of this while being
hearing impaired. So as we talk to her today or ask questions,
just make sure that she has eye contact and she will deliver in
a very accomplished manner today.
I would now like to yield to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina, Ms. Adams, to say a few words about Dr. Contreras.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. I thank my friend for yielding.
As some of you may know, before a change in the district
lines in our State, for 31 years, I represented parts of
Guilford County and Greensboro, and began my service in public
office as the first African American woman elected to the
school board, so I do have some sense of the Guilford County
schools.
Dr. Contreras is the first woman and the first Latina
superintendent of Guilford County schools. Guilford County has
126 schools and serves more than 71,000 students, 40 percent
Black, 30 percent White, 16 percent Latino, 6 percent Asian.
Seven percent of Guilford County school students have
disabilities, and 64 percent of its students are low income.
And under Dr. Contreras' leadership, the high school graduation
rate has reached 89.8 percent, the highest in Guilford County
history.
I just want to mention as a personal note that Dr.
Contreras is a woman of vision. She spearheaded the first
assistant principal's leadership academy through the new
leaders program, and my daughter is a member of that academy,
and I want to thank her for not only her leadership.
Dr. Contreras, welcome to the committee. And I thank the
gentleman from North Carolina for allowing me a brief comment
in this introduction, and I yield back to him.
Mr. Walker. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and
refraining from too much shade. And with that, I yield back to
the chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
Our next witness is also represented by a person with us
today. I would like to yield to the gentlelady from Oklahoma,
who is not a member of the committee, but without objection,
will be recognized for purposes of an introduction.
Ms. Horn. Thank you so much, Chairman Scott, for the
opportunity to address the committee and the privilege of
introducing Anna King.
I am honored to introduce a proud Oklahoman with a strong
history of advocating for public education. Anna has dedicated
over 20 years of her life to not only improving educational
quality for her children and grandchildren through local PTAs,
but also to advocating for every single child across the
country through her current role as the Vice-President of
Membership of the National Parent Teacher Association, which
has over 3.5 million members nationwide.
I have had the privilege, as she resides in my district, of
watching and working with Anna and seeing her passionate
support for public schools and students. Anna firmly believes
that education is the cornerstone of opportunity in this
country. The best investment that we can make in America's
future is an investment in the minds of our youth. And as our
nation grows and diversifies, our schools must have the tools
and resources to keep pace, something which I know Ms. King
will speak about.
Across this country, including my home state, teachers are
far too often forced to work second and multiple jobs because
their salary simply isn't enough to pay the bills, and parents
and advocates like Anna are speaking up because their kids
deserve better.
In 2018, we have some experience with this, as you
mentioned, Chairman Scott, Oklahoma saw more than 50,000
individuals, educators, parents, and community members walk out
in support of our public schoolteachers, our students, and our
communities. Simply put, quality public education is a
cornerstone of our communities and a strong economy, and if we
want communities to thrive, we can no longer ignore the
challenges our schools face.
So thank you, Anna, for your passion, your advocacy, and
for wanting the best for all kids regardless of their zip code.
The thousands of future leaders in Oklahoma's 5th Congressional
District and children across the nation will benefit from your
advocacy.
Thank you again, Chairman, for allowing me to speak, and
thank you to the members of the committee, and I look forward
to your testimony.
Chairman Scott. Thank you very much.
Next witness is Dr. Benjamin Scafidi, who is a Professor of
Economics and Director of Educational Economics--the Director
of the Education Economic Center at Kennesaw State University
in Georgia. He has a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of
Virginia and his B.A. from Notre Dame. His research is focused
on urban policy and education, and he was previously an
Education Policy Advisor to Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia.
Randi Weingarten is president of the 1.7-million member
American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. As president, she has
overseen the development of AFT's quality education agenda,
which advocates for reforms grounded in evidence, equities,
scalability, and sustainability. She has used her platform to
advocate for more State and Federal investment in public
education, as noted by AFT's recent report, A Decade of
Neglect: Public Education Funding in the Aftermath of the Great
Recession. She holds degrees from Cornell University's School
of Industrial and Labor Relations and the Cardozo School of
Law.
We appreciate all the witnesses for being with us today and
look forward to your testimony, and remind you that we have--
your full statements are available and will appear in full in
the record pursuant to committee rule 7(d) and committee
practice. Each of you is asked to limit your presentation to a
5-minute summary of your written statement. We remind the
witnesses that pursuant to Title 18 U.S. Code, Section 101, it
is illegal to knowingly and willfully falsify any statement,
representation, writing, document, or material fact to Congress
or otherwise conceal or cover up a material fact.
Before you begin your testimony, please remember to press
the button on the microphone in front of you so that it will
turn on and members can hear you. As you speak, the light in
front of you will turn green. After 4 minutes, it will turn to
yellow, indicating 1 minute remaining, and when the light turns
red, your 5 minutes have expired, and we would ask you to
please wrap up your testimony.
We will let the entire panel make presentations before we
move to member questions. When answering a question, please
remember, again, to turn your microphone on.
We will first recognize Dr. Contreras.
STATEMENT OF SHARON L. CONTRERAS, SUPERINTENDENT, GUILFORD
COUNTY SCHOOLS
Ms. Contreras. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Foxx, Congressman Walker, Congresswoman Adams, and members of
the committee. I am Sharon Contreras, Superintendent of
Guilford County schools in Greensboro, North Carolina. With me
today are my colleagues, Angie Henry, the chief financial
officer; and Julius Monk, the executive director of facilities.
Thank you for inviting me to speak today.
As an educator and administrator of nearly 30 years who has
worked in public schools in several states, I have seen
firsthand how good facilities can create healthy, safe, and
innovative spaces that truly support 21st century learning. I
have also seen firsthand how inadequate facilities, broken HVAC
systems, and dilapidated buildings negatively affect learning.
The substantial obstacles we face in bringing America's schools
up to par date back generations and are found in every state,
particularly in our urban and rural areas, which serve the
highest concentrations of children and adults living in
poverty.
Guilford County schools serves more than 73,000 PreK-12
students in 126 schools in a countywide district that spans
about 650 square miles and encompasses urban, suburban, and
rural areas. Our students come to our doorsteps eager to learn.
Unfortunately, our doors don't always open to facilities
designed to meet the needs of students in the postindustrial
era.
Our average school building is about 50 years old and was
designed for an industrial era that no longer exists. We have
469 mobile classrooms, 58 percent of which are more than 20
years old. We have five mobile units that date to 1972. We had
to move one last year. It was so old it broke apart while we
were transporting it, blocking traffic for hours. Our
maintenance staff responds to more than 30,000 work orders
annually for failing HVAC units, plumbing systems, leaky roofs,
and other basic building needs. Schools routinely use buckets
and trash cans to catch the water during heavy rains. Water
seepage and flooding is also common, especially since our
county has, during just the past year, experienced a
devastating tornado, two hurricanes, an unusual 12-inch
snowfall, and a record 64 inches of rain.
A recent comprehensive facility study indicated we need
more than $1.5 billion in capital investment to renovate and
upgrade current facilities and build new schools. According to
the study, more than 45 percent of our schools were rated as
unsatisfactory or in poor condition. Many of the schools rated
as unsatisfactory or poor are also Title I schools educating
the poorest and most vulnerable students. Ten schools were in
such bad shape that they were recommended for possible closure.
The deferred maintenance backlog in our district was pegged
at $800 million, while renewal funding for preventative
maintenance and reasonable replacement cycles was estimated at
$6.9 billion over a 30-year period. Our current maintenance
budget, however, is only around $6 million a year.
While the physical condition of our buildings is troubling,
our greatest concern is that most of our schools do not meet
the baseline standards required to adequately support 21st
century learning, with the average school rated as poor in
terms of educational suitability on the same recent facility
study. I could give many more examples from school districts in
North Carolina and some are outlined in my written testimony.
Our crumbling school infrastructure requires national
leadership and Federal funding to assist state and local
efforts to upgrade our schools for our students. I support
Chairman Scott's introduction of the Rebuild America's Schools
Act of 2019, and encourage this committee and Congress to come
together and prioritize investments in our school buildings and
our students. Transforming learning and life outcomes for
children and young people is not a partisan issue. It is the
issue our nation must address if we want future generations to
prosper, if we want our children and grandchildren to live
fulfilling lives, and if we intend to preserve our great
democracy.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today
about the infrastructure needs of our nation's public schools.
I look forward to any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Contreras follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you very much.
Ms. King.
STATEMENT OF ANNA KING, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL PTA, PAST
PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA PTA
Ms. King. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, and members
of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on
this panel to share the perspectives of parents and families on
a lack of investments and resources for our nation's students,
teachers, and schools. I am speaking on behalf of the National
PTA, the Nation's oldest and largest child advocacy association
with members in all 50 states, D.C., Virgin Islands, Puerto
Rico, and Europe.
Since 1897, National PTA has been a strong advocate for all
families to effectively change their child's education. Long-
term success of our nation depends on robust and equitable
public investments in our education system. Public education is
a major vehicle for preserving the basic values of a democratic
system of government. It must be strengthened and continue to
be governed by public officials accountable to the public and
funded fairly.
National PTA has long advocated to ensure all children have
access to equitably funded public schools that improve overall
well-being and help them achieve their academic success.
While I come to you today as the vice-president of
membership of the National PTA, the most important role I have
is a mother and a nana. I am a proud mother of three and a
grandmother of nine. Like me, every parent wants to be
successful, and as an association, we want all kids to be
successful, not just one school or one group of kids. I am here
today to speak for every child with one voice on the need to
adequately fund our nation's public schools.
In 2002, my daughter Annalishia was a freshman at Frederick
A. Douglass High School in Oklahoma City. She could not
complete her homework because her and all her ninth grade
classmates did not have regular access to textbooks for her
English class. There were some old books available, but they
were old, pages were missing, and students had to share them
during class. No one could take them home to do homework. I had
to speak up not only for Annalishia but for every child in my
daughter's class.
We were told that the district, the school district didn't
have the money for additional textbooks, so we as parents
testified at the next school board meeting and showed up at
every one to push until we got the funding. Finally, the school
district provided funding to purchase textbooks and put parents
on decisionmaking committees. However, 17 years later, the same
equity challenges remain.
Our teachers in Oklahoma walked out of their classrooms in
2018 for the same reasons I started advocating in 2002:
underfunding and a lack of resources. We can't continue to
repeat this vicious cycle.
Bottom line, Oklahoma does not invest enough in our
schools. My state ranks 47th per pupil spending. Funding has
been steadily cut, and teachers are underpaid. Also, Oklahoma
is one of the 12 states, 12, that does not provide any funding
to school districts to build, improve, or renovate schools.
As a grandparent now, I see my children are fighting the
same fight and facing the same challenges in education that I
went through years ago. PTA appreciates Congress' recent
investments in increasing funding; however, student and
educator needs still are not met.
Congress must raise discretionary spending caps. Without an
increase in these caps, education, health, and work force
funding will face close to $20 billion cuts. This means 10
percent less funding for students with disabilities, 10 percent
less spent on low-income students, and less spending to support
teacher professional development.
Congress needs to better fund critical programs in the
Every Student Succeeds Act and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. In particular, Congress must ensure
Title I and the State grants for special education services are
fully funded.
Additionally, more resources need to be provided for
educator professional development, English learners, safe and
supportive schools, technology and access to the well-rounded
education with robust student support services.
Congress should also increase its investments in family
engagement through the statewide engagement family centers.
This initiative is assisting parent centers in 13 states around
the country to ensure families can engage in their child's
school to support their education. We urge Congress to increase
funding to at least $15 million in the Fiscal Year 2020 and put
this program on a funding path to ensure all states can benefit
in the coming years.
Budgeting is a reflection of priorities. In Oklahoma and
across the nation, our priorities should be investment in all
children. All schools should be equally resourced, and Congress
must do its part to make sure that every child's potential
becomes a reality. If you are not already a member of PTA, I
welcome all of you here today to become members of the Nation's
oldest and the largest child advocacy association, PTA.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here to testify on
behalf of our nation's children and families for increased
investments in public education, and I am happy to answer any
of your questions.
[The statement of Ms. King follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Scafidi.
STATEMENT OF BEN SCAFIDI, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND DIRECTOR,
EDUCATION ECONOMICS CENTER, KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Scafidi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Scott and distinguished representatives, since
1992, according to publicly available data at the National
Center for Education Statistics, NCES, at the U.S. Department
of Education, real inflation adjusted spending per student in
American public schools increased by 37 percent.
First slide, please. Thank you. There it is.
That is public school students in 2016 had 37 percent more
in real resources devoted to their schooling relative to
students in 1992. So where did these increased resources go?
Over this period, there was a 20 percent increase in the number
of public school students and a 30 percent increase in the
number of public schoolteachers. This fact is commonly known as
class size reductions were implemented throughout the nation.
We reduced class sizes. So where did the rest of the money go?
Second slide, please.
First, using publicly available data from NCES, one can
sort public school employees into two categories: teachers and
everybody else. I call this second category all other staff,
and it literally includes all public school employees who are
not teachers. This category of all other staff increased by 52
percent over this time period. When compared to the 20 percent
increase in students, this category of all other staff
increased by more than 2-1/2 times as the increase in students.
I do not believe this fact is widely known.
As you know, some dislike economists. Perhaps we are too
nerdy. Perhaps we do not brush our teeth regularly. Perhaps
there are many other good reasons for these negative feelings,
but another reason why some dislike economists is because we
point out that in real life when we make choices, there are
uncomfortable opportunity costs.
You might expect that if public schools are given a 37
percent increase in real resources, the teachers would get a
real increase in their salaries, but you would be mistaken.
Real teacher salaries actually declined by 1 percentage--just
under 1 percentage point. That means on average a teacher in
1992 had a slightly higher real salary than a teacher in 2016.
Why? One reason for this stagnation in teacher salaries was the
tremendous increase in all other staff.
For the sake of illustration, let's keep the class size
reductions. However, suppose that the increase in all other
staff had only been 20 percent to match the increase in
students. If the all other staff had increased 20 percent to
match the increase in students, then a cautious estimate of the
savings to the public education system is $40.8 billion per
year in annual recurring savings. This tremendous increase in
all other staff presented a significant opportunity cost.
What could we have done instead with $40.8 billion per
year? One thing would be to give all American public school
teachers a $12,900 per year increase in compensation. Another
possibility would have been give over 5 million children
scholarships to attend the private schools of their choice.
Next slide, please.
In a sharp break with American public school history, as of
2016, the majority of public schools' employees in the United
States were not teachers. This staffing surge in public schools
began long before 1992.
Next slide, please.
In fact, the staffing surge has been going on since at
least 1950. Since 1950, the number of public school students in
America has roughly doubled. The number of teachers has
increased almost 2-1/2 times that amount. But the increase in
all other staff has been seven times the increase in students.
These trends could be forgiven if outcomes have improved
tremendously or if American public schools were the envy of the
world. According to long-term trend scores on the NAEP,
National Assessment for Educational Progress, scores for 17-
year-olds have been stagnant since 1992.
Next slide, please.
If taxpayers continue to provide significant increases in
resources to the conventional public education system,
literally decades of history has taught us there will be
significant increases in employment of all other staff,
stagnant teacher salaries, and stagnant outcomes for American
students.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished representatives, there is a
better way. We now have a large research base that indicates
that increasing opportunities for American families to exercise
choice to both charter and private schools would improve long-
run outcomes for American students. First, virtually all the
evidence shows that students who are allowed to exercise choice
have significant gains in postsecondary attainment and in
wages. NAEP scores have gone up dramatically in Arizona and
Florida, the two states with the most choice.
Thank you for listening, and I look forward to your
questions and discussion.
[The statement of Mr. Scafidi follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Weingarten.
STATEMENT OF RANDI WEINGARTEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF TEACHERS
Ms. Weingarten. Good morning, Chairman Scott, Dr. Foxx. And
as this high school social study and government teacher on
leave from Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn New York, I am
very grateful for the opportunity to testify in our democracy
and to testify about how deep and chronic underfunding of
public education has led to a lack of investment in school
infrastructure and public services, which in turn, has
shortchanged the 90 percent of America's school children that
attend public schools. AFT members and our students live with
the effects of this every single day.
For example, I just returned from visiting schools in the
Virgin Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, where teachers are
spending 10 cents per page in their local Staples to adding up
to hundreds of dollars a week of their own money to ensure that
kids have learning materials before them. And there are still
mold-infested schools, mold that any asthmatic, including
myself, could detect in a brief time there. You are seeing some
of the pictures that we have just taken over the course of the
last couple of years about the building conditions.
Speaking of mold, last year, two Philadelphia elementary
schools were closed because of mold throughout the buildings.
Of course, many schools that have mold are not closed because
we need them to educate our kids. And a recent survey of
Detroit's schools found that nearly a third of the school
buildings are in unsatisfactory or poor conditions with exposed
electrical wires, leaky roofs, and rodent infections, and as
the Chair said, we have been at this for 25 years. I filed a
suit in New York City 25 years ago about these issues.
Baltimore, last winter, teachers called on the city to
close schools because of chronic heating problems as indoor
temperatures plunged into the 30's, and children tried to learn
bundled in coats and hats.
And speaking about Florida, in Hillsborough County, the
district could afford to fix or replace air conditioners at 10
schools this summer leaving 38 still in major repairs, and so
when schools opened or reopened in August, indoor temperatures
were at 88 degrees.
Last, teachers across the country tell me all the time
about having to clean up mouse droppings in the morning and
brand-new white boards rendered unusable because of no access
to electricity. Frankly, we can do better, and that is why
teachers in Oklahoma, Arizona, and other places actually went
on walkouts this year to say we can do better.
Teachers are helping. We are digging into our own pockets
literally, as the Chair said, almost $500 of their own money
every year to buy school supplies, but in Title I schools, that
number goes up to almost $600. The Chair talked about the
systematic way that we have looked at this, and, Dr. Foxx,
listen, we actually looked at these things, and in 25 states,
we are spending less on public education than we did before the
recession, and in 41 states we are spending less on higher
education. We did this district by district, state by state.
Ultimately, we are trying to help. We will do whatever we
can, regardless of the conditions in schools, but we need help
from others too. And the communities are engaged in self-help
too. During the 2018 election, Wisconsin taxpayers passed
referendums to direct at least $1.3 billion to school districts
for capital projects while maintaining or expanding
programming. In Florida, every local ballot initiative for
school funding passed 20 out of 20, and there are similar
stories throughout the country, but we know that property
taxation only exacerbates inequality.
The AFT is helping too. We are doing what we can in terms
of funding community schools, in terms of engaging in this
help, and in terms of fighting to fund our future, but we need
Congress to help too, and that is why we completely endorse
Chairman Scott's proposal to pass the Rebuild America's Schools
Act, because that will direct funding for capital projects. We
also think we have to fund Title I so that every Title I
student has access to physical and mental health services, such
as the full-time teacher assistants and the librarians and the
guidance counselors that they need and that this anniversary of
Parkland are showing that we need. We need to fund the IDEA.
The government promised 40 percent of funding, yet the
contribution never exceeded 16 percent.
Look, I am passionate about this. I live these schools. I
work these schools. My kids have done really well in these
schools, but it is a defining moment to work together on real
sustainable solutions to this disinvestment.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Weingarten follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
I will now have questions from members, beginning with the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just, Ms. Weingarten, and the questions--I am going to
present you with a question somewhat jumbled because I
haven't--and I know you will be able to provide a response. You
know, part of the reason we are at this point in terms of
school funding facilities, teacher pay, et cetera, is, I think
part of the reason is the movement during this period of time
intensifying of privatizing public education and the
incentivizing with taxpayer dollars, that growth. This policy
shift has affected many things: classroom teachers, basic
facilities' renovations and upgrades, new construction. Can you
talk about that correlation?
Ms. Weingarten. Yes. Yes, I can, Congressman. So, look, I
brought an op-ed that was dated 2/12/2019, which we will put in
the record, from Dennis Smith in the West Virginia Gazette,
entitled, Words of caution from experience in failed charter
systems. This was a charter school administrator and authorizer
that ended up talking about what happened in Ohio. We all know
what happened in L.A. where charters take the first dollar,
$600 million dollars out of the public school systems, and it
syphons off that money in that way.
And let me just say, before I read his quote here, that I
actually run one of the highest performing charter schools in
the United States. It is called UNI PREP. It is in New York
City. It is a public charter school. It is a unionized school.
We have between a 95 and 100 percent graduation rate for the
last 6 years, and what we have done is actually put one
guidance counselor for every hundred kids.
But what Mr. Smith says is take Ohio, where charters have
operated for 20 years. From a high point of 400 schools, 340
are operating today. Moreover, there is a junk pile--this is
his words, not mine--of failed charters that have closed. The
Ohio Department of Education website lists 290 schools that are
shuttered, with some closing midyear, disrupting the lives of
students and their family. Moreover, total charter school
enrollment in the state is down by 16,000.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Weingarten. My point is just this: Charters have to
operate within a public school system. They have to be
accountable. They have to be transparent. And they cannot
syphon off money that other children need.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
If I may, Ms. King, a question along that same topic.
Having been a school board member way back when back home in
Tucson Unified School District, one of the issues with
charters, whether they be public or private for-profit as well,
is the issue of accountability and oversight, that public
school systems are required by law, and justifiably so, to
produce financial records, disclosure, conflict of interest,
keep your minutes, board members are bound by the open meetings
law. Charters don't have that. Do you think it is important
that, if we are going to have this public charter or private
for-profit, that they too have some level of accountability for
their finances and their work, that be public and that be
noted?
Ms. King. Absolutely. When we are talking about public
education and the funding that goes into our schools, that is
important. We have accountability for a reason. And listening
to our guests today speak passionately about public education
and even why public education is needed. Our charter schools,
and whether they are public or for charter or, you know--Ok. So
I am nervous. And I am very passionate about kids. So if I feel
like I am getting ready to cry, I have to calm myself down,
because our students right now need resources. Our schools--our
teachers need to be paid, right? And it is not fair when we are
taking public dollars and putting them in for-profit charter
schools and there is no accountability on anything that they
are doing to run their schools, but we are held at a higher
level of accountability for public schools. It is not fair for
the students in our communities and in our schools and for the
families that they serve.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank all
of our witnesses here today. I will make one brief personal
comment.
Dr. Contreras, I wanted to be a high school English
teacher, but I was too poor to do student teaching, so I wound
up, look at this, with a wasted life here. Instead of
becoming--I could have become a teacher and a superintendent.
Look at that. Thank you very much for what you do.
Dr. Scafidi, I have argued publicly several times before
that teachers should be paid more. I appreciate that your
testimony backs up my impression, which is that teacher
salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living. I can
understand why teachers are upset. Unfortunately, your research
shows that all the activism from teachers is generating public
education spending, which is largely directed away from
instruction.
If you were advising teachers how they should approach
negotiations with state and local leaders, what would you
suggest they advocate for to ensure that new resources benefit
them?
Mr. Scafidi. Ok. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. There are powerful
forces in the public education system driving this increase in
all other staff, and so if teachers, you know, their priorities
should be what their priorities are, but if their priority is
salaries, they should focus on that issue, because my kids are
in public school in Georgia, and I wrote a paper about what I
called the 13-layer cake.
There are 13 layers of public officials that have a say in
what goes on in my children's classroom. Congress, the
President, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of
Education, Governor, state House, we have a bunch of state
education agencies, school board. All of them have policy
priorities, and all those policy priorities might be great, but
what it has led to over many decades is an increase in all
other staff. If teachers want salary increases, they should
focus like a laser beam on that.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Scafidi. You have pointed out that
since 1992, public education has received a 37 percent increase
in real resources, and you have pointed out that student
performance hasn't significantly changed over that time. And
yet we are constantly told that if we just spend a little more,
we will unlock the secret to vast improvements in performance.
Do you think you could highlight for me the level of
magical spending we need to see an increase in performance?
Mr. Scafidi. You can always grab a study that says if we
increase spending by X, we will get an achievement increase of
Y, right? And some of those studies are well done by great
researchers with great data, great methods, great research
designs, what have you. But then when you look at the spending
increases that they say will lead to this increase in
achievement, then in the real world, we typically increase
spending by even more than that, and the achievement gains
don't materialize.
So it is perhaps ironic that the economists are saying we
need to look at the real world. If in the real world spending
increases aren't translating into achievement gains, then we
have got to question that research. So there is no magic number
in the current system.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Thanks. One more question. This may
offend you, but as I was saying before, I have argued publicly
several times that teachers should be paid more. What I have
actually said is that elementary and secondary education
teachers should be paid more and college professors should be
paid less, because the teachers at the elementary and secondary
have the tougher job.
I believe K-12 teachers have a harder job, but I also know
that postsecondary salaries are much more market driven. Are
there steps that state and local policymakers could take that
would make teacher salaries more market responsive?
Mr. Scafidi. Sure. There is a professor retired at Stanford
University, Mike Kirst. You should look him up. He shares your
views about salaries.
Yes. In higher ed, our salaries are largely market driven.
Disciplines like business, law, medicine, engineering that have
good outside options, even economics, we are paid quite well.
Disciplines like the humanities that have less good outside
options, actually, they probably financially would have been
better off being a K-12 teacher instead of spending all that
time and money getting a Ph.D. So for humanities professors, it
is rough.
So how could we make teacher salaries more market driven?
All of our rage in policy debates is about monopsonistic labor
markets, one buyer of labor. The most monopsonistic labor
markets in the United States is the public education system,
because in a community or even a county, you have one buyer of
labor that is the big player. And when there is one buyer of
labor in any walk of life, the workers can be exploited. We
need to have a more market-driven education system, and then
teachers will get paid more and they will be treated a lot
better.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to yield my
time to my colleague from Connecticut, Congresswoman Hayes, the
2016 National Teacher of the Year.
Mrs. Hayes. Good morning. Thank you all for being here.
First of all, Ms. King, please don't ever apologize for
being passionate about children. And my apologies to Randi
Weingarten. I could have given you a proper introduction, had I
known. But we are here today to discuss a topic that hits home
for me. As you heard my colleague say, I am a public school
educator. In fact, this time last year, I was teaching high
school social studies at John F. Kennedy High School before
going on to be named the National Teacher of the Year.
Something very interesting that I would like everyone to
know. In my year as National Teacher of the Year, there are
four finalists for this honor that are celebrated in their
profession, the top teachers in the nation. Last year, three of
those four finalists went on strike.
I would say to you, Mr. Scafidi, if you think this is just
about salaries, that is not how this works. That is not how any
of this works. My colleagues from Oklahoma, Washington, and
LAUSD went on strike not for salaries, for resources and to
make sure their students got what they needed.
So I am interested to learn--I know a lot about education.
I know a lot about what the other members of the panel said,
but I am trying to unpack your testimony and perhaps gain some
valuable insight.
In reviewing your testimony and your previous writings, I
found that you spent your career advocating for school choice
and for voucher programs. In your 2015 paper, The Integration
Anomaly, you argue that for choice to improve integration, it
should be free from regulation. We also heard at the start of
this hearing that the last thing schools need is more control
from Washington.
Mr. Scafidi, would you categorize the Individuals with
Disabilities Act as a regulation? Yes or no.
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Mrs. Hayes. Yes. Would you categorize Title IX of the
Educational Amendments of 1972 as a regulation?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Mrs. Hayes. Would you categorize Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 as a regulation?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Mrs. Hayes. Would religious private schools that accept
vouchers be allowed to ignore any of these regulations on the
basis of religious freedom?
Mr. Scafidi. In my paper, I advocated, the paper you
referred to, that they should have to abide by civil rights
laws.
Mrs. Hayes. Not what you advocated, would they be able to
ignore any of those regulations?
Mr. Scafidi. It depends on the plan. It depends on how the
bill is written or the law is written, but I would advocate
that they should follow civil rights.
Mrs. Hayes. Not what you would advocate. Yes or no.
Mr. Scafidi. It depends on the law.
Mrs. Hayes. Yes, they would. Do you think that skirting
Federal civil rights protections that are codified in
regulations would help achieve greater integration?
Mr. Scafidi. No, and I wrote that they should not.
Mrs. Hayes. Would it make public schools safer or better
for all students?
Mr. Scafidi. If--
Mrs. Hayes. If they were allowed to skirt the regulations.
Mr. Scafidi. No.
Mrs. Hayes. No. In my time as National Teacher of the Year,
one of the things I was able to do was travel all around the
country, visit over 40 states and view firsthand their
educational opportunities, experiences, settings for kids, and
I promise you, trust me, they do not all look the same, and we
don't want to leave that up to states and local municipalities.
Can you help explain how it is possible to achieve greater
integration through school choice without any of these
regulations in place?
Mr. Scafidi. Sure. What we have done in this country in
public education, and a lot of it is great, is making schools
similar. We have equalized funding, which is great, but now
states have common standards and common testing, and so schools
are becoming more similar, so students are sorting by
sociodemographic characteristics in this country. There is my
study and another study by some sociologists have found that
since 1980 or so, public school segregation increased between
then and 2000 by race. After 2000, public school integration
has lagged neighborhood integration. Public school integration
by income has increased dramatically in this country since
around 1970.
I think a well-designed school choice program giving, for
example, bigger scholarships to low-income children and what
have you, and I list a whole list in my report that you
referred to, would promote integration, and I think that is the
only best hope to promote integration by race and class in this
country in schools.
Mrs. Hayes. I am almost at the end of my time, but I can
assure you that I have lived, worked, educated my children in a
Title I school district. That was not by choice. For many
people, it is their only option. And it sounds like, under your
plan, this idea that export the highest performers out and keep
those people right there will not work.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. And the gentlewoman yields back
her time.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Ms. King, I want to tell you that the most
difficult political job I ever had was president of the Towne
Acres Elementary School PTA. I am going to start with that. And
anyone who has ever been a school director, your life
expectancy is not that long around the country, 3 years, I
think. I am a public school proponent. I didn't go to
kindergarten. They didn't have one. And the facility I started
in was a two-room country school without indoor plumbing or
running water. But I had great teachers. And I want to thank
those teachers at that little country school that I started at.
And I want to thank the teachers at New Providence
Elementary School I went to and then the high school I went to
because I would not be sitting here today if I did not have a
great public education. All of my children went to public
schools in Johnson City, Tennessee.
And I think when you look at a public school, its product
are its students and the outcome of those students and how well
they do. That is what we should look at. In a previous life, my
wife taught in an inner city school in Memphis when I was in
school in Memphis, and it was much different than the rural
system that--I now represent rural Appalachia in northeast
Tennessee in a very rural area.
Now, I talked to my school director yesterday in my
hometown who is a friend of mine, and I asked him, I said: What
are the challenges that you have?
And many of you have mentioned some of those. I will go
through them: a limited amount of money for a lot of
compliance; No. 2, the way we fund Title I or special
education; and, three, for him, was the English language
learners. We have 14 teachers in our system with 8,000 students
we have had to hire for English--limited English, and that adds
a huge burden in cost.
Now, having said that, I listened to the--it sounds like
with Dr. Contreras in their school system, we are not in a
wealthy area. But in the last 10 years, we have invested almost
$200 million in our schools. We have made the tough choices. I
was a city commissioner and the local mayor, and we made those
tough choices, and we had to raise property taxes to do it, but
we believe in education, and we funded that.
There are no charter schools in the First District of
Tennessee. There are faith-based schools in there because of
the education that some parents want and home schoolers--we
have sort of left them out--some people that don't feel like
that the school system is meeting their needs. But no charter
schools.
In my district, we have heavily invested in those schools
and it is not just the facility. And I don't--I would encourage
all of you all--many of you all probably have read M. Night
Shyamalan's book ``I Got Schooled.'' And he mentions five
things in his book that result in good outcomes: One is get rid
of ineffective teachers, not many of them, but if you are
ineffective in the classroom, you do damage. No. 2 is get the
principal out of office and put them in the class. A good
principal in a school is absolutely critical. And then frequent
collaboration and feedback about what you are doing, school
size, not these big, huge mega schools, but the smaller the
school, not necessarily the classroom, and then adding
classroom time, making sure that students stay in the classroom
long enough.
So I think it is a local issue. And, Dr. Scafidi, I would
like to have you comment on that. Where the Federal Government
comes in, I know in higher education, our good friends up at
Vanderbilt University stated that just complying with Federal
regulations--if it came on those strings, that would be one
thing, but it all comes with strings--adds $10,000 per student
for their tuition, just complying with Federal regulations. It
is ridiculous. And that goes along where you all are. You spend
an enormous--and that is some of that big bar graph you saw.
The other is compliance that you have had. Would you comment on
that?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes. Just in higher ed, my prior university,
an email went out that the university was having a job search
for a director of institutional effectiveness. And, you know,
economists are kind of wiseacres, so one of my colleagues
immediately forwarded that email to the rest of us--we had all
gotten it--and said: If you have to have a director of
institutional effectiveness, that is prima facie evidence your
institution isn't effective.
Well, now universities have offices of institutional
effectiveness just a few years later. The compliance in higher
ed is terrible. In K-12, it is even worse. And so when I give
this talk to like local audiences, before I am done with the
first paragraph the local public educators immediately blame
State and Federal mandates.
I have looked at data. That is not completely true. All
three levels of government have contributed to the staffing
surge, but definitely compliance is an issue, yes, sir.
Mr. Roe. Well, I would like to have the educators that are
here point out those things. That is something we could do to
actually help them have more resources at a local level, is to
reduce that somewhat.
Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
I just want to make a couple comments before I get to my
questions. I mean, certainly, I think Dr. Foxx is right; you
know, sometimes government is not the answer, especially when
we have a shutdown that the President bragged he would be proud
to own. So the leadership does make a difference.
Second, I think it is important for us to understand that
education has become the civil rights issue of our time. If you
are wealthy, you are guaranteed at least a chance at getting a
good education; if you are poor, you are not.
We look at Dr. Scafidi's charts. If you just looked at them
in a vacuum, you would assume, oh, we are spending so much more
money on education, which, in fact, is not true. It is true in
some places but not in others, in particular, not in my state
where most of my schools get their local funding through
property taxes.
So, if you are a community that does that and you are a
poor community, property taxes are not the same anymore. They
are going down every year. We are not only not giving more
money in most instances, in some times, we are giving less,
especially when we do things like cut the eState tax, which
they thought was such a great idea, or we do things like cut
corporate taxes, or we do things like say: You know what? You
pay too much money for your property taxes.
It is not a tax cut; it is a tax shift. And so, as it
funnels down, local communities get less and less. So they can
call it what they want. It is a scam is what it really is.
I want to just say--I was going to actually talk to Dr.
Scafidi about some of his charts, but after I heard his answers
about what he thinks is onerous, I thought I would just ignore
it.
I do want to recognize, I have some sorority sisters
sitting out there--how are you all?--who have traveled here to
hear Dr. Contreras.
Dr. Contreras, I have a question for you. In your
testimony, you say that inadequate facilities, things like
broken HVAC systems, et cetera, put students at a competitive
disadvantage. Could you explain to me how that is?
Ms. Contreras. So many of our facilities have--
Ms. Fudge. Is your mike on?
Ms. Contreras. Thank you. Many of our facilities have basic
mechanical problems, HVAC problems. As I said, there are 50--
the average age of the facility is 52 years old. We have
deferred maintenance needs in the amount of $800 million, and
we have received $6 million a year for capital needs,
maintenance needs.
So we have to take operations money to try to address some
basic needs for students. In fact, when I first got to Guilford
County, we had a HVAC issue in one middle school that cost $5
million. It took us 3 years to fix the cooling system because
it would have totally taken all of our capital money for the
year. It would have depleted the budget.
So our students are in old classrooms, buildings with
technology infrastructure but without modern technology. The
students are collecting the rain in buckets.
Ms. Fudge. Dr. Contreras, I don't really--I need to just
cut you off because I have one other quick question. I think
that we get the point. I bet you could do a whole lot with
$1.375 billion dollars. What you think? Ok.
Randi Weingarten, last question here quickly. When Chief
Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion in Brown v.
Board, he stated that education was a right that must be
available to all on equal terms. We know now that we are more
segregated than we probably were in 1968. Can you explain to me
how the underfunding of Title I and IDEA are creating part of
this problem?
Ms. Weingarten. So, thank you, Representative Fudge.
The underfunding, there is a new report by AROS that showed
that the underfunding of Title I and of IDEA together leaves
about $580 billion dollar hole. So this is what it means: Our
kids who have the least should get the most from the Federal
Government.
We know that property taxes, as you just said, exacerbates
inequality, but yet some of these districts are doing that
because they are trying to fund their schools as, you know, Dr.
Roe had said. But that is where, if it is a civil right, which
it is, that is where we need to actually fund the schools in
urban and rural areas where kids are not getting what they
need.
And that is what we thought the Brown decision was intended
to do, and that is what we thought IDEA and Title I is intended
to do. So guidance counselors, nurses, lower class sizes, the
kind of technology you need to have the engagement in career
tech ed, Title I issues, or IDEA issues. When kids need an
individual education plan, how do you actually make that happen
other than the compliance?
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much. My time is up. And I just
want you to know that is the law. It is not a regulation, sir.
Thank you. I would yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
And, Congresswoman Fudge, you have your sorority sisters
here. I know you have them in Bowling Green, Kentucky, because
you came to speak at Western Kentucky and your sorority
sisters. So you have a wonderful group of sisters.
I want to start, Dr. Scafidi, teacher salary stagnation and
the growth of nonteacher staff has gone on a long time. Why do
you think this has not been yet addressed?
Mr. Scafidi. I think partly people didn't know it was going
on. I mean, I got the idea for the paper when I first wrote it
from public school teachers. But, again, I think there is so
many elected officials and government employees at three levels
of government that have a say in how our public schools are
run, that is causing the problem.
I am starting new research to investigate this, and a big
issue that I kind of forgot in my 13 layers is the courts, when
there are school funding lawsuits periodically in states, and
they kind of rotate around to all the states, after a school
funding lawsuit is won for more funding for public schools,
there is a big increase in nonteaching staff in those schools
right after that.
Mr. Guthrie. Ok. Thank you.
And it kind of leads me into my next question. You have
talked about the inefficiencies in our education system that
lead to a misallocation of resources. Maybe this is your next
paper you are talking about. Have you looked specifically at
what decisions made by Federal, state, and local policymakers
might be the main drivers?
Mr. Scafidi. Again, I am starting to investigate that, but
in some sense, it is all of the decisions. I mean, this has
been going on a long, long time. And people have good ideas,
you know, legislators and state officials and Federal officials
in saying: We should do this in the schools or that in the
schools.
And then it is just layer, layer, layer on top. And, you
know, that is a choice, right. And that money that goes to
increasing the staff is not used in other places like building
schools or rehabbing schools or salaries.
Mr. Guthrie. Ok. Thanks.
And then you note in your testimony that one of the
benefits of addressing the misallocation of resources could be
to give every teacher in the country a $12,900 raise. If we
could reallocate resources into teacher pay, would an across-
the-board increase provide the greatest benefit to teachers and
students?
Mr. Scafidi. I don't think an across-the-board raise is the
right answer. I would support more market-driven pay for
teachers because I think that would get more people to come
into the profession because then people would be paid what they
are worth.
Mr. Guthrie. Ok. You know, I was in the state legislature
in Kentucky, and we have struggled with a lot of other states
in getting the right formula to our students and to our
schools. And our general fund budget since I first got there,
like 2000, was about $14 billion, and that is just property tax
that goes with the state government, sales tax, income tax.
Last year, I think it was $24 billion, so we have gone up $10
billion.
And one of the issues we are having here is that so much
money is now obligated, particularly like Medicaid, Medicaid
expansion, and so forth obligates so much money, the room to
move and to do the things I think our state citizens say: These
are priorities we really want to move forward.
So I know our state legislature is struggling. I know they
want to make it right. I think we do too, but it needs to be
done at the right level, you know, and so right level of
government without putting too much more bureaucracy in place
and other things.
Because I always said when I was a state legislator, every
time we would require a report, and there are a lot of bills
that say report on this, report on that, report on--which are
important, because if you measure it, you manage it, but it
also requires somebody to write the report that is not teaching
the students. So those are the, I am sure, issues that you are
looking at.
And I appreciate you all being here. I appreciate you being
here, for your testimony. And I will yield back my time.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands, Mr.
Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding today's hearing, and I thank the witnesses for being
present.
A caveat, my two youngest are school teachers. One teaches
English in the tenth grade and the other is a special education
teacher, and so I do have little bit of interaction whenever I
am home with two teachers.
But, Dr. Contreras, 3 months ago, the students in my
district, in the Northern Mariana Islands, went through Super-
Typhoon Yutu, the second strongest storm to hit U.S. soil in
history. Multiple schools were lost, which means these students
are now going to have their courses in FEMA-built temporary
tent classrooms, like ones in huts.
Our public school system serves around 10,000 students on
three islands on the Western Pacific where typhoons are common.
You stated in your testimony that you have spent time teaching
in different school districts across the nation. If you and
your school district colleagues would design a school at this
scale for students in this environment, what elements would you
say are the most important?
Ms. Contreras. One moment. She is going to repeat what you
said because of my hearing loss.
Thank you. I think certainly there are ways to design
schools to make sure that you are less likely to experience
some of the massive damage that you experienced in your
district or that we experienced with three of our schools in
Guilford County. However, that does take significant funding.
You know, you would have to speak to someone who is an expert
in that specific design.
But I think that speaks to the need for the school funding
and for making sure that districts are receiving adequate
funding, not just for building schools but for building schools
that can withstand earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, which is
more complicated, complex, and does take some additional
funding than just renovating a school. That takes significant
funding.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. And I have another question. Not
only is the--on the policy is--not only is the percentage of
funding for IDEA actually at its lowest it has been in decades,
but we also have a Secretary of Education and a President who
failed to prioritize students with disabilities in their annual
budgets.
In the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, President Trump proposed a
massive cut to IDEA funding, and in the Fiscal Year 2019 budget
he proposed flat funding, which would have resulted in an
essential cut.
Schools in the Northern Marianas and across the nation need
the resources to train teachers and support students with
disabilities. In fact, in the insular areas, the Marianas,
Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands are not included
in the special education preschool grant program under IDEA.
So, Dr. Contreras, how has the deprioritization of IDEA
funding impacted students, teachers, and decisions you have
made about how dollars are spent?
Ms. Contreras. Absolutely. Not prioritizing IDEA is causing
significant problems in schools. In fact, in Guilford County,
we have one nurse for 1,700 students. And teachers, classroom
teachers are having to catheterize students themselves because
we do not have adequate staff to meet student needs.
We are not able to handle their transition plans
accordingly, and we cannot provide the state-of-the-art kind of
instruction and technology that those kids need and deserve to
meet their IEP goals. So flat funding would not be a way, in my
educational opinion, to meet the needs of the most vulnerable
students in the district.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. I don't mean to cut you off. I do
have a question for Ms. King, if I may.
Ms. King, could you share from a parent's perspective why
it is important to provide more funding to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act to support students with
disabilities?
Ms. King. Yes. Funding Title I in IDEA would give our
children less--some less--disadvantage in schools, more
resources that they need. We have students in our classrooms
that the teacher-to-student ratio is huge. It is much larger.
They can't get the one on one that they need to be successful,
not even with creating their own individual planning for them
to be successful inside of their schools.
The fact of thinking that children with special needs is
not important to put funding to is very difficult to think
about as a parent or as a grandparent who actually has a son
right now that is classified as having a disability. My
daughter is going through things right now to get him help. And
to think that we don't think that our students need or have the
want, the capability of having any kind of resources or funding
is ludicrous to me as a parent.
Mr. Sablan. Ok. Thank you.
I will submit other questions for the witnesses to answer,
but we will be holding additional hearings on IDEA and Title I.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, a few questions.
First of all, for Mr. Scafidi--I know I am pronouncing that
wrong. There is a popular talk show host in Milwaukee spells
his name the same way.
Just a followup. I noticed in one of the things that you
prepared, over an almost 20-year period, staff was going up so
much more than the number of students. It looks like
nationwide, during a period in which there was an increase in
students of 17 percent, an increase of staff of 39 percent.
Could you comment on that? I mean, it looks to me like
either resources are being horribly misallocated or something
is going on. I mean, it seems to me if you have that big of an
increase in staff, something was going on. Could you comment on
that?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes, sir. That was a different time period
than what I presented today, a little bit shorter time period.
But this has been going on for a long, long, long time. So, if
we keep the same system, I don't know why we think it would
change. And, second, I wouldn't care about the increase in all
other staff if we were getting a return. It is not clear we are
getting a return on that, and so that is why I argue that is
inefficient.
Mr. Grothman. Ok. And just to look what I have here, when
you are increasing the number of staff by about 40 percent when
the increase in students is about 17 percent, that would not
indicate a lack of funding, right?
Mr. Scafidi. No.
Mr. Grothman. Ok. Next question for you, something that
just kind of mystifies me here: In the State of Wisconsin right
now, we have a substantial budget surplus. And just doing a
quick google, that is true of other states. Apparently, Ohio
has a surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars too.
Right now, might have changed in the last couple months,
but last time I checked, it looks like this year the Federal
Government is going to be borrowing about 22 percent of our
budget. I mean, irresponsible beyond belief.
Could you comment psychologically as to why, when you have
two levels of government, the level of government closest to
the people running surpluses of hundreds of millions of
dollars, and here in Washington, we are borrowing over 20
percent of our budget already, why, when people feel we need
more money for schools, do they think it is the Federal
Government who ought to be kicking in more money when we are
broke out of our mind and the states are running surplus, and
when the states are closest to the people so presumably would
be able to do a better job of seeing where it should be spent
or what ties we put with it?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes. I have actually worked for two Georgia
Governors, a Democrat and a Republican, and it really rankles
them that the Federal Government can spend--deficit spend--
seemingly to a large extent, and they have balanced budget
amendments in their states.
Mr. Grothman. But why would you--and I understand--it
scares me when I hear people in education, you know, who are
educating the next generation of children, who are apparently
coming up here and their role model for young people is ask
this completely broken Federal Government for more money when
you are running surpluses locally. It just amazes me that
anybody would do that, but comment.
Mr. Scafidi. Yes. It is just a different system. I mean,
the Federal Government can run deficits. The state governments
have balanced budget amendments. And, you know, it has led to
very different outcomes. You know, one has big fiscal problems
and states, you know, balance their budget every year.
Mr. Grothman. Ok. That is true. I mean, it is just kind of
a scary thing.
Next thing, people talk about teachers' pay, and I don't
know--there is one in our papers today, but at least when I
have looked at things in the past, frequently don't take into
account fringe benefits. And when you take into account fringe
benefits, I mean, very generous health benefits, very generous
pension benefits, the gap kind of closes or disappears. Do you
think that is true nationwide?
Mr. Scafidi. Sorry. I didn't hear the last part of your
question.
Mr. Grothman. Is that true nationwide?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes, sir. Public school employees, and I am in
a public university, we have very generous health and
retirement benefits, including retiree health benefits.
Mr. Grothman. That is one of the reasons--
Mr. Scafidi. And my analysis did not take into account. I
am just looking at salary.
Mr. Grothman. Ok. So, if you take into account the fringe
benefits, maybe things disappear.
I will point out it bothers me when people in the education
system try to discourage people from getting involved. I
remember even when I was a child, I think everybody just thinks
about being a teacher. I had a teacher who decided to take time
out from his class and rip how much he was making. And I think,
for people who care about education, I think people ought to
take that into account.
Chairman Scott. Yield back?
Ms. Foxx. Do you yield back?
Mr. Grothman. Oh. I yield back, yes. When we are out of
time, you can just grab it back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you very much.
Dr. Adams.
Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Ranking Member.
And thank you to all the witnesses for being here today,
and thank you for your testimony. Many years ago, when I was a
member of the school board, I ran because I was an angry
parent, and today I am an angry grandparent about what is not
going on that should be going on.
But, Dr. Contreras, I want to thank you for all you do to
educate our children back home in North Carolina. And, you
know, there is no reason why when Guilford County Schools needs
more than $1.5 billion in capital investment, that local and
state school funding per student in our state has fallen 19.6
percent since 2008 as of 2015.
As Dr. Contreras stated in her testimony, our state has
increased public education funding since 2011, but the fact of
the matter is it is just not enough. Now, I served as a member
of the state House for 20.5 years, and I have got to tell you
that our state legislators, not just North Carolina, but North
Carolina specifically, need to do better.
We need to make public education a priority. But we cannot
think that our schools can improve our children for the 21st
century work force in an increasingly global economy and still
have schools that not only not have up-to-date technology in
workplaces but also threaten the health and safety of our
children.
Dr. Contreras, can you tell me the last time Guilford
County built a new school, and is that school up to model
standards and codes?
Ms. Contreras. I do not have the--
Mr. Adams. You want to put your microphone on? Your
microphone.
Ms. Contreras. I am sorry. I do not have the date of the
last time we built a school, but the latest schools are built
to current code and standards. But we have far too few that
have been built recently. And about, as I mentioned, about half
of them need--are rated poor, half of the schools are rated
poor or unsatisfactory, meaning they need to be rebuilt or we
need to demolish them and build totally new schools.
Mr. Adams. Ok. Now, you mentioned that Guilford County is
stretching dollars for mobile units due to the class size
mandate. Is North Carolina not helping counties to fund that
mandate?
Ms. Contreras. The state would say they are funding the
teachers, but that mandate has required that we increase the
number of classrooms by about 940, which causes a problem with
facilities.
We also are not funded for any of the textbooks,
technology, and materials. And 58 percent of all new teachers
in the district are lateral entry, have no formal training
because of the mandate.
Mr. Adams. Ok. So, quickly, is learning different in the
mobile units versus the mortar buildings, the brick and mortar?
Ms. Contreras. Is there a difference in the mobile units?
Mr. Adams. Yes, in terms of the learning of our children.
Ms. Contreras. I think it is obviously preferable that they
were in the building with the rest of the students. Obviously,
students are moving in and out of the building in bad weather,
and we have students who are very vulnerable students in those
mobile units. We are grateful that the tornado occurred on a
Sunday because the mobile units were completely destroyed,
leveled to the ground.
Mr. Adams. Right. That is a safety issue too.
You know, I have got a lot more I want to say, but I do
want to get back to something Dr. Scafidi said in terms of all
of the increases and--but more specifically the claim about
nonteaching staff and their value or nonvalue. And so, Ms.
Weingarten, if you would just give us your reaction to that,
please.
Ms. Weingarten. So the title that--
Ms. Adams. Your microphone.
Ms. Weingarten. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Representative
Adams. The timetable that Dr. Scafidi was talking about also
included the timetable of the Individuals with Disabilities and
Education Act and the Disabilities Acts, and those actually
required that or promised that the Federal Government would
spend 40 percent of those requirements. It only ever spent
sixteen.
Mr. Adams. This is for the nonteaching folks. That is where
I am going.
Ms. Weingarten. Right. This is what it means--
Ms. Adams. And I have only got--
Ms. Weingarten [continuing]. the paraprofessionals, the
nurses, the psychologists, the social workers, all of the
physical and other kind of hardware and instructional supplies.
And all of that, if you did an audit, you would, I think, see
that most of the nonteacher increases in schools across America
was because of the needs in IDEA.
Mr. Adams. Thank you very much. And, you know, just one
point, we need all of those individuals to help facilitate the
learning that has to go on in the classroom that students do
need that support.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Banks.
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Scafidi, your testimony was quite compelling. And I
want to go back for a moment to your definition of teachers
versus everybody else. Are you aware of any Federal definitions
that do lay out the difference between in the classroom versus
out of the classroom cost in education?
Mr. Scafidi. Well, the NCES, National Center for Education
Statistics, right down the street, they have a definition of
who is a teacher and who is not. And they ask states to report
that data to them in that way.
Mr. Banks. Do those definitions perhaps change from state-
to-state as to how they are quantified at the state level
versus the Federal definition?
Mr. Scafidi. I have worked a lot with state personnel data,
and states have what are called job codes, and so each public
school employee has a job code. And so states could have
different definitions, but they are supposed to conform to the
Federal definition when they report it to the state--sorry,
report to the Federal Government.
Mr. Banks. In my state, the State of Indiana, there is
currently legislation working through the state legislature
that would provide more transparency when it comes to in the
classroom versus administrative costs in education. Is that the
answer?
Is that the way to go, greater transparency of these dollar
figures to show the American people, in my case to show
Hoosiers, the incredible statistics that you shared with us in
your testimony, or is there a better way to go? Should we
mandate certain metrics of in the classroom versus
administrative cost, in your opinion?
Mr. Scafidi. I think transparency is a great thing because
it lets public school employees, teachers, parents, taxpayers,
elected officials see the tradeoffs, and then they can make
better decisions, so, yes.
Mr. Banks. Do you have any examples of where you have seen
that type of transparency effectively drive down that startling
metric that you provided before?
Mr. Scafidi. Not yet. There are strong forces against
transparency, so--
Mr. Banks. What are those strong forces?
Mr. Scafidi. Often State departments of education, they
report spending on their website, you know, how much we spend
in public schools, they often exclude funds. In my State of
Georgia, we exclude well over $3 billion a year in funding. And
so, when state legislators are debating education, when the
newspaper is talking about how much we spend in public schools,
they report the official number that is over $3.5 billion less
than the truth.
And the website is very Orwellian. It has a spreadsheet
that says here is how much we spend in each district. It has
the categories. Then, if you scroll down below the spreadsheet,
it has a list of included funds and a bunch of fund codes over
there. Then it has excluded funds and a bunch of fund codes. So
we just exclude funding from the total. That seems silly.
Mr. Banks. Along those lines, is it your opinion that
Federal mandates and Federal involvement in K-12 education has
driven up that ``everything else'' category?
Mr. Scafidi. If you listen to public school officials at
the local level, that is the first thing they will say. And
that appears to be true, yes.
Mr. Banks. Well, thank you very much. Again, your testimony
is quite compelling. I hope to share it with everybody that I
know back home because it makes an incredible case for how we
can do what we need to do to award teachers the salaries that
they deserve for the important work that they do. Thank you
very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
your incredible commitment to this issue for so long.
I am a mother of a proud public school kid, and I just want
to say thank you so much to all three of you that have done so
much work for our public education system.
Last week, I met with this amazing group of dedicated
teachers from my home State of Washington, and they showed me
this very simple but disturbing photograph that echoes what,
Ms. Weingarten, you mentioned and many of you have talked
about, which is a thermostat at 52 degrees Fahrenheit when the
kids came in the morning.
A teacher at that school, Mrs. Copeland, later showed me a
picture of her and a student sitting on a lab bench warming
their feet over a hot plate. That is what this is: a hot plate.
And she wrote to me, and she said: By the fifth period, I
didn't care anymore about decorum. We had kids huddled over hot
plates all day to try to stay and get warm. Sergio came to me
asking if he could go to another classroom so that he could get
warm. It about broke my heart. Tommy and I both found blankets
for our kids, and I brought in any extra warm clothes I had.
These are our public schools. These are not shelters. They
are our public schools. And it is just crazy to me that we
would not be investing everything we can into making sure that
our kids and our teachers and our communities have the
resources they need.
So my first question is to Ms. Weingarten. In your
testimony, you expose how teachers are often forced to make do
with inadequate and often very dangerous working conditions.
Can you tell us why giving teachers more latitude to meet
children's needs could improve student achievement and what
that looks like?
Ms. Weingarten. So, yes. Thank you--
Ms. Jayapal. Turn on your microphone.
Ms. Weingarten. Sorry. Thank you, Congresswoman.
You know, there are actually some studies that show that
when you have collective bargaining in schools, that teachers
can actually sculpt the conditions in their schools to what
their kids need. And, frankly, they do not start with salaries,
as you have heard before. They start with things like nurses
and guidance counselors, even though they know that they need
higher salaries.
But there is a recent EPI study, which we can put in the
record, that shows that collective bargaining, especially,
frankly, with this ability to strike, actually does far more
than any kind of other market conditions to create the
conditions in schooling.
And so what you see, to answer your question directly, we
see teachers of kids with special needs who are out there all
the time talking about ensuring that those kids get the
instructional materials they need.
We see that, when the debate was raging about the ACA and
Medicaid expansion, it was superintendents and teachers that
were out there saying, ``We need the equipment,'' like
wheelchairs, like other kinds of catheterization equipment that
Dr. Contreras was talking about so that kids can be educated in
the mainstream.
But what happens is that they actually know the needs of
their kids and want to start with well-being and an engagement,
and they will often forsake their own salaries in order to
actually get the needs that kids need.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Ms. Weingarten.
I think that was made clear with teacher strikes where
teachers were not just advocating for their own salaries. They
were advocating with the community, with their families, for
all of the resources.
Ms. King, thank you so much for your moving testimony. I
hope you don't ever stop being passionate about schools and
education. It is a blessing for all of us.
You mentioned in your testimony that, from 2010 to 2015
low-income student enrollment grew by 4 percent, becoming the
majority of public school students. Despite the increase in
low-income student enrollment, Title I funding for schools has
essentially remained the same. So can you tell me how we are
supporting today's increasingly diverse learners?
Ms. King. We aren't. More money doesn't mean that our kids
are getting educated. As Dr. Scafidi has said on many times, we
are having more staff and more funding for these schools. Our
schools are crumbling in the education system. Our schools are
having more students attend with less money.
In Title I schools, I am a parent that has had children
that graduated from a Title I school and a school that I serve
as a PTA leader right now is a Title I school. And the funding
that they have doesn't help them with the needs of the children
in the schools when we are talking about counselors, when we
are talking about books in the classroom, technology, and any
and everything that we need for our students is important.
Title I right now is a big issue across the country with
funding. And a lot of people think that the more funding that
you get, that your schools will be successful, and they are not
because they don't have a lot of funding, as the person to my
left, Dr. Scafidi, has personally stated that it is working and
that we have to have some kind of mechanism to make sure that
it is working.
OK. So I am nervous right now. I am getting nervous.
Ms. Jayapal. No problem. You are doing great. I am out of
time, so let me just say that this is, I think, an incredibly
important issue in my state. Washington state was actually--the
state supreme court actually ruled that the state was not
meeting its constitutional obligation to fund public education
way back in 2012, and we finally are correcting that situation
and putting more in, but we need Congress to act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
And thank you, panel, for being here with us. I switched
chairs and--but I am glad to be able to hear what we are
covering in this hearing.
One of the first things that I wanted to clear up was, Dr.
Scafidi, you indicated in your research that the surge in
nonteaching staff in our schools, and point out that this surge
have significantly boosted--hasn't significantly boosted
achievement. Many staff in nonteaching positions provide our
schools valuable leadership and services.
Could you clear up: Are you saying nonteaching staff aren't
needed, or can you clear that up a little bit, be a little
clear about what you see--where you see the real problem is
and, of course, like bus drivers and things like that? Can you
give us some feedback as far as your research on that?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes. Absolutely, nonteaching staff are crucial
and essential, but the issue is in what numbers and in what
capacities. And so I guess I have to ask: Where does it end?
That is one reason why I started my data in 1992 in my main
analysis. Like Ms. Weingarten said, you know, in the 1970's, we
started paying attention to special needs students, which was
great and long overdue. And that led to a big increase in
staff. But it is still going on today, and it is even going on
literally in the school year right now, which is after my data.
So the question is, where does it end?
Mr. Allen. As far as--well, my parents were farmers and
educators. My dad served on the Board of Education. We lived
education. Growing up I didn't have a choice. And, of course,
now, in my role as Republican leader on the Early Childhood,
Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, I am going to
be traveling the country to look at, you know, K-12 education,
see what is being done.
But I think, you know, where we are innovating, where we
are doing the things we need to do, and then certainly, you
know, what I have learned here today. I mean, it is shameful
some of the things that we are seeing here today.
But I do want to congratulate you on our success in
Georgia. We have had great leadership in Georgia. Obviously,
one of the fastest growing states in--I mean, we added 800,000
jobs. GDP, economic growth has a lot to do with education and
as far as innovation in education.
You know, one of the things I realized in serving on this
committee is how do you motivate young people. I mean, this
one-size-fits-all, top-down approach, this does not seem to
work. We are seeing that in Georgia, you know, for example,
themed schools, things like that, that really get students
motivated.
Could you give us a little background on how we are
accomplishing so much in Georgia because, I mean, we have, you
know, in my district, we pretty much have all new schools. And
so can you talk about how you have worked in Georgia to make it
what I think is, you know, one of the best school systems in
the country right now?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes. I can talk to you long, but I will just
tell one quick story. In 2003, I used to have lunch every week
with Superintendent Kathy Cox, the state school Superintendent.
I had only been, you know, working for Governor Perdue for a
couple weeks.
And she said: Ben, can you ask the Governor if we can move
this one position in the State Department to be like the AP
coordinator?
And I said: Yes.
And she said: Don't you have to ask the Governor?
I said: Well, I will ask forgiveness later. I said: Of
course, he'll support this.
She said: Are you sure?
And I said: Yes.
She said: Well, you know, you have to call the budget
director.
And so I pulled out my cellphone, and, you know, I called
the budget director and said: Can you move one position from X
to AP?
So this person, she was a teacher before. She drove around
to every low-income school in Georgia and said: Here is how
there is Federal resources--sorry, state resources and AP--
college board resources to put AP programs in your schools.
And so, in Georgia now, I wrote a paper on this years
later, disadvantaged students and also minority students are
more likely to take AP than similarly situated students not in
those categories. Florida had the same results. They did it
with Jeb Bush. So, yes, you can do more if you use your
resources quite well.
Mr. Allen. Exactly. And that is why I mentioned that,
again, this top-down, one-size-fits-all concept is not really
working. One of the biggest complaints that I hear is where we
have funding for X and the school system needs Y and they can't
do anything about it. So there is very little room to do the
kind of things we need to do and innovate.
My time is up. And I yield back, sir.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Morelle for
switching spots with me.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for holding this hearing
today.
And I would like to thank the witnesses for being here and
for their prepared testimonies and your remarks.
In my home State of Georgia, our Governor Brian Kemp, has
called for a $3,000 permanent salary increase for certified
Georgia teachers in his proposed budget. In his State of the
Union address, he delivered--or excuse me, State of the State
address he delivered last month, he said, and I quote: To
enhance educational outcomes and build a 21st century state, we
must invest in those who educate, inspire, and lead our
students. To recruit and retain the best and brightest our
schools, we must remove heavy burdens in the classroom and keep
teacher pay competitive.
Now, I believe this is truly a step in the right direction,
and I applaud our Governor Kemp for making the hardworking
teachers of Georgia a priority. In 2017, the average teacher
salary in Georgia was $55,532, and we are paying our teachers
less than the national average.
On top of that, in 2015, the Georgia Professional Standards
Commission reported that 44 percent of the state's public
school teachers leave the education profession within the first
5 years of employment.
To find out why the rate is so high, the Georgia Department
of Education in 2015 conducted a survey of 53,000 teachers, and
the study included elementary, middle, and high school teachers
with varying years of experience. And the results were truly
striking.
Two out of three teachers who responded to the survey said
that they were unlikely or very unlikely to recommend teaching
as a profession to a student about to graduate from high
school. The teachers also reported that they feel devalued and
constantly under pressure. Now, we must address this, and we
must make sure that we are attracting and retaining the best
and the brightest educators in our schools.
My question is for Dr. Weingarten. Your testimony speaks to
what led to this national movement across the country, and we
are seeing that very thing now in Denver. Teachers are
galvanized for increased school support. Can you speak to where
we are now and the work that is left to ensure the success of
teachers?
Ms. Weingarten. So teachers--as you were talking,
Representative, I was thinking back to when I was the President
of The Teachers Union in New York City. And Mayor Bloomberg and
I didn't agree on much, but we agreed that in order to have the
best and the brightest, there needed to be significant salary
increases.
And over the course--we just did an op-ed last year on
this--over the course of 6 years, we were able to negotiate an
increase in pay of 43 percent so that people could actually
live in the neighborhoods in which they taught, which is what
people want.
So what you are seeing in--but what teachers will tell you
is that they are very shy about talking about their own wage
increases. They would rather work two or three jobs instead of
talk about that. And it could be psychological. It could be--
you know, whatever.
But they will tell you there are two things. And the
research, Ingersoll's research, other research will say: It is
about the latitude by which to do our jobs, the conditions we
need to actually meet the needs of children. That is No. 1. And
No. 2 is, can we actually pay our bills including student debt,
which is greater and greater, which is why the public service
loan forgiveness is so important?
And what you are seeing in all these strikes is that people
are actually focused on the top-of-the-mind issue. So that is
why, in Los Angeles, they were focused on nurses in schools,
guidance counselors in schools to meet mental health and well-
being issues, that the issue of people feeling afraid, as you
know so well, about the safety of communities.
So but it is really, what are the conditions I need to do
my job? And, second, am I being paid enough so that I can
afford my student loan issues as well as my own family's needs?
Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much. And I appreciated hearing
your remarks about the lack of state funding for public
education after the Great Recession.
And, Dr. Contreras, my question for you, could you talk a
little bit more about how underinvestment in the public
education system impacts the economy?
Ms. Contreras. I believe that we know that the academic
outcomes of students is related to the education of the parent
and the socioeconomic status of the parent. So, when parents do
not have jobs and we are not investing in the community and in
schools, you continue to see the sort of persistent
underachievement from generation to generation. It is important
that we address this situation, or we will be talking about
this for the next 50 years.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Scafidi, there is no question that everyone on
this committee in both parties want to support every child in
public education, and we want to do everything we can to change
the schools that are low performing. In your experience, what
do we need to know about what works in improving low-performing
schools, and how should that inform policymakers at all levels?
Mr. Scafidi. We should be very humble. I think in the large
part, we don't know how to turn around low-performing schools.
And even if there is a study that says this one program worked
with these two schools, that was idiosyncratic. You know, you
had one really good guru go in and help turn around those
schools, but is that person replicable? So I would be very
humble about having any programs at any level of government to
turn around, you know, low-performing schools.
Mr. Comer. As you know, Congress passed the Every Student
Succeeds Act in 2015. However, the role of testing continues to
be debated. What advice do you have for us as we consider the
role assessments should play in evaluating school performance?
Mr. Scafidi. There is a lot of new research in the last few
years, very new research that the state-based tests, you know,
states--tests created by states or Consortium of states are not
super predictive of later-life outcomes for students.
So I don't know the exact flexibility ESSA gives on
testing. I am not an expert on that flexibility. But I think
states should look to switch to more norm-referenced testing,
you know, using tests that have been around a long, long time
instead of these state-based tests. It seems like states aren't
great at making their own tests.
Mr. Comer. Right. And let me say this: I went to public
schools. My wife went to public schools. And our three children
now go to public schools. And it does seem that there has been
a big change in teaching from the time when my wife and I were
in school compared to our students today. And a lot of people
wonder if we are, in public education, spending too much time
teaching for the test instead of teaching basic skills. Is that
something that you have encountered in your research?
Mr. Scafidi. Well, I have encountered that in real life.
For nine years, we lived in a rural area in Georgia, and about
day three, my kids, when they were in second grade, my two
oldest, they were scared of something called the CRCT, the
Criteria-Referenced Competency Test.
But here is the rub: I don't think policymakers, the
business community, parents want to go back to the 1990's,
where we just sort of give a bunch of money to the public
education system and say, ``We are going to trust you.''
I think schools are going to be held accountable one way or
the other, and it is either going to be through some kind of
centralized system, like we do now, or it is going to be
through a decentralized system where parents hold schools
accountable directly when they make choices of where to go to
school. And we have just got to pick as a society what do we
think is best for students.
Mr. Comer. And I certainly support public education and
have a lot of respect for teachers. I believe classroom
teachers are underpaid when you consider the education that
they are required to have to teach as well as the number of
students, and they can't pick or choose which students they
want to teach like in many private schools. Public school
teachers inherit whatever they are given. And because of that,
I have always had great respect for teachers. My mother was a
public school teacher.
One of the things that I have noticed with respect to
teachers' pay in the school systems in Kentucky, in my
congressional district, and Congressman Guthrie touched on this
a little bit, is the fact that the budgets have actually
increased even though teachers pay, classroom teachers pay, has
not increased significantly.
And it appears in most school systems, in Kentucky anyway,
that the highest salaries, aside from the superintendent, are
in the central office. And I have always believed that--and
when I say ``central office,'' I am talking about
administration. I have always believed that the three highest
paid employees in the school system should be the
superintendent, the principal, and the classroom teachers,
because many classroom teachers are like me in business or most
Americans want to make the most money. And I feel like we need
to reprioritize where we pay the highest salaries in public
education.
Mr. Scafidi. I think if we had a choice-based system of
education, the compensation across different types of public
school employees would be very different. And I think their
most important staff, the teachers, would be the big winners.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of you for being here to address this very
important subject.
I am the mother of two children who are now in their 20's.
Both of them were educated in a very fine public school
district in Pennsylvania, which happens to be immediately
adjacent to a very distressed school district. And I worked in
the school district that was distressed. I went home to the
school district that was better funded and where the children's
outcomes were significantly better. So I feel as though, at
least from the outside, I have seen it.
Ms. King, I also want to thank you for your role with the
PTA. I was very active in my children's school's PTO
organizations throughout their elementary school years until my
children banned me from ever entering their school when they
got to middle school, at which point I stopped. But it is
important work that is done.
There are so many questions that could be asked here, but I
want to direct my first question to you, Dr. Contreras, because
by my count, you have either taught or been in five different
school districts over the course of your career. Is that
correct?
Ms. Contreras.
[Nonverbal response.]
Ms. Wild. Yes?
And Illinois, Georgia, Rhode Island, New York, and North
Carolina?
Ms. Contreras.
[Nonverbal response.]
Ms. Wild. So I assume you have seen some schools that have
better funding than others. Is that fair to say?
Ms. Contreras. With respect to facilities, I have, yes.
Ms. Wild. Ok. Can you speak just to that issue then, the
issue--what you have seen based on your personal experience in
five different school districts about how the students do when
they have better facilities?
Ms. Contreras. So I will say that I have dedicated my
career primarily to working in poor communities, but there are
some states that do contribute more to funding their capital
needs. So, in Georgia, I did see that the school facilities
were much newer and that students had a greater opportunity to
participate in career technical education programs because of
the educational suitability.
So it wasn't just a matter of maintaining the buildings;
they actually could participate in programming that helped them
with career education and, you know, career college readiness.
I just implore us all to not simply look at data, which is
important, but also to believe what we see what our own eyes
and hear from the one-sixth of U.S. population that spends
eight hours in our schools every single weekday who are telling
us that they are struggling with dilapidated schools, with
significant environmental issues, and that is what I have seen
primarily throughout my 26, 27 years in education.
Ms. Wild. And do you consider digital connectivity to be
part of a school's infrastructure?
Ms. Contreras. It is absolutely necessary, yes.
Ms. Wild. And have you taught in school districts where the
students did not have access to computers or laptops or
whatever?
Ms. Contreras. Absolutely. So I am in a district where we
have 100 percent connectivity, but the students do not have
devices.
Ms. Wild. And what about those same students when they go
home? Do you have any kind of information, even anecdotal,
about their ability to access the internet and other learning
tools?
Ms. Contreras. We know that quite a few of the students do
have internet connectivity or access to the internet. We don't
know about their access to devices, but in primarily poor
areas, this is going to become an issue for our families. So,
not only do they not have access in school in many communities,
they go home and they also do not have access, widening the
opportunity gap for these children.
Ms. Wild. Thank you.
I have one series of questions--or one question for Dr.
Scafidi, if I may. Your written testimony and your testimony
today talks about the big increase in all other staff. What
kinds of employees do you include in all other staff? Do you
include librarians?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Ms. Wild. And school psychologists?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Ms. Wild. Guidance counselors?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Ms. Wild. Reading specialists?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wild. Tutors?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wild. School bus drivers?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Wild. So all of those fall into that all other staff
category, as well?
Mr. Scafidi. Correct.
Ms. Wild. Do you dispute that any of those categories are
necessary in today's schools?
Mr. Scafidi. No, I do not.
Ms. Wild. Thank you. That is all I have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate this hearing, and this is certainly an
important topic. I know, in my time in the state legislature, I
was a strong advocate for increasing teacher pay, and it was
incredibly frustrating to me to see what Dr. Scafidi you really
pointed out here in your testimony today. And I just--and I
think there is confusion about this. I mean, even in this
hearing, I hear confusion about this. I mean, so, in 1992, we
were spending $5,626 per child, and then, in real dollars in
2016, we are now spending $13,847. So, in real dollars on a
per-child basis in public education in America today, we are
spending a lot more than we were when I went to public school,
right? Is that a fair statement or surmise from your testimony
so far?
Mr. Scafidi. That is correct.
Mr. Taylor. Ok. So we are spending a lot more money on
public education on a per-child basis in real dollars since
when Van Taylor was in public school back in the eighties,
right? So what is frustrating to me is that teacher pay is
basically flat. So we are spending more, but teacher pay is
flat. And, again, there is confusion about that. I mean, even
in this hearing, I have heard people saying, you know, sort of
saying we are cutting--we are not investing enough. Well, we
are investing more and more and more, but it is not going to
the teachers. And I was very frustrated at my time in the
legislature. I was very happy that this legislative session the
Governor of Texas and the Speaker/Lieutenant Governor made it
an emergency item and said, ``This is something really
important; we are going pay teachers more,'' as they try to
restructure education.
So, do parents--Dr. Scafidi, in your experience, do parents
understand that the funding is going up, but it is not going to
the teachers? I mean, it is clear to me that some of my
colleagues don't understand that, but do parents understand
that in your experience and your time in Georgia or elsewhere?
Mr. Scafidi. In my experience, you know, talking to parents
when I was working at the state level, but also just in my
kids' public schools parents do know about the increase in all
other staff, and they talk about the number of assistant
principals, you know, curriculum specialists curriculum
directors. They do witness that. I am not sure they know about
the increase in real spending.
Mr. Taylor. Why is that? I mean, I am very blessed to
represent some really phenomenal public schools in my district,
and I refer to them frequently as the crown jewels of my
community, and they are clearly the driving force for why I
represent a successful district or why I have a successful
community. We have got great public schools. But even then, I
find lot of confusion about the actual funding per child. There
is a lot of confusion about what is spent. I hear people that
really should know better saying we are spending $7,000 a kid,
or we are spending--and then when you do the math, you do the
total dollars divided by the number of kids and the per capita
it is very different. And, actually, you spoke a little bit
about that earlier about excluding certain numbers, excluding
certain funds. Can you speak more about that in your
experience?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes. I will tell another true story. One time
I was sitting at my office, you know, we had caller ID, and the
phone rang. And it said call transferred from the president of
the university's office. I was like: Oh, no, what did I do now?
I answer the phone.
They said: Call transfer.
I said: Ok.
And the person said his name--I thought this was made up--
he said his name was Mick Zais, the state school Superintendent
of South Carolina. And so I am quickly googling it because I
thought it was one of my friends pranking me, but that is a
real person actually, and I believe he is up here now.
He said: This report, Dr. Scafidi, and it says we are not
telling the Feds how many people work in our public schools.
I said: Well, yes, you guys have not told us how many
people work in your public schools for decades.
And he said: What? I am going to fix that.
I said: Ok.
So he said: What do I do?
I said: Have a transparency button on the home page of your
DOE website at the state level and just have three or four
graphs that are very easy to understand, show the increase in
spending, show the increase in staff relative to the increase
in students, things like that, make it really simple so that
parents and taxpayers and elected officials can know this.
And he did that.
But then he left office, and I went to go get that link
because I was going put it in a paper, and the link was there,
but it said the page had been taken off. We just need very
simple transparency, and then people will understand.
Mr. Taylor. Sure. And I appreciate this hearing and this
purpose because the key to great education is parental
involvement.
And, Ms. King, I appreciate your involvement as a parent.
The PTA members are so important for our public schools in
Collin County, and it is local control, and it is great
teachers. And if you are not paying teachers enough, you are
not going to have great teachers. So I think it is really a
question of local districts making the investment in teachers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, first of all, for
holding this critically important hearing and for all the work
that you are doing and also thank you to the panelists for
being here. All of you make significant contributions, and if
it is ok I will give a special shout out to Ms. Weingarten for
her long leadership in my home State of New York and all the
incredible contributions she has made and is now making
nationally.
In my district Rochester, New York, I as a state
legislator, authored two different phases of school
modernization totaling probably about $8 million in
construction dollars, something I am proud of but really
scratches the surface of what we need to do in one urban school
district in upstate New York, which has just shy of 30,000
students.
But school modernization and school reconstruction is
beyond just brick and mortar, and I am sort of interested, Dr.
Scafidi, in some of the things you said, which I found
fascinating, but I actually take a different--I guess reach a
different conclusion than you might or others have. I think it
is important to look at the expansion of nonteaching personnel
in the schools, but to me the importance of that is sort of
drilling down and figuring out why. People don't just hire
folks for no reason, and I thought, Ms. Weingarten, your
comments relative to it were right on point in the sense that
there are other needs now, and that is sort of what I want to
get into.
More and more, in areas of high poverty in particular,
there are multiple needs that children face, family needs,
needs that the schools weren't intentioned to have to deal with
nor do they necessarily have the expertise or the authority. So
bringing more services into the schools where kids, frankly,
are a lot of the day seems to me part of the rationale for the
increase in the nonpedagogical staff there. So that is just my
comment about the testimony that you gave, and I think it is
important, but I reach I think in my mind a different
conclusion.
Child poverty in Rochester ranks third in the nation, and
something that we are--even as we are rebuilding the schools.
But I wanted to ask Ms. Weingarten, if I might, in your
testimony, you talked about the importance of fully funding
Title I to support schools that serve poor students. And I just
wanted to get your thoughts as I was talking about health
services, social services, human services, educational service,
all sort of combining, how important are those resources? When
you think about particularly low-income schools, just your
thoughts on trying to combine those services, integrating them
and how important that is in the welfare and the development of
children.
Ms. Weingarten. So, No. 1, I want to give a shout out to
Chairman Scott and those who did ESSA because they read and saw
the research then, and that is why they kind of reenvisioned
and recreated Title IV of ESSA, which is specifically intended
to fund these things. The Aspen Institute and frankly any
school teacher--Congresswoman Hayes will tell you this, as
well--we have shifted to thinking about the well-being of
children as first and foremost. You need to meet the needs of
children before you can get to their instructional needs, and
so that is part of the reason why schools that have these
panoply of services, community schools, mental health services,
physical health services, after-school childcare are really
important in terms of not just custodial care but to the social
economic well-being of kids, and so that is absolutely
imperative. There is a lot of research around that.
Mr. Morelle. I very much appreciate that. I also, it seems
to me--and I had the benefit of being married to what is now a
retired middle school teacher, and I think, no disrespect to
elementary or secondary education teachers, but I think there
is a special place in heaven for middle school teachers.
But I did want to ask Ms. King, and thank you for your
testimony, but in your mind, what does effective family
engagement in the schools look like?
Ms. King. Family engagement--
Mr. Morelle. Your microphone, I'm sorry.
Ms. King. I am sorry about that. Because I want to read
something that we have from National PTA. National PTA believes
that there are four guiding principles to effective family
engagement. First is inclusive, so that all families are valued
and engaged. Second is individualized to meet the unique needs
of each family and student. Third, it is integrated into the
school system as part of the job responsibility, calendars, and
instructional priorities. Last, it is impactful so that all
families have the information and tools to make their child's
potential a reality.
So, as a parent, what that says to me is that family
engagement is a two-way communication. It empowers and it
engages between families and the schools. Families no longer
are being viewed as an enemy but as a child's partner with the
teachers and the staffs inside of the schools. And by engaging
and empowering families and parents in a meaningful way and
including families on decisionmakings on the committees, not
because you were told to but because you want to, says a lot
and that you are valued and that your voice matters. So
anything that involves family engagement is a plus for a
school.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wright.
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all of you for being here today, and I want
you to know that I, too, get a little passionate about this
issue. My late wife was a school teacher and a darn good one.
My dad was a school teacher, went back and got his masters in
counseling and guidance and became a high school counselor. I
have always supported public schools. I served on the Board of
Directors of the Education Foundation in Mansfield, Texas. It
was a great experience. We engaged the private sector, engaged
businesses, and raised and continue to raise millions of
dollars and gave away millions of dollars for teacher grants in
the Mansfield School District and greatly enhanced what they
were able to do because I can tell you that there were times
that my wife and I dipped into our own personal bank account to
benefit her classroom, and I think that story plays out all
over America with every public school teacher probably in the
country.
But I also get passionate about when school children are
denied the quality education they could have because of bad
decisions and sometimes downright stupidity of adults when it
comes to allocating education dollars. And, Dr. Scafidi, the
information you provided today is disturbing, although I can't
say I am shocked by it. But one of the most salient facts is
the fact that, since 2016, the majority of public school
employees in the United States are not teachers. That kind of
hits home with me and that we have had these increases in
spending across the country that didn't go to teachers, didn't
go to the classroom, and I know that there is a lot of jobs in
every school district that are important to the education of
school children. I am not going argue that point, but I would
say that when the majority of employees are not teachers, it is
upside down because they are the ones that are delivering more
than anybody else the education. They are the ones that are
spending time with those students. And so I share my colleague
from Collin County's frustration with the level of spending
that goes to children, and I will tell you that if school
districts are--and I know that a lot of this 736 percent, you
know, nonteacher employees are administrators, and I am not
here to beat up administrators. I know they are important, too.
But I also know there has been a huge spike, a huge increase in
the number of administrators vis and vis teachers. Would you
know what that number is or what that percentage is?
Mr. Scafidi. I do not.
Mr. Wright. Ok. Well, we both know it is a significant
number. And here is the thing--because all of us on this
committee want a quality education for every child in America;
there is no question about that. How we deliver that is
something we can have an honest debate about, but if a school
district or a state is choosing to spend their money on more
administrators instead of teachers, that is a bad decision in
my opinion. If they are spending more money on administrators
for additional administrators than fixing the plumbing in their
buildings, that is a bad decision in my opinion.
So my concern with what we are talking about today, and,
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the good intentions of what you are
trying to achieve is there is no accountability here. And we
are going to wind up subsidizing the bad decisions that have
been made when it comes to the allocation of education dollars
at the local and state level.
As Mr. Taylor just mentioned in the State of Texas, we have
right now our legislature is meeting, and the state Senate,
they have already filed a bill to increase teacher pay by
$5,000 a year. That is a good thing. But this is what we are
talking about today, these grants, do not do anything to impact
the performance nationwide of students, and that should be the
goal: to improve student performance.
And let me tell you: I get it as far as how crumbling
infrastructure can affect the environment of people, student
and teacher alike. I was in high school before I ever attended
a school with air-conditioning. And if you haven't sat in a
classroom in August in Texas, believe me, you will appreciate
air-conditioning. So I get it, believe me. But there is no
accountability here. And the last thing Congress should be
doing is subsidizing bad decisions that have been made at the
local level. And I have a real problem with that.
Let me ask you, based on all the studies you have seen, is
there any correlation between student performance, improvement
in student performance, and additional administrators?
Mr. Scafidi. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Wright. Is there a study that--I mean, intuitively we
all know this, but is there a study that would indicate any
correlation between student performance and the quality of the
infrastructure of a classroom or school building?
Mr. Scafidi. The evidence on that is mixed, and I think
that is because of what Dr. Contreras said is--in some areas,
we need more and better facilities, and some we don't, so--
Mr. Wright. Well, I would certainly, you know, advocate for
air-conditioned buildings in Texas based on my own experience.
Chairman Scott. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Wright. Ok. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So many things. You put an educator on the Education and
Labor Committee, you should see the notes I have on this paper.
So I am going try to reel myself in so that I don't run down my
time. I didn't realize that one of my colleagues that I spoke
about earlier Shawn Sheehan from Oklahoma is in the room. I am
glad you are here.
We hear lot about regulations, and, Mr. Scafidi, you talked
about how schools should be free from regulation. So not a
question, a statement. I am glad that my colleague Marcia Fudge
brought in the fact that these are not regulations; these are
laws. That is what I was getting to. So just rest on this for a
minute: If you had to rank order which laws you would move out
of the way so that schools of choice could move along more
quickly and move some of the regulations, would it be the laws
that provide equitable access to women and girls under Title
IX? Would it be the laws that require that we provide equitable
access for students and children with disabilities under IDEA
or ADA? Which student protections are we willing to gut in
order to make these schools a lot more profitable?
The next thing I would ask you, and Mr. Scafidi's testimony
argues that $41 billion--a $41 billion dollar investment would
give over 5 million children scholarships to attend private
schools of their choice. My question for everyone on the panel,
and it doesn't require an answer because I think it is self-
evident, what happens to the other 45 million children that
attend our public schools? What happens to those kids?
So, finally, I come from a state where we have the largest
equity gap in the country. My district houses some of the
wealthiest and some of the poorest communities. We are talking
about bringing it back down to the local level. One thing that
I will agree with Mr. Scafidi on is that we need to listen to
teachers. And the people who are closest to the pain are
closest to the solutions. We have some valuable information to
provide, so I guess there is some value in having a teacher on
this committee.
What happens if there is no school in the area that I am
living in that decides to cater to students with disabilities?
How does a student in a city like Waterbury, Connecticut, not
get left behind in this type of a system? And then I think more
importantly, because this is the thing we haven't talked
about--we talk about the connection with, Ms. King, you talked
very eloquently about the role of parents and the role of
communities. What happens to a kid who doesn't have a parent
who knows how to advocate for them? Anyone who has heard me
speak knows that my grandmother raised me. My grandmother
didn't drive. She had a fifth grade education. My mother was an
addict. Am I not entitled to a high-quality public education?
Who is advocating for me and children like me if what we are
saying is only the people with the loudest voice and the
biggest megaphone and who live in the best communities should
have the best public education? Isn't it our role as
legislators, as educators, as leaders to advocate for the
people who don't have a voice? Just yes or no.
Ms. Contreras. Yes.
Mrs. Hayes. I am sorry because I, too, Ms. King, am very
passionate about this. So, as we are talking about these
things, I hear everyone talk about the level of respect they
have for teachers. Everyone has a teacher in their family. So,
if we respect teachers and we respect public education, why
aren't we looking at it as an investment? And I think the thing
that we are all confused about in this room--I agree with my
colleague; there is some confusion, but about something very
different. The confusion lies in the fact that we are thinking
that it is one or the other: pay teachers or improve
facilities. I want both. I want both. It is not a tradeoff. We
are not talking about hire more staff or improve facilities and
conditions. I want both. We are talking about this from an
economic standpoint in dollars and cents. That is not what
education looks like.
This is not an economist problem, and I appreciate what you
bring, but if we are looking at it as a business, if we are
treating education and schools like corporations, then I would
say we also need a $2 trillion dollar bail out. We need for
government to save teachers, to save schools. We would like
that bail out.
In this last tax plan, the $250 that I used to be able to
claim as an educator to offset the thousands of dollars that I
spent in my classroom was taken away. So, if you truly value
education and you truly value teachers, then why are we
continuing to take away and saying: But we appreciate you.
This is a profession. This is not mission work. We deserve
the same rights, protections, benefits--fringe benefits, don't
even let me go there--as every other profession.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Meuser.
Mr. Meuser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all very much, an extremely qualified
knowledgeable panel. I thank you. I am certainly getting
educated here myself, so it is very appreciated.
As my friend just mentioned from Connecticut, a good
teacher has a profound effect on our children. Great teachers
have a profound effect on our society. My three children, one
in high school, public high school, and my daughters are older,
but I would ask them at least two or three times a week: How
are your teachers? Tell me which one of your teachers are
great, which ones are good, and which ones maybe not so much.
It is probably one of the most important things outside of
parenting. So we certainly all agree with that.
But I also believe, and I think we would agree that this is
more about students, not so much, you know, the teachers and
the staff. So I certainly believe teachers deserve to be paid
very well. I think our young people should have modern schools.
We are an affluent society for the most part, and I think these
modern schools should certainly exist in every school district.
That should be without exception, and that I find unacceptable
when that is not the case.
We do, however, must also have respect for the taxpayers
that expect results and expect achievement in our students due
to the high level of spending that does, in fact, take place.
There have been over the last 15 years Federal increases--and
the numbers are the numbers--have gone up over 30 percent of
Federal dollars. In Pennsylvania, the state general fund
increases hundreds of millions every year. We have a school
property tax situation in Pennsylvania that is getting to be
unmanageable for many taxpayers. School property taxes just
going through the roof, forcing people to move, many retired
people. Pensions, pensions are something that certainly comes
up and needs to be managed better, and it is billions of
dollars in Pennsylvania alone. And this issue comes up with the
growth of nonteacher staff. I agree some is necessary, but I
think we might all agree probably not all. So, and then, when
Mr. Scafidi brings up that 37 percent increases per student
since 1992 after inflation adjustment--so now granted computers
cost more than notebooks, and, you know, I get all that, but we
have got a lot of money going into this very important
investment.
So my question, and I will start with Mr. Scafidi is, are
our children now receiving a better education than 20 years
ago?
Mr. Scafidi. In terms of national test scores, it doesn't
appear to be so. Just a little history, from 1970 to 2000,
actually public high school graduation rates fell in this
country in a very stark way, but in this century, they have
actually come back up. So, in that respect, things have
improved, but, you know, so we are kind of slightly higher than
we were in 1970 now, even though we are spending a whole lot
more money.
But you would expect the high school graduation rate to go
up given changes in the economy because there has been a big
return to high-skilled jobs. So more people--students on their
own should be rationally choosing more education. So, on
balance, I think the evidence is weak that schools are a lot
stronger than they were decades ago.
Mr. Meuser. What about versus other countries? I have seen
the data, seen the rating systems. I am asking your opinions.
Mr. Scafidi. In terms of if you compared the U.S. compared
to other rich countries, we are very mediocre on achievement.
Mr. Meuser. Ok. Why do you think that is?
Mr. Scafidi. Lots of things. I mean, definitely it is
probably culture, but also I think we could be getting more for
our education dollars in our current education system if we
change it.
Mr. Meuser. Ok. And my other question is really to the full
panel, if I could. Is there a model that exists out there in a
particular state or school system that one could use to improve
our overall system? And overall question is, is there a better
way? Is there a better way? I leave it to the panel, but I will
start with you, Mr. Scafidi.
Mr. Scafidi. Start with?
Mr. Meuser. The question is to you, is there a model that
you admire and should be followed?
Mr. Scafidi. I think Arizona and Florida have increased
choice significantly. They still don't have a whole lot when
compared to other countries that have choice, but their NAEP
scores gains have been impressive.
Ms. Weingarten. So I would disagree with Dr. Scafidi. I
would just actually look at Massachusetts. If you look at all
the states in the nation, the state that has actually done more
in terms of investment on both standards and the teaching of
standards, not the testing, is Massachusetts, but I would also
go back to the fifty some odd years of Title I, the Johnson
program, the Kennedy-Johnson program against poverty. And what
you see is a huge increase in achievement of kids who are
underprivileged in the first 25 years when you saw the kind of
spending that was done at that time, and then you saw somewhat
of a stagnation because of the fixation on testing and
accountability as opposed to the investment that Representative
Hayes was talking about. And what your colleagues did with ESSA
led by Mr. Scott and others was to try to get to that
flexibility on a local level to mimic--to try to replicate the
results that we saw in the first 25 years with having
appropriate oversight, and what you are starting to see is an
increase again in graduation rates particularly in the C-tech
programs. C-tech programs where you have real engagement with
students you see two things. You see increased graduation
rates, and you see lots of kids who go to career technical
education also then go to college.
Mr. Meuser. Thank you.
Ms. Contreras. Do you want--
Mr. Meuser. Sure, if you wouldn't mind.
Chairman Scott. Briefly because the gentleman's time has
expired. Very briefly.
Ms. Contreras. Thank you. I believe that if we continue to
invest in our teachers through fair compensation and also
making sure they have mentors and professional learning
opportunities, if we provide wraparound supports for those
teachers so that they can teach--and I just want to clarify
that each state categorizes licensed professionals differently.
So, in the State of North Carolina, a homebound teacher who is
a teacher who teaches students every day is not categorized as
a classroom teacher, but they are still a teacher. That is true
of the social workers or the counselors. So 73 percent of all
of our staff are teachers, and TAs and supporting students
providing direct services.
So I believe the more we provide support for teachers and
leaders, that is the model for improving outcomes for students
while we simultaneously provide wraparound services in the form
of making sure that we continue to fund food programs for these
children, making sure they have physical and mental health
programs in schools, and making sure they have social workers,
counselors, and other support staff.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
Federal investment in public schools is absolutely
essential. And in my community in Illinois, we also have higher
state and local taxes that goes toward funding our amazing
public schools like Neuqua Valley High School where I went to
school. But when I was home last weekend, I heard from so many
of my neighbors whose tax bills skyrocketed this year because
of the Republican tax law.
The Republican tax law limited the state and local tax, or
SALT deduction, which helps offset the taxes we use to pay for
public schools. Our community doesn't mind paying our taxes,
but we expect a return on our investment. We want our tax
dollars going to our children's schools, not to tax cuts for
corporations.
Ms. Weingarten, can you please describe how limiting the
SALT deduction impacts public schools especially in states like
Illinois that have higher local taxes to fund public education?
Ms. Weingarten. So, thank you, Representative Underwood,
and what we have seen for the first time in the Tax Code is
that the states that actually thought about the Lockean social
good, social contract compact are now being hurt because of it.
So that states that actually invested in public safety, safe
streets, and public education, and public services where their
constituents paid state and local taxes for that, they no
longer--they now are subject to double taxation on that. And
that we are seeing that in California, in Illinois, in New
York, in Connecticut, and in New Jersey. And, you know, so
there were real losers in the last tax bill. That was not
simply that the rich got richer, but that those states that
actually believed in that are seeing real limitations.
New York, for example, there is about a $2 billion dollar
drop in revenues. And one of your colleagues earlier talked
about an increase in revenues in some of the other states, but
in the states that actually really made this commitment, there
is drop, and many of us are trying to see if we can go back at
this because this is really a defiance of federalism.
Ms. Underwood. Some versions of the Republican tax law also
eliminated tax deductions for teachers who spend their own
money to buy classroom supplies, as my colleague just outlined.
Thankfully that provision was not in the final law, but placing
this financial burden on teachers is not sustainable long-term.
Ms. Weingarten, almost every public school teacher pays for
classroom supplies out of their own pocket, right?
Ms. Weingarten. Yes. There is all these studies that show
that, on average, it is about $480. For Title I teachers who
actually teach poor kids, it is higher. And you will hear many
stories from myself and others about the thousands of dollars
that we have spent on our kids.
Ms. Underwood. Yes. Now more than ever it is clear that
students and teachers need support from the Federal Government.
Last month, I sent a letter to the IRS asking them to help
families in our community and across the country who are being
hurt by the limited SALT deduction.
In addition, though, the Republican tax law, as you
outlined, does need a legislative fix from those of us in
Congress. As my colleagues and I work on legislation to stop
the limited SALT deduction from hurting students and teachers,
in your opinion, and this goes to the panel, what other fixes
to the Republican tax law should we be looking at? And we can
start with Dr. Contreras.
Ms. Contreras. I am sorry. I would have to supplement the
record. I don't have the information.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. Ms. King?
Ms. King. I don't have any information, as well.
Ms. Underwood. Ok. Sir?
Mr. Scafidi. I am not an expert on tax policy.
Ms. Underwood. Ok. Ms. Weingarten, did you have anything
else to add?
Ms. Weingarten. So what I would add, Representative
Underwood, is there are--you know, we went into huge deficit
spending to create this artifice of trickle-down economics.
What happens if some of that got moved to the spending of
infrastructure like Representative Scott and others, Chairman
Scott and others, have suggested. The kind of real priming the
pump that would do if we actually took a trillion dollars that
went for tax cuts and moved them to the kind of spending that
Chairman Scott and others are talking about that would create
good jobs all throughout the country that would deal with the
crumbling infrastructure not only in our schools but throughout
our society, and it would actually create a real economic
engine.
Ms. Underwood. Ma'am, as you describe it is reinvestment in
our local communities.
Thank you so much. I yield back the remainder of my time to
you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Nevada, Mrs. Lee.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
on underfunding public schools and how it shortchanges students
in America. I represent a large part of the Clark County School
District in Nevada, one of the fifth largest school districts
in this country. We have infrastructure challenges of somewhat
a different sort. Average class sizes in our school district
are the largest in the country at 25.86 students per teacher;
230 of our 336 schools are at or above capacity; and 24 schools
are year-round; 21,000 students now are forced now to take
online classes. All the while, our school district projects
$8.3 billion is needed for capital improvements, not including
deferred maintenance. And I want to thank all of you for first
of all your commitment to education, commitment to our
students, and I want to ask Ms. Weingarten, given the chronic
underfunding of education can you address how inadequate
funding of schools exacerbates overcrowding and how this
impacts students' success?
Ms. Weingarten. So, as you just talked about,
Representative Lee, when you have that level of overcrowding in
a school, there are lots of different impacts to it. No. 1, the
kind of courses that Dr. Scafidi talked about--look, I taught
AP government. I taught my Title I kids bioethics. You are not
going to be able to have the space in a school to be able to do
those classes, and because they may not be part of the core
instructional requirement to get to a diploma, so they will
always fall off. No. 2, band, music, those kinds of things. So
course electives that are how kids--why kids actually come to
school, you are not going to have. No. 2, the issues about
infrastructure, both technology as well as crumbling
facilities, very much impact kids. Take the health and safety
issues of mold, of ventilation, that for many kids who have
respiratory illnesses, that really impacts kids.
And then the issue that Representative Morelle raised
earlier, if you actually can--and that Dr. Contreras raised--if
you actually wrap services in a school, you need some places
for those medical services and things like that, which are not
there, but when you have those services, that actually hugely
helps kids. So those are just some, off the top of my head,
impacts.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. Speaking of wraparound services, you
have publicly stated numerous times your support of the
community schools strategy, especially in schools serving a
high percentage of students living in poverty, which unites
resources and assets of the school family community through
strong partnerships facilitated by a coordinator and at the
school site, which ensures students' success. As the former
president of communities and schools of Nevada, I couldn't
agree with you more.
Your organization has directly supported the strategy in
McDowell County, West Virginia, the poorest county in West
Virginia. Can you tell me what you discovered there about the
county's needs and how this community school strategy is an
effective way to bring about collaboration needed to increase
investment and resource alignment at our schools?
Ms. Weingarten. So, first, I would invite any person on
this panel to come visit the McDowell County schools with us.
McDowell County, like some of the schools that some the other
representatives have testified about, is right in the middle of
Appalachia. It is former coal mining--it is a former coal
mining county. It is the eighth poorest county in America. It
is a county that has been afflicted by opioid addiction.
After all sorts of other top-down ways of trying to create
better outcomes for kids, the then Governor's wife, Gayle
Manchin, asked us to take over the schools. We said: We don't
believe in privatization. We could do, though, a public-private
partnership.
And so for the last 6 years the AFT has done a public-
private partnership with the McDowell County schools and
others, and in those years, we have increased graduation rates
over 12 percent. We have doubled the number of kids who are
going to college. We have wrapped services around various
schools. What we haven't been able to do is create jobs, but
the other emotional and instructional impacts we have been able
to change outcomes for kids, and so, when you see kids who used
to actually look down, never talk to adults now talking about
how they can use Lego to create code themselves, that is what I
consider a success in schooling.
Mrs. Lee. Thank you. I do agree. I mean, you know, some of
our site coordinators are in closets in some of our schools,
and it really comes down to having that personal relationship,
and you need to have space to have personal relationships. So
thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
My colleague from Virginia, Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the underlying theme in this hearing both sides can
agree on is that education matters. Having access to good
education at an early edge exponentially opens opportunities
for students and can accelerate a student's trajectory. And
while we consider solutions, we have to remember that just as
each student is their own individual, each school and school
division is as well, and painting them with broad brush and
trying to push money and regulations that have no ability to be
customized does a disservice, not only to those schools and
those students but also to the taxpayers who are funding fixes
that do not actually seek to fix the underlying problems.
So I would ask Dr. Scafidi what inefficiencies do you see
at the Federal level that can be eliminated to make room for
state and local solutions?
Mr. Scafidi. I would ask school superintendents in your
state and school board chairs what Federal regulations are
causing them to misallocate funds. Ask them directly, and I
think they will talk to you for a long, long time.
Mr. Cline. And we heard from your testimony about the top-
heavy administrative trend, the impact on students is felt
through, among other things, larger class sizes because
resources have to be allocated to that administrative burden.
What other trends, what other impacts on students does this
misallocation of resources have?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes, it is an opportunity cost. I mean, money
spent on A is money that can't be spent on B, and there are
lots of worthy B's. So the question is, if what we are spending
on doesn't seem to be moving the needle, we should reallocate
those dollars, and that is going to differ in different
communities. It is going to differ for different students. Like
you were talking about customization, if certain kids need
different things, and we shouldn't have one-size-fits-all from
the Federal Government, from the state governments, or even
within school districts or even within schools. So that is
going change depending on the students' needs.
Mr. Cline. In fact, can you see perhaps an inverse
discouragement of states and local governments from addressing
some problems with an allocation of Federal resources that
might be inefficiently applied or inefficiently allocated that
can disincentivize action at the Federal--at the state or local
level?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes. Two things. I do worry that if there was
a big Federal infrastructure spending bill, that it might not
hit where it is needed most in terms of schools. Second is yes.
If states and school districts have Federal money coming in,
that might take the pressure off from them using their own
money for those items, and so they might choose not to spend as
much, say, on infrastructure or what have you.
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Florida Ms. Shalala.
Ms. Shalala. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being late. We flew to Detroit, circled and
flew back, so we never landed for our colleague's funeral.
Ms. Weingarten, under the administration's proposal to
drastically cut the education budget, dozens of schools in
Miami-Dade County will lose close to $500,000 dollars in
funding for afterschool programs, and teachers of the district
could see more than $17 million in cuts for professional
development.
The administration has repeatedly said that eliminating
funding for afterschool programs is correct due to lack of
evidence that such programs improve student achievement. Can
you comment on that and on the importance of afterschool
programs? And I think the superintendent might want to comment
as well. Thank you.
Ms. Weingarten. So the administration--any time the
administration says this, it says to me that they actually
haven't spent a minute with children. So because--and so part
of the administration talks about how important childcare is
and wanting to give deductions for childcare, but then, when
you do it in an organized way by having afterschool programs or
summer programs where you both have instruction and custodial
care, you get a double value for that funding, so why would
they cut this off? This is money that, frankly, every wealthy
parent will do, spend money in terms of afterschool care in
terms of piano lessons, ballet lessons, but why don't we give
this to those kids who can't afford it? This is what
Representative Fudge was talking about earlier in terms of
civil rights, civil rights responsibility.
So there is a lot of research on this. The Aspen Institute
just put research out on this. Others put research out. I don't
know why they are saying that there isn't, but at the end of
the day, this is the heart of what we think about schools.
Schools should be centers of community. There should be
wraparound services. They should be open for a long period of
time, and so that parents can actually have both--can actually
see that their kids are safe after school, as well as having
great instructional opportunities after school and in summer
school as well as during school.
Ms. Shalala. Dr. Contreras?
Ms. Contreras. Thank you. Proposed cuts to afterschool
programs would have a significantly negative impact on our
school district and the most vulnerable children in the
district who participate in these programs. Many of these
students who are participating are exposed to toxic stress,
such as experiencing violence or witnessing violence, having
parents who may be incarcerated, the death of a parent, poor
academic outcomes. They have high levels of trauma and
experience a great deal of adverse childhood experiences that
negatively impact their overall well-being.
We work very closely with our partners who provide these
afterschool programs like Communities in Schools, and they
align their programming to our academic program as well as
provide other kinds of supports for these children and
experiences. So cutting these programs would have a very
negative impact.
Ms. Shalala. Thank you.
Ms. King?
Ms. King. For poor students, afterschool programs allow
them to escape the streets. And if children who cannot afford
extra activities during school or after school, they have an
opportunity to participate in something that will keep them
safe, whether it is mentoring programs after school where they
could learn, whether it is a possibility of playing an
afterschool sport where they don't play it regularly inside of
a school, but they could play it inside of an afterschool
program or just teach them a technical trade. There are many
things that are possible for children in afterschool programs,
and so, for us, to cut a program would be detrimental to our
students.
Mr. Scafidi. I would prefer that we decide how much money
we want to subsidize each child in this country. I would give
bigger subsidies to low-income kids. Let they choose schools,
and if they want afterschool programs, let me choose schools
with afterschool programs. If they want schools with different
afterschool programs, let them choose that. If they don't want
afterschool programs and they want the money spent elsewhere,
let them decide what is best for their children.
Ms. Shalala. Are you actually talking about the children
making those choices?
Mr. Scafidi. No, the families.
Ms. Shalala. All right.
Mr. Chairman, I have one more question, if possible.
Chairman Scott. Very briefly.
Ms. Shalala. Ok. Fine. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from South Dakota,
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. or Dr. Scafidi, I am trying to tease out the proper
relationship between the state and the Federal Government here.
I mean, I represent South Dakota, and in my state, as I suspect
there are in many states, there is constitutional obligation
for them to adequately fund education. Of course, I am glad
that is in our state's constitution. It is critically
important. So state policymakers understanding that
constitutional obligation have established a special capital
outlay tax levy so that South Dakota can avoid some of the
tragic nightmares as the chairman opened today's discussion
with highlighting. State policymakers also recently instituted
a substantial tax increase, statewide tax increase to allow for
a significant increase in teacher salaries, and the money was
targeted to that effect. And I don't think anybody would say
that the job is done, but I think most South Dakotans would
acknowledge that there have been good attempts by policymakers
to meet their constitutional obligations.
So, as we talk about the creation of an additional, you
know, $100 billion grant program to help out those who have not
taken those prudent steps, I am concerned that we are rewarding
bad behavior. Is my concern misplaced?
Mr. Scafidi. It is similar to the question that the
Representative from Virginia asked. Money is fungible. If the
Federal Government gives states and school districts money,
they can use money that they were dedicating for that purpose,
and move it somewhere else. And so, yes, I mean, you are
allowing states to do that and school districts to do that if
you increase Federal funding for schools for any purpose.
Mr. Johnson. Well, maybe even more of a concern long term,
doesn't that send the message to states that if they lag in
educational investment, if they don't make the uncomfortable
decisions to properly invest in education, then, you know,
perhaps the Federal Government will step up and maybe paper
over their deficiencies?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. So it seems to me that quite a number of
people believe that our Federal Government is not properly
funding Title I. It seems to me that there are quite a number
of people who feel our Federal Government is not properly
investing in IDEA, and lots of people, certainly in my state,
think those things and also think we are not properly investing
in impact aid, making good on our commitments that the Federal
Government has promised.
I look at this, and I think: Well this seems like a very
Washington, DC, thing to do. Rather than coming together to try
to figure out how we properly invest in our existing programs
and in our existing obligations, we are instead going to create
another program so that we can once again overpromise and
underdeliver. Am I just being too cynical?
Mr. Scafidi. No, it is just math. If you spend money here
on any purpose, you can't spend that same money here. And that
is true for any organization, any walk of life, government,
nonprofit, for profit. That is just math.
Mr. Johnson. Well, and maybe I might close, Mr. Chairman,
by just noting that, in any given day, this town doesn't work
very well, and if we continue to concentrate more and more of
our educational leadership and our educational investment in
this town, I have grave concerns that the American people and
the American school children will be disappointed in our
efforts and our investment.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, chairman.
Thank you all for taking the time. I know it has been a
couple of hours, and we really appreciate your patience and
your ability to help us have a critical conversation about
investment, as my colleague from Connecticut said. This is an
investment. This is an investment in our children, which is an
investment in the future. I know that there is a clear
correlation between graduating kids to getting higher income,
which is future opportunity to tax, which, again, right,
becomes future investment in the well-being of all of us.
Dr. Contreras, thank you so much for sharing your story
today. I have a set of questions for you that I would like a
yes-or-no answer to. We are going to try to do this real quick.
Have you heard of kids sitting in classrooms that are infested
with mold or dripping with humidity?
Ms. Contreras. Because of the--I am sorry. Because of the
age of the facilities and of the HVAC systems, because the
schools across the country are undermaintained, I think it is
reasonable to say there is mold in classrooms across this
country, significant cases.
Ms. Omar. That is a yes?
Ms. Contreras. Yes.
Ms. Omar. Yes. So kids sitting in classrooms where there is
mold, yes. Has there been an instance where the circuits blow
when the teachers plug in a computer or a space heater that you
have heard of?
Ms. Contreras. Where they brought in a computer?
Ms. Omar. Yes, plugged in a computer or space heater and--
Ms. Contreras. Oh. Absolutely.
Ms. Omar. Yes. All right. Do the security cameras work in
your children's school?
Ms. Contreras. No.
Ms. Omar. Are the sidewalks at your children's school
turning into gravel and their playgrounds deteriorating?
Ms. Contreras. Are the sidewalks turning into gravel?
Ms. Omar. Yes.
Ms. Contreras. There are cases of that across the district.
Ms. Omar. So yes?
Ms. Contreras. Yes.
Ms. Omar. Thank you. While your answers are very
informative, they are also extremely alarming. Elevated levels
of mold spores cause children with existing respiratory
conditions, such as allergies or asthma, to have higher risk
for health problems. Asthma attacks are triggered by damp
buildings and mold growth.
So my question to you is, what are the asthma rates in
North Carolina compared to the national average?
Ms. Contreras. You are asking why are the asthma rates
higher?
Ms. Omar. No, no. What are the rates? Do you know?
Ms. Contreras. What are the asthma--in my school district,
we have about 5,500 cases of asthma that we know about in the
schools. Fifty-seven percent of those cases are in the poor
schools.
Ms. Omar. All right. Thank you. In North Carolina, the
total is 9.2 percent. The national average is 9 percent, so we
could clearly see there is a correlation, so I do appreciate
you for helping us talk about that.
Randi, I had a question for you. I know in your testimony,
you cited the findings from a recent AFT report, A Decade of
Neglect: Public Education Funding in the Aftermath of the Great
Recession, that 25 states spent less on K-12 education in 2016
than they did prior to the recession.
Chronic underfunding explains why in 38 states the average
teacher's salary is lower in 2018 than it was in 2009, why the
people-teacher ratio was worse in 35 states in 2016 than in
2008. I know my colleague earlier, from South Dakota, mentioned
the constitutional obligations that exist, but I am a little
baffled about this statistic that you lay out in that report.
And so I wanted to ask you that, in the United States, do
you think there is less value in education today than, let's
say, in the previous 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50
years?
Ms. Weingarten. So let me just say, I think that parents
value public education and value education as much today as
they ever have. I think this is a creation of choices that post
every--virtually every state has an obligation, as South Dakota
does, to its students. They say it differently, but every state
basically has it.
What we have seen over the course of time, particularly in
the last 10 years, is that when the recession hit, there were
lots of cuts, and there were many states that made different
choices. And, frankly, some of the states that made the choices
to actually fund education are now getting hit worse because of
the cutting of SALT.
And so you see a terrible situation that the Federal
Government in the last--the tax bill has actually--is actually
going to penalize the states that made more effort to fund
education.
Ms. Omar. I believe in every district in this country
education is a top priority. Our children are a top priority.
In every community you go into, people talk about how important
teachers are. So it is time that we put our values first and
invest in our teachers, invest in our students, and invest in a
proper future that all Americans deserve. Thank you so much for
your testimonys today.
I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And once again, committee, hang in there. You are getting
close, all right.
First of all, just an observation and then a question for
Mr. Scafidi. It is not a whole lot different but a little bit
from what Mr. Cline, Mr. Johnson had to say.
In terms of an observation, this has been informative for
me because the perspectives on these issues is so incredibly
different on the legislative panel here.
And, for example, the scenario that my colleague,
Representative Hayes, described in Connecticut is pretty much
diametrically opposed to what we experience in Idaho. But it is
a totally different demographic. It is a totally different set
of needs and circumstances, which just, I will share my own
bias in that sense, absolutely convinces me that there has got
to be local governance over education.
But here is our situation in Idaho. We put a little bit
over 50 percent of our general fund into K-12, another 12 or 13
into higher ed. So that is about 63 percent of our general fund
goes toward education in some fashion. Interestingly enough,
with medical costs raising and expansions of Medicaid and those
type of things, we have healthcare competing with education for
government money. And that puts some really interesting
stakeholders at each other's throat.
But to further complicate things, we have nearly two-thirds
of our land mass is federally owned, and we have a heavy
dependence on property tax. So you take out two-thirds of the
base and things have to get real creative in order to fund your
education and, for that matter, anything else. So we have had
to get creative. We have had to do different things.
And so two things have kind of been the focus for us. No. 1
is we have gotten away from the paradigm or we are trying to
get away from the paradigm that throwing money at stuff helps.
Yes, of course, you have got to have resources, but there is
not an automatic connection between money and performance
within the school system.
The second thing is, we have got a tremendous amount of
rural areas. School choice has been--we have had to do it. And
it is--it has worked. And it is not fun in a lot of cases
because it has inserted some competition, but the results have
really helped.
But you put up a slide right at the very beginning of your
presentation. We see it. The administrative cost has gone up
significantly.
Mr. Cline talked about Federal administrative, and there
has definitely been some burdens there. If we had our choice,
we wouldn't want any Federal money. We would send the whole
thing to Connecticut or to New Hampshire, and I am sure that
they would be fine with that. We don't want the regulations,
and a lot of us don't want the money at all.
We have to do something because we don't have land mass to
tax, but administrative cost is where I am trying to go with
this diatribe here.
Can you provide any counsel or any guidance on are there
ways--given our circumstances where we have got to be very
creative in how we fund things, have you seen examples or
patterns of success in reducing administrative cost so we can
focus on keeping that in the classroom and to the teachers?
Mr. Scafidi. I have not. Forty-eight states, plus the
District of Columbia, have had the staffing surge since 1992.
Only Nevada and Arizona have not. Their student populations
have grown dramatically, and their funding, you know, is just
keeping up, so they are kind of roughly holding serve depending
on the time period you look at.
I think we need more transparency in how public education
dollars are spent. We need more transparency on what the total
amount spent per student is, but also historical.
And finally, I think if we let educators choose how to run
schools and we let parents choose which of those schools they
think is best for their children, I think they would be
choosing something very different in a lot of cases than what
our kids are getting today.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for this
hearing. Thanks for each member of the panel for being here.
Important topic.
I am a recovering school board member. Obviously, before
that I was a dad. My oldest was just going into kindergarten
when somebody asked me, there was a vacancy on the school
board, and they told me it was only 1 hour a month. Yes. It was
a pastor that told me that. That is when I figured out pastors
lie sometimes. But I am so glad that I did that. My wife went
along for 8 years after I had served our school board. And I
really--a lot of--and I appreciate the conversation.
You know me, I do think it comes to--my assessment, having
spent so much time and been so passionate about education,
there really is local leadership can make all the difference
too, and state leadership, no doubt about it. States need to
recognize that is a priority. Our school boards get their
authority delegated through the state government. But at the
local level, we need school board members, quite frankly, that
hold our administrations accountable.
I was honored to work with a school board member that
actually was--my wife and I went to school there. He was our--
he taught problems of democracy. So if I mess up as a Member of
Congress, I blame it on Mr. Fisher. But he was a great
superintendent, you know. He had--he knew that we had to
constantly invest in our schools, that you couldn't wait till
things imploded and then expect somebody else to bail you out
or do a huge tax increase all at once.
You know, we kind of nibbled at it, and we kept--and it is
a very rural school district. Geographically it is one of the
largest in Pennsylvania. Enrollment is not that big, though. I
don't know if they have 1,200 students today. It is probably
less than that.
And so I want to start with, Ms. King. First of all, thank
you for your leadership of PTA. I really have enjoyed my
relationship with the National PTA. We have worked together on
a number of projects, including the family engagement center
where--and I was pleased that, you know, we authorized that as
part of ESSA, and it actually got appropriated for $10 million.
Sometimes that is the hard part, getting the checks written.
And we are at $10 million. And it just models really your
engagement, which I so much appreciate.
And so my thoughts are, I am just curious, with the family
engagement centers, which is something I worked hard with PTA
and we put it into ESSA, you know, do we see that? And it is so
important to engage families. But I am also hoping that we
raise up our next generation of school board members, you know,
by engaging families there that a mom or dad then will step
forward, you know, and just take it that next step. Are we
seeing any evidence of that yet?
Ms. King. Well, any parent resource center is going to have
even just a tad bit of progress inside of them where they can
get information to families to be engaged inside of their
schools. As far as the 12 states or the 13 states that have
these resources, these family engagement centers inside of
their states, right now, we don't have any information that
could tell us if they are being successful or not.
But as a parent, anything that I can receive to empower me
and engage me inside of my students' schools and communities is
very important. So regardless if we don't have the data to tell
us right now, I can say that any and everything that they are
doing is empowering and engaging parents that are receiving
information.
Mr. Thompson. And we hope--and I hope that motivates some
parents to take that next step too--
Ms. King. Absolutely.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. in terms of that local
governance. And thank you for what you have done.
Dr. Scafidi, I want to talk a little--just briefly, because
I don't have much time, about Title I funding. You know, we
were--we successfully put into the Student Succeeds Act at
least a requirement for the Department of Education to do a
study. It is not--to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been
completed yet, at least the results haven't been shared. It was
about the equity of the distribution of those funding. That is
something I have always championed in terms of--the act was
called the ACE Act, All Children are Equal. Because depending
what zip code you lived in, there was more money per child to
offset the impact of poverty.
You know, is that something--in terms of Title I and the
distribution, the equity of those funds, because right now,
most of the money goes to large suburban districts that have
poverty. There is not a zip code that doesn't have poverty, but
the instance of poverty is smaller compared to, you know, rural
and urban districts where it can be higher.
Any thoughts on the rule if we actually get that Title I
funding fixed so it is distributed equally?
Mr. Scafidi. Just two comments. Does anyone know the lowest
child poverty rate in this country since 1960, when that is?
Right now. Second, Federal funding targeted to low-income
students should go to low-income students. It should go where
it is needed the most. And, you know, state departments of
education need to, you know, make sure that is happening, and
school districts within should work on that as well.
Mr. Thompson. So hopefully the Department of Education will
get that study done in a timely manner. It is already passed
that point, I think, and--so that we can perhaps fix those, a
distribution system for those Title I funds.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
I now recognize myself for questions and start with Mr.
Scafidi. You showed this chart. The purpose of statistics is to
make a point, and we have said that the apparent point of this
is that we are wasting all the money on other staff that could
be spent somewhere else and what could be done with all that
money. And I was surprised--initially surprised that it is
about even-steven teachers and nonteachers. Then I thought
about it, teacher aides are not included as teachers, right?
Mr. Scafidi. Correct.
Chairman Scott. Ok. So if you had a teacher aide in each
classroom, you would be up to even-steven already. All
classrooms don't have teachers. But because of Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, you will have a lot of teacher
aides.
Does this study include bus drivers?
Mr. Scafidi. Bus drivers are counted as all other staff.
Chairman Scott. Ok. So if you have a 30 classroom--30
classrooms, about how many bus drivers do you think you would
have?
Mr. Scafidi. Thirty classrooms?
Chairman Scott. Yes.
Mr. Scafidi. Oh, it is--I guess, it depends on class size
as well, but a bunch.
Chairman Scott. A bunch, Ok. Cafeteria workers?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Chairman Scott. A bunch?
Mr. Scafidi. Yes.
Chairman Scott. Custodians?
Mr. Scafidi. Need them too.
Chairman Scott. Secretaries in the front office?
Mr. Scafidi. Need--well, they are more of a fixed cost,
but, yes.
Chairman Scott. Ok. But, I mean, the idea--you are getting
pretty close to 50/50, and I think I understood you, in
response to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, saying you
couldn't figure out who to cut. We haven't gotten to guidance
counselors. We never have enough of those. And we haven't
started talking about superintendent's office, and you would
expect a superintendent staff doing research and
administration.
What would be a reasonable ratio?
Mr. Scafidi. The point I was making with that chart was
that is a sharp break with American public school history.
Chairman Scott. Well, you didn't say anybody would be--when
I grew up, they didn't have school buses for African American
students, so, I mean, there is a lot of stuff that we are doing
now that we weren't doing before.
Mr. Scafidi. That is a great point.
Chairman Scott. But you didn't indicate anybody that could
be left off. And so the conclusion that all of this money is
being wasted, isn't it an accurate conclusion that you ought to
draw from the fact that it is 50/50? Isn't that right?
Mr. Scafidi. To your first point, that is why I start my
main analysis at 1992, to allow for school integration and
integration of specialty needs students.
Chairman Scott. Ok. But you said by the time you have
gotten through teacher aides and bus drivers, you are almost to
50/50 already.
Mr. Scafidi. Well, if you are increasing students by 20
percent--
Chairman Scott. I am not talking about students. We are
talking about what it is today.
Mr. Scafidi. Yes. What I am saying is--
Chairman Scott. You haven't indicated anybody in a normal
school system, just in the school, 30--I mean, you don't have a
football coach. I mean, there are a lot of things that would
add up a nonsupervisory.
Who would you cut out from the list that is there today?
Mr. Scafidi. I actually got this email from the CFO of a
large school district in Florida when he saw one of my reports.
And he said, what should I do? And I said, do what they do in
other walks of life. Look at every single expenditure and every
single person and say, is that the best use of those funds? And
if the state government or the Federal Government is making you
spend the money that way or hire that person, ask them to let
you out of that requirement.
Chairman Scott. But the initial reaction that most people
have is a 50/50 ratio is not--should not be shocking.
Ms. Weingarten, is there anything shocking about a 50/50
ratio of school employees?
Ms. Weingarten. Not right now, given how much we do in
terms of feeding kids and how much we do in terms of
transportation, IDEA, and all the remedial kind of work and,
frankly, all the testing kind of issues that have happened in
schools.
Chairman Scott. Ok. And, Mr. Scafidi, you have indicated
that we are talking about math. If we are talking about school
construction and you are trying to discuss salaries with the
school board and they show you what they are spending on
eliminating mold, on fixing leaky roofs, on air-conditioning,
and things like that, how does that affect your ability to
discuss teacher salaries?
Mr. Scafidi. Different school districts, different
individual schools have different needs.
Chairman Scott. This is to Ms. Weingarten. Thank you.
Mr. Scafidi. Oh, I am sorry.
Chairman Scott. How does that affect your ability to
discuss teacher salaries?
Ms. Weingarten. The--if--what is happening is that every
issue, the most important, immediate issue is the one that
teachers always want fixed first. So when schools are leaky or
when there is this much mold or this much respiratory illness,
you are going to hear everyone, including teachers, say fix
that first. And so having a pot of money that goes for
infrastructure will then enable locals and others to negotiate
teacher salary and teacher conditions. That is why your bill,
sir, is so important.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Scafidi, I cut you off. I didn't mean to. Did you have
a comment on that?
Mr. Scafidi. No. I was just saying different schools have
different needs, and, yes, they should address their highest
priority.
Chairman Scott. And if you are talking arithmetic, if you
are spending a lot of money on fixing a leaky roof, you don't
have the money for teacher salaries. Thank you.
This ends the questioning. Dr. Foxx, do you have a closing
comment?
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have
some brief closing comments.
And I want to begin by thanking the witnesses for being
here today. It has been a long hearing, and I appreciate your
patience in being here. And I want to thank the Chairman for
his attention to the issues.
This hearing is taking me back to my school board days. And
even though that experience was one of the most formative in my
life, a congressional hearing in Washington that sounds like a
school board meeting is not necessarily a good thing.
Teachers and students deserve the best working and learning
environments money can buy. And if the money we are spending at
every level of government isn't buying what students need, the
answer isn't more money. On that, our distinguished Chairman
and I are just going to have to continue to disagree. But that
doesn't mean our work in this area is done. Far from it. We are
all very proud of the bipartisan work that went into the Every
Student Succeeds Act. That law is now at a crucial stage of
implementation, particularly as Mr. Thompson pointed out.
So I am committed, and I hope every member of this
committee is committed to ensuring that law is funded at the
levels we have already authorized and that it is implemented in
the way we intended, and that is to serve students.
So we have talked about ESSA. We have talked about
opportunity zones. But we have barely touched in this hearing
on the historic economic growth communities are experiencing
and what that means for local revenues.
And I very much appreciate what Dr. Scafidi said about the
lowest rate of poverty for children right now in our country.
You know there is more to Main Street than small businesses.
There are an awful lot of schools on Main Street too. So,
again, as Dr. Scafidi has pointed out, perhaps we need to spend
more time thinking about how to reform the system to better use
the resources we already have.
I am certain that if we put our heads together, we could
find a new idea that would actually work for students that just
might enter the realm of fiscal responsibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you.
And I want to thank you again for--in your opening
statement reminding everyone that Democrats have been
advocating for more funding in education. We intend to continue
that. And I appreciate your reminding everybody.
As we have heard today, this is not a moment for
incremental change or of small increases. Title I is at a third
of its authorized amount. IDEA has never gotten anywhere close
to the authorized amount. And conversations around local
government ignore the reality that low-income communities are
receiving nowhere near the funding they actually need, and the
Federal Government has provided some in closing that gap.
And we mentioned Every Student Succeeds Act. One of the
things we put in there is that the additional funding should
supplement, not supplant, what the school systems are doing.
But the Federal role in education has traditionally been to
kind of plug the gaps of areas where, in the normal course of
things, don't happen, and that is why the school construction
is one area that we have indicated. It is just not happening,
and the Federal role can close that gap.
We did the same thing with special ed, IDEA funds things
that are not being funded today, Title I, addressing low-income
students, bilingual education. There are a lot of areas that--
where we need to close the gap, and I think school construction
is certainly one of them.
I remind my colleagues that the record will be open for 14
days for additional comments, and witnesses may be--you may
receive questions, written questions. We would ask you to
answer them as soon as possible. And if members have questions,
that those be submitted within 7 days so that the witnesses can
have adequate time to respond.
If there is no further business, the committee is now
adjourned.
[Additional submissions by Dr. Scafidi follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]