    [Senate Hearing 117-]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
              RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2021

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Murray, Durbin, Reed, Shaheen, Manchin,
    Blunt, Moran, Hyde-Smith, and Braun.

                            DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. MIGUEL CARDONA, SECRETARY

                   opening statement of senator patty murray

        Senator Murray. Good morning. The Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and
    Related Agencies will please come to order.
        Today we are having a hearing on the Biden administration's
    fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Department of
    Education. Senator Blunt and I will each have an opening
    statement. And then I will introduce our witness, Secretary
    Cardona. After his testimony, Senators will each have 5 minutes
    for a round of questions. And while we are unable to have the
    hearing fully open yet to the public or media for in-person
    attendance, live video is available on our committee website.
    And if you are in need of accommodations, including closed
    captioning, you can reach out to the committee or the office of
    congressional accessibility services.
        Secretary Cardona, after years of proposed budget cuts and
    school privatization from your predecessor, this budget would
    increase education funding by 40 percent to $103 billion, and
    it is a much-needed breath of fresh air. It proposes bold
    investments to help our schools and students as they respond to
    and recover from this pandemic, and addresses long-standing
    inequities in education, which COVID-19 has made even more
    damaging.

                       lost learning time and disparities

        One of the biggest issues facing our Nation is getting our
    students back on track and addressing the lost learning time
    that they have experienced. We know students of color, students
    with disabilities, students in rural and Tribal communities,
    and students from families with low incomes have borne the
    brunt of this pandemic.
        One study, for example, found the pandemic set students of
    color back 3 to 5 months from where they would be in a typical
    year, and set white students back 1 to 3 months. We need to
    make sure every student, no matter who they are, or where they
    live, or how much money they or their family make, can receive
    the supports they need to thrive despite this pandemic.
        So I am glad this budget takes the task of reckoning with
    these inequities seriously, with investments across a range of
    programs to help ensure all students can get a quality public
    education. It invests $20 billion in a new initiative intended
    to reduce disparities in public, elementary, and secondary
    education in our country, and proposes to use this funding to
    help public schools address a variety of issues, including
    inequities in State and local education funding, expanding high
    quality preschool programs, and improving outcomes for all of
    our students.

                  individuals with disabilities education act

        Of course, improving outcomes for students means we must
    also do more to support students with disabilities. This budget
    takes an historic step on that front by proposing a $3 billion
    increase for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
    Over the years, Congress has fallen short of its promise to use
    40 percent of the funding to support the education of students
    with disabilities through IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities
    Education Act).
        Currently only 13 percent is provided and struggling States
    and districts have been left to fill in the gaps. President
    Biden's proposal will help us better keep this promise and help
    schools across the country, address the shortage of teachers
    for students with disabilities, and provide early intervention
    services so students can get the support they need to succeed
    as soon as possible.
        And when it comes to supporting students' academic, social,
    emotional, and mental health needs, this budget proposes a $413
    million increase for full-service community schools, an
    increase of $120 million for English Language Acquisition
    Grants, and a new $1 billion initiative to ensure students have
    access to school counselors, nurses, and mental health
    professionals.
        This is especially critical, given the mental health
    challenges students, educators, and school staff have faced
    during the pandemic. These challenges will persist well into
    the next school year. We need to make investments to support
    student and staff wellbeing, and we need to bring in more
    counselors, nurses, and psychologists. In Washington State we
    only have one school psychologist for every 1,000 students.
    This budget will help us tackle inequities in higher education
    as well, and significantly expand support for students pursuing
    a postsecondary education, including by increasing the maximum
    Pell Grant by almost a third.

                                higher education

        This is so important. Federal support like Pell Grants
    allowed my six brothers, and sisters, and I, to all go to
    college. But Pell has gone from covering 75 percent of the
    average cost of a 4-year degree at its peak to less than 30
    percent today. We have to strengthen and expand Pell. And this
    budget is a clear step in the right direction. Ultimately, we
    need to do even more to double the maximum Pell award over the
    next 6 years, protect Pell from being cut by budget shortfalls,
    and expand Pell Grants to more students.
        Today, I join colleagues in the House and Senate to
    introduce legislation to accomplish all of that. And I hope to
    work with you, Secretary Cardona, and my colleagues here in
    Congress to get this done. And increased Pell Grants are just
    one of several investments, this budget proposes to make higher
    education more accessible and affordable for all students,
    provides funding to help implement the Bipartisan FAFSA (Free
    Application for Federal Student Aid) Simplification Bill I
    worked to pass last December.
        This will make it easier for all students to apply for
    financial aid, including Pell Grants, expand the number of
    students eligible for support, and increase financial aid to
    students with low incomes. It increases funding for TRIO
    programs, which help first-generation college students,
    students with disabilities, and students from families with low
    incomes to get to and go through college successfully.
        It nearly doubles funding for quality campus-based
    childcare to support student and parents under the CCAMPIS
    (Child Care Access Means Parents in School) Program. And it
    provides increased funding for historically under-resourced
    colleges and universities, including $345 million, which is a
    44 percent increase, in funding for minority serving
    institutions, like Historically Black Colleges, and
    Universities, and other institutions predominantly serving low-
    income students, like community colleges. And finally, this
    budget increases funding for the Department's Office for Civil
    Rights.

                                    title ix

        Between this budget and the public hearings, the Department
    started last week on the previous administration's inadequate
    Title IX Rule, it is clear we have a President who is focused
    on protecting students, no matter their race, ethnicity,
    religion, sex, including sexual orientation, and gender
    identity, or disability.
        I will be watching your work in this space closely, and
    encourage the Department to continue its efforts, to hear,
    acknowledge and address the stories and concerns of survivors
    of sexual assault.

                   education for homeless children and youths

        I will say, one area where I would like to see an increased
    investment, is funding to support education for children and
    youth who are experiencing homelessness. But overall, this
    budget is night-and-day different from the previous
    administration. I always say a budget is a reflection of your
    values. And this budget shows President Biden understands the
    money we spend on schools, students, and public education is an
    investment in our future. What our Nation accomplishes in the
    years ahead will be determined by the opportunities and support
    we are able to give children across the country, now.
        I look forward to working with the administration and with
    my colleagues on this committee to make the investments in
    education we need to make so we have a brighter future for our
    families.
        With that, I will turn it over to Senator Blunt for his
    remarks.

                         statement of senator roy blunt

        Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Senator Murray. And welcome
    to the hearing, Secretary Cardona. I know this is your first
    time to appear before this committee, and I am sure by the end
    of the hearing, you will be looking forward to next year when
    you get to come back, and the other discussions we will have
    between now and then. I am just glad we had a chance to talk,
    not only during the confirmation process, but again yesterday,
    and look for more opportunities to do that.
        Certainly, the last year has been one of the most
    challenging years for students, for parents, for school
    administrators, for teachers, for everybody in the education
    field, including cafeteria workers, and bus drivers who, in a
    virtual setting, wound up without a job while everybody else's
    jobs became maybe even longer in a day to get ready for the new
    challenges of virtual education, where that occurred, and to
    try to get back to school, as quickly as they could.
        You know, you and I are both first-generation college
    graduates, and we have both been classroom teachers, and so I
    think because of that, hopefully, we have an understanding of
    just how important education is, and what a difference, just a
    slight change it points along the way of your trajectory of
    where you think your life can take you, can make for the people
    we taught, just like we both saw happen with us.
        We also understand the critical role education plays in our
    society. Our ability to compete around the world, the values
    that we transmit from one generation to another, all very
    important. I am a proud supporter of many of the programs we
    are going to be talking about today, career and technical
    education, state grants, IDEA, Title I, the TRIO Programs,
    school-based mental health, that you and I talked about
    yesterday.
        Now I am concerned about the spending level. I just heard
    the Chair mentioned the importance of this huge increase of
    about 41 percent in spending. I think that increase on top of
    the $280 billion in COVID-19 supplemental funding for
    education, last year, is a lot of input into the system in a
    very short period of time. In fact, last year's spending was
    about four times as much as the Department normally receives in
    annual appropriations each year. This year the request is
    $102.8 billion, which is almost $30 billion, or 41 percent
    greater than last year's spending.
        It is a lot of money to try to put into the system all at
    once. I look forward to hearing your plans and, hopefully, some
    of your concerns about how that much new funding going into the
    system would go in, in the best possible way. As a former
    university president, I am particularly concerned about the
    proposal to make community college tuition free for all
    students. As, you know, my view is if you want to make a
    college education really expensive, make it free, but we will
    talk about that.
        We will talk about what we are doing now to make it
    possible for people to go to college and what you are proposing
    in terms of making those first 2 years free at community
    colleges. I would point out that in the average community
    college in America, if you qualify for the full Pell Grant, you
    have more money in that grant than books, fees, and tuition. I
    think the average Pell Grant recipient was $3,946, the average
    tuition and fees at community colleges was $3,700. I think
    there may be other ways to make it possible for more people to
    go to community college, and all other schools without cost.
    But we are going to talk about that today, and as we move
    forward with this budget.
        Many States across the country already have programs that
    make up the difference, and at a community college in Missouri
    the A+ scholarship pays the community college tuition for
    eligible students for up to 2 years. I do think those colleges
    play an incredibly important role in the country. Both as an
    access point for education, but also as a way to get people
    ready for jobs that are available, or could be available, in a
    specific community.
        I am concerned that free community college for everybody
    unfairly subsidizes higher-income students. And if it is
    community college only, it creates an incentive for students to
    attend schools that may not be the best fit for them. Through
    the Pell Grant limited taxpayer dollars have targeted students
    in the most need. It maintains the ability of students to Pell
    Grant, and most of our other programs, to pick institutions
    that best meet their individual needs.
        Since this committee worked to reinstate year-round Pell
    Grants, with Senator Murray and I working hard to lead on that
    effort, students have the flexibility to accelerate their post-
    secondary studies and complete their programs more quickly.
        I am pleased to see that the budget does not include
    widespread loan forgiveness. However, the Department has not
    outlined a plan at the same time for borrowers to get back into
    the repayment process. Federal student loan borrowers have gone
    for over a year without being required to make a payment on
    their loans. And I think it is important that the Department
    begins communicating to those borrowers early and often to
    ensure that all borrowers understand their responsibilities,
    and their repayment options when a payment or a loan comes due
    October 1 of this year. I don't see any discussion about that
    in the comments you are making today, and something I would
    like to see more thought given to.
        I am also concerned that the Department has not announced
    how long the student loan servicing will be handled moving
    forward, once the legacy servicing contracts end later this
    year. We have spent a lot of time in this committee looking at
    past proposals on changing that system. As you and I discussed
    yesterday, I look forward to hearing your thoughts as to how
    that system moved forward.
        We both support increased educational opportunities in
    every State, such as Title I and IDEA. It is my goal to find
    ways we can work together. This budget proposes a 10 percent
    increase, or $120 million in discretionary funding for career
    and technical education, teamed with $1 billion in mandatory
    funding for a New Career Pathways Program. I do think it is
    critically important we provide students with meaningful
    information about the jobs that are out there with the work-
    based learning opportunities and exposure to different career
    paths early in high school.
        We have been talking about that for some time. There is a
    lost decade for so many people from the time they graduate
    until the time they really settle in, to the career that
    provides the most promise and the most satisfaction for them.
        So I look forward to working together on this. I know we
    are going to have a number of questions and concerns about this
    budget, but it is a critically important part of how people
    move forward in our country, giving them those opportunities
    and the information they need. And I look forward to working
    with you to find the appropriate balance between fiscal
    responsibility and meaningful investment that supports access
    to quality education for all students.
        Thank you, Chair.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
        Good morning. Thank you, Chair Murray. And thank you, Secretary
    Cardona, for appearing before the Subcommittee today to discuss the
    Department of Education's FY2022 budget request.
        This has been a long and challenging year for all Americans, but it
    has been particularly difficult for students, parents, teachers, school
    administrators, and all those in the education field. You and I are
    both first generation college graduates and classroom teachers, we know
    how much education can change the trajectory of a person's life,
    because we saw it in our own lives and in the lives of the people we
    taught. We also understand the critical role education plays in our
    society and its impact on our nation's ability to compete in a global
    economy.
        Because of that, I am proud to support key programs that the
    Department of Education administers such as career and technical
    education state grants, IDEA, and Title I, Part A. However, I am
    concerned with the unprecedented level of spending proposed in this
    budget request, particularly at a time when Congress has already
    provided almost $280 billion in COVID-19 supplemental funding for
    education in the last year. For reference, that is about four times as
    much as the Department receives in annual appropriations each year.
        The FY2022 budget request for the Department of Education is $102.8
    billion, which is $29.8 billion, or 41 percent, more than FY2021.
    Future generations can't afford this budget. It also invests the
    majority of new funding in new programs--and the budget provides few
    details on how these programs will work and who will benefit.
        As a former university president, I am particularly concerned about
    the proposal to make community college tuition ``free'' for all
    students. As the saying goes, if you think college is expensive now,
    wait until you see what it costs when it's free.
        First, for most low-income students who receive a Pell Grant,
    community college tuition is already free. Last school year, the
    average Pell Grant recipient at a community college received $3,946,
    while the average tuition and fees at these schools were only $3,700.
        Second, many states across the country already have programs to
    make up the difference between a student's Pell Grant and the cost of
    community college if there is one. In Missouri, the A+ Scholarship pays
    the community college tuition for an eligible student for up to two
    years.
        Finally, while community colleges play a crucial role in our
    diverse higher education system in America, they may not be the best
    choice for every student.
        Rather than subsidizing higher income students and incentivizing
    students to attend schools that may not be the best fit for them, we
    should instead focus our investments in programs that make a student's
    choice in college affordable. And the best way to do so is through the
    Pell Grant program and other programs like the GI bill, work study and
    SEOG.
        Through the Pell Grant program, limited taxpayer dollars are
    targeted toward students most in need. It maintains the ability of
    students to pick the institutions that best meets their individual
    needs. And since this Subcommittee reinstated year-round Pell Grants in
    FY2017, students have the flexibility to accelerate their postsecondary
    studies and complete their programs more quickly. This Subcommittee has
    boosted the maximum Pell Grant award for the past four years, and I
    hope we can do so again this year.
        While I am pleased to see that the budget request does not include
    widespread loan forgiveness, I am concerned that the Administration has
    not outlined a plan to transition borrowers back into repayment when
    the student loan pause ends this fall. Federal student loan borrowers
    have gone over a year without making a payment on their loans.
        It is absolutely imperative that the Department begins
    communicating with borrowers early and often to ensure that all
    borrowers understand their responsibilities and their repayment options
    when a payment or loan come due on October 1, 2021.
        As borrowers begin to repay their loans after such a long pause,
    student loan servicing will be more important than ever. However, I am
    concerned that the Department has not announced how student loan
    servicing will be handled moving forward once legacy servicing
    contracts end later this year and early next year. This Subcommittee
    has worked closely with the Department over the past several years as
    it continues to reform and modernize the Federal student loan servicing
    system, and I hope that will continue.
        Mr. Secretary, while there are issues on which we disagree, we have
    many shared priorities that are reflected in the budget request. I know
    we both share a strong desire to fund programs that are proven and
    benefit all students, and I know we both support increased educational
    opportunities in every state, such as Title I and IDEA. It is my goal
    for us to work together on many of these and other important issues.
        In particular, the budget proposes a 10 percent increase, or $128
    million, in discretionary funding for career and technical education,
    teamed with $1 billion in mandatory funding for a new career pathways
    program. While this Subcommittee will only consider the discretionary
    request, I am interested in your ideas for how this and other efforts
    could improve educational opportunities for students beginning in high
    school, or earlier, to pursue the full-range of post-secondary college
    and career opportunities.
        Providing students meaningful work-based learning opportunities and
    exposure to different career paths early in high school, or even middle
    school, can help them identify interests that lead to well-paying jobs
    and careers. Too often individuals only find opportunities through
    apprenticeships or high-quality credential programs later in life, in
    their late twenties or thirties.
        I call this the Lost Decade and have provided the Department $10
    million each of the past two years to work toward addressing these
    issues. I think giving more students access to these opportunities
    earlier on is an area of interest for us both, and I hope it is
    something we can work on together.
        Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working with you this year to find
    the appropriate balance between fiscal responsibility and meaningful
    investments that support access to quality education for all students.
        Thank you again for being here today.

        Senator Murray. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
        Our witness is today, is Miguel Cardona, Secretary of the
    Department of Education. Secretary Cardona, thank you for
    joining us today. And I am so glad you could be here. I look
    forward to your testimony, and you may begin now.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MIGUEL CARDONA

        Secretary Cardona. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman
    Murray, Ranking Member Blunt, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee.
        I recently attended an International Thespian Induction
    ceremony at a high school where students were being inducted
    for their commitment to theater after this long year. My
    daughter was one of those students. I can tell you, it was the
    first time we came together as a school community in over a
    year. So the room was filled with a lot of emotion.

              FULFILLING OUR ROLES TO IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM

        One thing caught my eye, there was a banner hanging that
    had a quote from the renowned poet, Alexander Pope, and the
    banner read, ``Act well your part, there all the honour lies.''
    In other words, do your part, and that is where you will find
    the honor.
        I come to you today representing the Department of
    Education, as we boldly do our part to serve the students
    across the country. That is our responsibility and our
    privilege. And that is where our collective honor lies.
        To that end, I am proud to testify today about President
    Biden's fiscal year 2022 budget request for the Department of
    Education, because it makes good on the President's campaign
    commitment to invest in education. It also begins to address
    the significant inequities that students, primarily students of
    color, confront every day in schools, in pursuit of higher
    education, and career technical education. I want to thank
    members of the subcommittee and your staff who have helped
    ensure the passage of the American Rescue Plan, bringing vital
    resources to our schools and colleges across the country. The
    American Rescue Plan funds will ensure that school buildings
    reopen for full-time in-person instruction safely and quickly.

                           EDUCATION AS AN EQUALIZER

        I come to you today with a great sense of urgency about the
    work we have to do. Generations of inequity have left far too
    many students without equitable access to high-quality,
    inclusive learning opportunities, including in our rural
    communities. Education can be the great equalizer like it was
    for me and for many of you, but we have to prioritize,
    replicate, and invest in what works for all students. Not just
    some.
        We must do more to level the playing field, including
    providing a strong foundation from birth, improving diversity
    among the teacher workforce, creating learning pathways that
    work for all students. To that end, the budget proposal calls
    on Congress to invest nearly $103 billion in the Department of
    Education's programs, a 41 percent increase over the fiscal
    year 2021 appropriation to support students' success.

                         OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET REQUEST

        The fiscal year 2022 request also makes a meaningful down
    payment toward the Biden-Harris administration's goal of
    reversing inequities. That is what is at stake here, reversing
    inequities. The centerpiece is a proposal for a new $20 billion
    Title I equity grants program that would address inequities and
    disparities between under-resourced schools and their wealthier
    counterparts.
        It would support competitive compensation for teachers and
    Title I schools, expand access to pre-kindergarten, and
    increase preparation for, access to, and success in rigorous
    coursework. Our requests would put the Nation on a path to
    double the number of school counselors, nurses, and mental
    health professionals in our schools, and significantly expand
    support for community schools to help increase the availability
    of wraparound service services to students and families in
    underserved schools and communities.
        The pandemic reinforced the need for this. We also think it
    is past time for the Federal Government to make good on its
    commitment to students with disabilities, and their families,
    and the request makes a significant move toward full funding of
    IDEA, proposing a 20 percent increase for IDEA State grants of
    $2.6 billion.
        Turning to higher education, an area that needs immediate
    attention. Our budget proposal begins the Biden-Harris
    administration's critical work to increase access and
    affordability for students. The budget proposal coupled with
    increased proposals--proposed in the American Families Plan
    would be the largest increase to Pell Grant ever, helping
    millions of students and families pursue their goals.
    Importantly, our proposal would ensure that Dreamers may also
    receive Pell Grants if they meet current eligibility
    requirements.
        The fiscal year 2022 request paints a bold picture for the
    future of our institutional and student support programs. The
    budget increases institutional capacity and student supports at
    minority-serving institutions, with additional funding for
    HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities), Hispanic-
    Serving Institutions, Asian-American, and Native-American
    Pacific Islander-serving Institutions, and Tribally Controlled
    Colleges and Universities, as well as our beloved TRIO and GEAR
    UP programs to help ensure underserved students succeed and
    graduate from college.
        Finally, we would prioritize efforts to enforce civil
    rights laws related to education through a 10 percent increase
    for the Office for Civil Rights, to protect students and
    advance equity and educational opportunity, and delivery in
    preschool through college. This is a fundamental right we are
    committed to for all students.
        Working together with stakeholders, including students and
    educators, we can and will heal, learn, and grow together,
    during this challenging time. I am committed to working
    collaboratively with each of you to strengthen our schools, and
    campuses, and to help improve opportunities, pathways, and
    outcomes for students across the country, including students in
    our rural communities.
        Thank you. And I look forward to answering any questions
    you may have.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Miguel Cardona
        Good morning Chairwoman Murray and Ranking Member Blunt.
        I am pleased to join you today, and I am proud to testify on behalf
    of President Biden's fiscal year 2022 Budget Request for the Department
    of Education. The full fiscal year 2022 Budget Request, which was
    released a little over two weeks ago, makes good on President
        Biden's campaign commitment to reverse years of underinvestment in
    Federal education programs and would begin to address the significant
    inequities that millions of students--primarily students of color--and
    teachers confront every day in underserved schools across America.
    These inequities in opportunity and access continue to be experienced
    by students pursuing higher education and career and technical
    education credentials as well.
                            american rescue plan act
        Before I begin, I want to thank the Members of the Subcommittee--
    and your staff--who helped carry the American Rescue Plan Act to the
    finish line. I can tell you from immediate experience that the ARP
    funds will make all the difference in ensuring that schools re-open for
    full-time, in-person instruction as safely and soon as possible. In
    addition, ARP funds will enable schools to address the mental health,
    social, and emotional needs of students that the pandemic has laid
    bare, and to fully recover from the massive impact of lost
    instructional time on student achievement during the pandemic.
        The plans to reopen are bold--and will require coordination among
    key stakeholders at the Federal, State, and local levels. But they
    match the urgency the challenges before us demand. It's important to
    remember that once we fully reopen schools, we still have work to do.
    Our job will not be done. Generations of inequity have left far too
    many students without equitable access to high-quality, inclusive
    learning opportunities. Education can be the great equalizer--it was
    for me--if we prioritize, replicate, and invest in what works for all
    students, not just some.
        We must do more to level the playing field, including providing a
    strong foundation from birth, improving diversity among the teacher
    workforce, and creating learning pathways that work for all students.
    To that end, the fiscal year 2022 budget proposal for the Department of
    Education provides strong investments in key areas to ensure students
    of all ages have what they need to succeed.
                     department of education funding levels
        The President's fiscal year 2022 request calls for a significant
    and long-overdue increase in Federal support for education from birth
    through college and career. The proposed discretionary request of $103
    billion for Department of Education programs, an increase of almost $30
    billion over the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, would be complemented
    by additional mandatory investments under the American Jobs Plan and
    the American Families Plan. We understand that some have raised
    questions about the unprecedented increase in Federal education funding
    proposed by President Biden, particularly coming on top of emergency
    appropriations over the past year to address the impact of the COVID-19
    pandemic on our schools. However, it's important to recognize that
    these bold proposals follow a decade of virtually no funding growth in
    real terms for Department programs, a significant under-investment in
    light of the rising needs of students and families.
        The $73.5 billion that Congress appropriated for the Department for
    the current fiscal year, fiscal year 2021, is about 8 percent more than
    the fiscal year 2011 total of $68.3 billion. Title I funding did a
    little better, up 10 percent, or 1 percent a year, over the same period
    of time. The total Federal investment in elementary and secondary
    education grew at the same rate--just 1 percent annually over the past
    10 years--not even keeping up with inflation.
            funding inequities in state and local education systems
        This underinvestment in K-12 education matters because of the
    dramatic and longstanding inequities in State and local education
    funding systems, which despite more than half a century of litigation
    and reform, too often continue to provide significantly less funding
    for high-poverty districts and schools, which are more likely to serve
    students of color, resulting in a disproportionate impact on these
    students. Reversing these funding inequities, as well as immediately
    addressing the negative impact of those inequities in service of
    students, are critical goals of the Biden-Harris Administration's
    racial equity agenda, and the President's fiscal year 2022 request for
    the Department of Education would make a meaningful down payment toward
    these goals. Addressing these inequities are critical to our nation's
    future. Our country and our economy will be stronger when every child
    is prepared to succeed in tomorrow's economy, regardless of race, zip
    code, their family's income, or disability.
           investment in title i grants to local educational agencies
        The centerpiece of that request is $20 billion for a new Title I
    Equity Grants program--part of the President's commitment to
    dramatically increase funding for Title I schools--that would help
    address long-standing funding disparities between under-resourced
    school districts and their wealthier counterparts; ensure teachers in
    Title I schools are paid competitively; support expanded access to
    preschool; and increase preparation for, access to, and success in the
    rigorous coursework needed to prepare for postsecondary education and
    high-paying, in-demand careers. This proposal will further the goals of
    Title I as outlined by President Johnson in partnership with Congress
    back in 1965 as part of the War on Poverty, to help ensure that all
    students--especially students from low-income backgrounds and students
    of color in underserved communities--receive the high-quality education
    they need to thrive and achieve their dreams.
          investment in improving students' physical and mental health
        Long before the COVID-19 pandemic there was increasing evidence
    that the conditions of poverty--especially concentrated poverty--take a
    tragic toll on the physical and mental health of students. This
    warrants significant investments in mitigating the impact of this toll
    in order to improve student outcomes. Congress recognized this problem,
    in part, through the creation and rapid increase in funding for the
    Title IV-A Student Support and Academic Enrichment program. Our request
    would build on these efforts through a $1 billion investment for a new
    School-Based Health Professionals program to support the mental health
    needs of our students by increasing the number of counselors, nurses,
    and mental health professionals in our schools, and building the
    pipeline for these critical staff, with an emphasis on underserved
    schools.
                            community-based programs
        In addition, the President's request would help increase the
    availability of a broad range of wrap-around services to students and
    families in underserved schools and communities through a significant
    expansion of the Full-Service Community Schools program, from $30
    million in fiscal year 2021 to $443 million in fiscal year 2022. This
    program recognizes the role of schools as the centers of our
    communities and neighborhoods, and funds efforts to identify and
    integrate the wide range of community-based resources needed to support
    students and their families, expand learning opportunities for students
    and parents alike, support collaborative leadership and practices, and
    promote the family and community engagement that can help ensure
    student success. The request would support implementation of the
    community schools model at roughly 800 additional schools serving up to
    2.4 million students, family members, and community members.
        Our request also would help strengthen communities by fostering
    diverse schools through renewed efforts to improve school racial and
    socioeconomic diversity. We would provide $100 million for a new
    Fostering Diverse Schools program that would help communities develop
    and implement strategies that will build more racially and
    socioeconomically diverse schools. Research suggests that diverse
    learning environments benefit all students and can improve student
    achievement, serve as engines of social and economic mobility, and
    promote school improvement. Our proposal also would build evidence
    around effective practices for addressing the growing concern that our
    Nation's schools are becoming less diverse and more segregated each
    year.
                         support for special education
        We also think it is past time for the Federal Government to make
    good on its commitment to students with disabilities and their
    families, as expressed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education
    Act. The President's request makes a significant move toward full
    funding of the IDEA with a $2.6 billion, or 20 percent, increase for
    IDEA Part B Grants to States above the regular fiscal year 2021
    appropriation, for a total of $15.5 billion. Notably, this increase
    would raise the Federal share of the excess cost of serving students
    with disabilities for the first time in 8 years-demonstrating that IDEA
    has been yet another casualty of the Federal underinvestment in
    education over the past 10 years.
        In addition, we would increase funding for the IDEA Part C Grants
    for the Infants and Families program by more than 50 percent, or $250
    million above the regular fiscal year 2021 appropriation level, for a
    total of $732 million to expand access to early intervention services
    for infants and toddlers with disabilities. We would pair this
    increased funding with reforms to strengthen the Part C program,
    particularly for children who have been historically underrepresented
    in the program, including children of color.
        The President's Request would also boost the Preschool Grants
    program by $105 million over the 2021 appropriation, to aid in the
    provision of special education and related services for children with
    disabilities aged 3 through 5.
                          teacher training and support
        The Title I Equity Grants proposal is just one demonstration of
    President Biden's strong commitment to teachers. Other key investments,
    split between discretionary and mandatory American Families Plan
    funding, include $412 million ($132 million in discretionary funding
    and an additional $280 in mandatory authority for fiscal year 2022) for
    Teacher Quality Partnerships to address teaching shortages, improve
    training and supports for teachers, and boost teacher diversity,
    particularly through investment in teacher residencies and Grow Your
    Own programs; $340 million ($250 million in discretionary funding and
    an additional $90 million in mandatory authority for fiscal year 2022)
    for Special Education Personnel Preparation to ensure that there are
    adequate numbers of personnel with the skills and knowledge necessary
    to help children with disabilities succeed educationally; and $60
    million ($20 million in discretionary funding and an additional $40 in
    mandatory authority for fiscal year 2022) to fund for the first time
    the Hawkins Centers of Excellence program designed to increase the
    quality and number of new teachers of color. In addition, the American
    Families Plan would make a one-time mandatory investment of $1.6
    billion to support additional certifications at no cost for more than
    100,000 educators in high-demand areas like special education,
    bilingual education, career and technical education, and science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics. We are also requesting,
    through the American Families Plan, $200 million in mandatory authority
    for a new Expanding Opportunities for Teacher Leadership and
    Development program to support opportunities for experienced and
    effective teachers to lead and have a greater impact on their school
    community while remaining in the classroom (and be compensated for
    additional responsibilities) through such activities as high-quality
    teacher mentorship programs and job-embedded coaching. Lastly, the
    American Families Plan would double TEACH Grants from $4,000 to $8,000
    for future teachers while earning their degrees.
                           improving career pathways
        The President's Request also recognizes that a skilled workforce is
    critical for both strong communities and a strong economy by proposing
    to make targeted investments that would help build the capacity of our
    workforce development system. These investments include an increase of
    $108 million in Career and Technical Education National Programs to
    support an innovation grants initiative focused on youth work-based
    learning and industry credential attainment, along with a $25 million
    increase under Adult Education National Leadership Activities to expand
    college bridge programs for low-skilled adults without a high school
    degree. In addition, the American Jobs Plan would provide $1 billion in
    mandatory funding in fiscal year 2022 ($10 billion total over 10 years)
    to expand career pathways for underserved middle and high school
    students that include partnerships with employers, community colleges
    and other partners and allow students to earn credentials or college
    credit while still in high school; and also would invest $100 million
    annually over the next 10 years to help connect job-seeking adults to
    employment opportunities by focusing on foundational skills and
    embedded career services.
                      postsecondary education investments
        Turning to higher education, our budget proposal would make
    postsecondary education more affordable for students from low-income
    households through a $400 increase to the maximum Pell Grant. In
    combination with the $1,475 increase to the maximum Pell Grant proposed
    in the American Families Plan, the increase in 2022 would be the
    largest increase to the Pell Grant ever. This historic increase is just
    a first step in a more comprehensive proposal to double the grant.
    Importantly, our proposal also would ensure that postsecondary students
    who are DACA recipients may receive Pell Grants and other federal aid
    if they meet current eligibility requirements.
        Through the American Families Plan, our budget proposal would
    provide two years of free community college to first-time students and
    those wishing to reskill. It would also make college more affordable
    for low- and middle-income students at four-year Historically Black
    Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities
    (TCUs), and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) such as Hispanic-
    Serving Institutions (HSIs) and Asian American and Native American
    Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs).
        The fiscal year 2022 request also would increase institutional
    capacity and student supports at HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, and other
    under-resourced institutions, such as community colleges. The
    discretionary request includes more than $600 million in additional
    funding for institutional supports programs and programs like TRIO and
    GEAR UP, to help ensure underserved students succeed in and graduate
    from college. The American Families Plan also provides historic
    mandatory investments over ten years in college access and success,
    including $46 billion for HBCUs, TCUs, and MSIs, and $62 billion for a
    new Completion Grants program that would make formula grants to States
    to support the use of evidence-based strategies to strengthen
    completion and retention rates at institutions that serve students from
    our most disadvantaged communities like community colleges.
                             school infrastructure
        Too many students attend schools and child care centers that are
    run-down, unsafe, and pose health risks. These conditions are dangerous
    for our kids and exist disproportionately in schools with a high
    percentage of low-income students and students of color. We can't close
    the opportunity gap if low-income kids go to schools in buildings that
    undermine health and safety, while wealthier students get access to
    safe buildings with labs and technology that prepare them for the jobs
    of the future. Accordingly, the American Jobs Plan would provide $10
    billion in mandatory funding in 2022, and $50 billion over five years,
    for grants to upgrade existing school facilities and build new public
    elementary and secondary schools. Outside of the Department of
    Education, funding would leverage an additional $50 billion in
    investments in school infrastructure through bonds. The American Jobs
    Plan would also provide $2.4 billion in mandatory funding in 2022, and
    $12 billion over five years, for grants to invest in community college
    facilities and technology in order to help protect the health and
    safety of students and faculty, address education deserts (particularly
    for rural communities), grow local economies, improve energy efficiency
    and resilience, and narrow funding inequities.
                           student aid administration
        In addition to making college more affordable, our budget proposal
    will improve the services we provide students and families to help them
    pay for college. We are requesting $2.1 billion to administer the
    Federal student aid programs in fiscal year 2022, an increase of $200
    million over the fiscal year 2021 appropriation. The requested funds
    are necessary to implement the FAFSA(r) Simplification Act and FUTURE
    Act, which together will greatly ease the process of applying for
    student aid and accessing affordable, income-driven repayment options;
    provide high-quality loan servicing to more than 40 million student
    loan borrowers; and protect the personally identifiable information of
    around 75 million students and parents.
                        enforcement of civil rights laws
        Finally, we would prioritize efforts to enforce the Nation's civil
    rights laws, as they relate to education, through a 10 percent increase
    for the Office for Civil Rights to protect students, providing a total
    of $144 million to advance equity in educational opportunity and
    delivery at Pre-K through 12 schools and at institutions of higher
    education.
                                closing remarks
        Thank you again for this opportunity to share more about the
    President's plan to invest in students of all ages and the institutions
    that serve them. I look forward to hearing your reactions to this
    historic budget request, and to learning more about your individual
    interests and priorities related to Department of Education programs
    and activities. I am committed to working collaboratively with each of
    you, to the greatest extent possible, to help improve educational
    opportunities and outcomes for all students.
        Thank you, and I will do my best to respond to any questions you
    may have.

                              RESOURCE ALLOCATION

        Senator Murray. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. We will
    now begin around a 5-minute questions of our witness, and I ask
    our colleagues to, please, keep track of your clock. Stay
    within those 5 minutes.
        Mr. Secretary, the President's budget calls for major
    investments in our Nation's public schools, acknowledging the
    significant resource disparities between schools serving more
    students from families with low incomes and their wealthier
    peers. These resource discrepancies contribute to the
    achievement gap between students of color who represent more
    than half of our students served in Title I schools and white
    students. One of the key provisions we included in the
    Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
    is a requirement to review the resource inequities in schools
    which have been identified for support and improvement.
        And we also included a requirement for per pupil
    expenditure reporting for all States and school districts in
    the Nation, a requirement that still has not been fully
    implemented years after we passed the law. I believe that
    combination of additional Federal education investments,
    accurate and timely reporting, and thoughtful review of how all
    education funds are being allocated and used in schools needing
    additional support would improve the quality of education
    services for all of our students and families.
        I know the pandemic has likely impacted the implementation
    of these resource allocation reviews, but can you share your
    plans for supporting and monitoring State and local agencies
    conducting these reviews, as well as your plans for ensuring
    States and school districts do comply with the SEA's (State
    Educational Agencies) fiscal equity reporting requirements?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator Murray. And you start
    with an issue that is critically important that we must address
    together. The opportunity gaps and achievement disparities and
    outcomes are significant, so much so that I have been an
    educator for over 20 years, it has almost become normalized.
    And we have an opportunity here to address it, with the budget
    proposal, and the American Families Plan, there is a
    transformational opportunity for our country, to not only
    recover from the pandemic, but to be better than we ever were
    before in education.
        And I look forward to ensuring that every penny that is
    allocated is used to support our students in a way that is
    equitable. You know, we talk a lot about education being the
    great equalizer, well, this budget proposes strategies to get
    there. And it is important for me to make sure that while the
    resources are there, we have equal amounts of accountability to
    make sure that the funds are being used for what they were
    intended.
        So, absolutely, to me, the work that we do at the agency to
    ensure that the funds are being used for what they were
    intended for is critically as important as providing resources.
    We can't get to equalizing the playing field if the resources
    are not being used where they are supposed to.
        So I, and the team at the Department of Education, will be
    very vigilant, especially with this new American Rescue Plan,
    and the funding that has been provided over the last year. We
    are going to be vigilant to make sure that the funds are being
    used for what they are intended to be used for. And I will add
    that as we rolled out the American Rescue Plan, we required
    States to provide transparent reports on how they were going to
    use the money, and engage stakeholders, so they are a part of
    the process early and ensure that equity is at the heart of the
    plan.
        I envision this being something that is going to help lift
    our students. And I look forward to working with you and others
    to make sure it happens.

                    INVESTMENTS TO SUPPORT HIGHER EDUCATION

        Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you. And on higher Ed, the
    pandemic really exacerbated, as we know, the financial
    challenges a lot of our students face pursuing a post-secondary
    education. Congress, as you know, responded by providing
    significant relief to students and borrowers, including
    flexible funding to address students' basic needs during this
    pandemic. But as our country begins to recover from this
    pandemic, many of the financial strains that are facing
    students who are low-income, students of color, student
    parents, and first-generation students are really out there for
    them.
        This is not just the cost of tuition and fees I am talking
    about, but housing, food, childcare, unexpected bills that can
    quickly derail a student's plans. And as we turn this corner on
    COVID, we should redouble our efforts to help all students
    pursuing a post-secondary education. And this budget I think is
    a positive step in that direction. But can you speak for a
    moment about the increases for Pell Grants, and childcare, for
    students, parents, TRIO, why those investments are so critical
    right now?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. We recognize now
    that if we don't act with urgency, we are going to lose many of
    our students who are thinking about higher education as an
    opportunity to continue their growth. The increase in Pell
    Grants, which is significant under the American Families Plan,
    $1,400, and $400 increase here in this budget show the
    commitment that the President has toward ensuring equitable
    access to higher education for our students.
        And we recognize that that, with other supports, are going
    to allow for our students to continue to engage in college,
    free community college for students, talk about giving an
    opportunity to students who might not even think of higher
    education, because it is too far off, or the fear of being in
    debt for the rest of their lives. With that said, the pause on
    loan repayment has provided--saved over $5 billion a month for
    over 41 million borrowers. So we know how critically important
    that is. It has covered 1.1 million borrowers in the process,
    but programs like the Pell increase provide access to college
    for many more students. And we were confident with support of
    programs like that, and programs like TRIO, more and more
    students will look at higher education as an option for
    themselves.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Senator Blunt.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.

                             FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

        Secretary, let's talk a little about the first 2 years of
    college education being free, or at least if you choose to go
    to a community college. I am much more inclined to be receptive
    to your arguments about increasing the Pell Grant, increasing
    even the level of maybe whether you qualify for that maximum
    Pell sooner. What are you thinking about in terms of 2 years of
    free community college education?
        I am a big supporter of the community college system, every
    community college in my State, I believe, understands that, but
    I don't quite understand, one, why we want to make community
    college free for everybody regardless of need. And then my
    second question is going to be: Why just community colleges?
    But how do you expect this plan to work? And would all students
    who choose the community college have no cost of going to that
    college?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. I recognize that
    there are many States that are doing amazing work providing
    access to higher education institutions. I was in Michigan
    recently, and I saw amazing efforts there to make college
    affordable and accessible to students in Michigan. But this
    plan would allow 5.5 million students to have access to higher
    education who might not have had it previously.
        And we know that not only is it a benefit for these
    students, but it is a benefit for their families, their
    community, and there is an economic benefit. Graduates of 2-
    year colleges, on average, earn 21 percent more than students
    with a high school diploma. We know that the skills that are
    needed in the workforce today are skills that would require
    some level of training.
        So with good coordination, our free community colleges
    connecting with our high schools, connecting with the workforce
    and 4-year colleges, which stand to gain because there is going
    to be a wider net of students seeking higher education. We do
    feel that this is a step forward for the country.
        Senator Blunt. Good. I don't disagree with any of those
    thoughts, except your point that there would be, I think you
    said 5 million students that would not have access to community
    college, otherwise. What about all the students that could go
    to community college, otherwise, that we are--are we now paying
    that tuition as well?
        Secretary Cardona. Many of those students are benefiting
    from supports now. What we are doing is leveling.
        Senator Blunt. No, no. That is not what I am asking. What I
    am asking is if any student at any income level wants to go to
    community college, can they go for free under this program?
        Secretary Cardona. Yes, it would be accessible to all who
    want to study in a community college.

         EXPANDING FREE COLLEGE PROPOSAL TO ALL ACCREDITED INSTITUTIONS

        Senator Blunt. So why would--so let's go to a second
    question. Why would you focus that first 2 years on a community
    college when students might want--that even qualify for, for
    instance, the Pell Grant now, they can take that Pell Grant
    money and go to any college, any accredited institution, public
    or private, they want to, and many of those institutions now
    with fully qualified Pell students, figure out how there is no
    other costs beyond Pell. Why would you not allow them to
    continue to have that same ability to go free to those schools
    as well, if they are students in real economic need?
        Secretary Cardona. Under this proposal, students will still
    have the choice to attend the college that they would like,
    benefiting from Pell Group programs if they are eligible. So it
    does not limit options. If anything it provides more options,
    and provides more opportunity for students who might not have
    considered higher education an option for them due to the
    costs.
        Senator Blunt. What about, generally, to continue this
    discussion, we should have free first 2 years of college, or
    free college for everybody, but that almost always talks about
    a college in a public school setting, as opposed to an
    accredited school setting. I think one of the real strengths of
    the American higher education system since World War II has
    been virtually all of our programs, whether they were the GI
    benefit, or Pell Grants, or any other Federal Government
    program, you had the ability to use that at any accredited,
    post-secondary institution.
        What is your view on that? As we continue to discuss how
    access to various levels of grants and fundings public--versus
    both public and private competing with each other after high
    school?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. You know, I look
    forward to continuing conversations with you and others to find
    the right pathway. What we want to do is provide access to
    higher education for students across the country; we know that
    access to higher education affords students the opportunities
    to better options in life, higher earning potential. And that
    is good, not only for the student, but for the community and
    the economy, as I said earlier. So I am a big proponent of
    providing options for students who want to pursue different
    careers, or different educational institution based on their
    choice. And I would be in support of exploring options to make
    sure that that is accessible under this plan.
        Senator Blunt. Well, the current system, as you know,
    creates lots of options to accredited institutions. I hope that
    continues to be the case, and certainly something you and I
    will continue to talk about. Thank you, Secretary.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chair.
        Senator Murray. Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

                    ACCESS TO AND USE OF COVID RELIEF FUNDS

        Mr. Secretary, we are delighted to have you here today. I
    want to start with a challenge that we are having in New
    Hampshire. As you know, Congress has provided nearly $200
    billion for emergency relief for elementary and secondary
    schools as a result of the COVID pandemic. This funding was
    intended to assist schools during this emergency, and Congress
    was very clear when we passed that legislation, that the intent
    of these funds is to be--allow them to be at the school's
    discretion to meet a wide variety of local needs, including for
    construction projects, such as HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and
    Air Conditioning) repairs and improvements.
        I am very concerned about the delays that many New
    Hampshire schools have experienced when trying to access this
    relief funding. And I have been troubled by the Department's
    delay in issuing clear implementation guidance that regards
    regulatory requirements on States and school districts. Now I
    appreciate the guidance that was just provided to--by the
    Department to New Hampshire yesterday.
        I hope it resolves some of this uncertainty, but there are
    still questions that schools have, and in order for them to
    benefit from this money, we have a limited time for
    construction during the summer, and so it would be really
    important to have the Department be very clear on the use of
    these funds. So can you talk a little bit about how the
    Department is working to allow expeditious access to the funds
    that have been approved and appropriated by Congress?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. You are absolutely
    right. The importance of being expedient in the use of funds to
    get them into the schools, to provide the resources that are
    needed, to get the students what they need to be in the
    classroom quickly and as safely as possible. And with the
    distribution of funds, we recognize that different parts of the
    country have different needs. I was in Philadelphia recently,
    and I learned how the ventilation issues in those schools
    prevented students from coming in at the same rate as
    communities that had schools that were a bit newer and had
    better ventilation. So in that particular area, the issue was
    ventilation.
        So what we want to do is balance flexibility around how the
    funds are used with ensuring that the funds are being used to
    safely reopen schools, and address inequities that were
    exacerbated during the pandemic. And by the strategies that we
    are taking is becoming accessible, and making sure we are
    working with States on their individual needs, and their
    individual challenges. We worked closely with various States,
    meeting with them and having conversations with not only their
    educators, but their elected officials, to ensure that
    maintenance of effort is being kept, and that the funds are
    being moved quickly to help the schools, and getting out to the
    LEAs (Local Education Agency) as soon as possible, and we will
    continue to do that.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, I appreciate that, but that hasn't
    happened as expeditiously in New Hampshire, as the school
    districts really need it to happen. The ventilation systems,
    the HVAC systems are clearly an issue in many of our schools,
    and again, when Congress passed these funds, we tried to make
    it very clear that we wanted them to be as flexible as possible
    for use by the schools. So as you point out, the more the
    Department can be accommodating, and working with States on
    their needs as quickly as possible, the better.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Shaheen. So do I have your commitment that the
    Department will continue to work with the State of New
    Hampshire?
        Secretary Cardona. We will be on the phone with New
    Hampshire today, Senator.

                             STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT

        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. All right. I am going to hold
    you to that. You and Senator Murray talked a little bit about
    the student loan program, and the effort to help address the
    challenge that many students are facing. This moratorium is
    scheduled to end September 30. I just wonder if the Department
    considers the final date of the moratorium, are you looking at
    a further extension? One of the challenges we have heard from
    people is needing certainty, as they are thinking about going
    back to school, and both loan agencies and students themselves.
        Secretary Cardona. Yes. You know, we are aiming to provide
    as much of an on-ramp for these borrowers as possible. And the
    date in September payments are--we are starting in October is
    something that we have, but we are continuing conversations
    about if that is the best time. No announcements today, but we
    continue to have those conversations. We recognize that for
    many families the recovery of this pandemic will come around
    the same time. Students are going to be returning to schools,
    mortgages have to start getting paid, and loans have to start
    getting paid. So we want to make sure we are sensitive to the
    needs of the borrowers and aware of the other challenges that
    they have.
        We are going to continue to do as much as we can with our
    authorities. Just today we are announcing $500 million in new
    discharges for, over 18,000 borrowers who attended ITT
    technical college just to make--technical institutes, excuse
    me, just to make sure that every authority that we have
    currently, we are taking advantage of it to support our
    borrowers who are in need. And we do want to provide timely
    information, as Senator Blunt also mentioned, and make sure we
    have as long an on ramp for these borrowers to start repayment.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I
    know that it is a huge concern for borrowers, but the sooner
    decisions can be made, I think the better people can plan.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
        Senator Shaheen. So thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Moran.
        Senator Moran. Thank you, Chairwoman.

                       INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

        Mr. Secretary, thank you for your presence today. Let me
    just highlight a couple of things that I am pleased with, and
    that would be IDEA. The increased funding support for that is
    valuable, commitments were made a long time ago, and those
    commitments have not been kept for a long time. And a
    significant component of our success in education will be our
    ability to educate those who need the IDEA aspect of our public
    education system.

                                   IMPACT AID

        And I look forward to working with you to see that we
    continue to provide additional support for those students. I
    also want to highlight the importance of Impact Aid; Kansas
    with Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth, they are hugely important
    to assist our school districts that have a large presence of
    public lands. And I look forward to working with you to see we
    support Impact Aid and its ability to level the playing field
    in the finance of education in my State.

                                      TRIO

        Let me ask a question about TRIO. The Biden Administration
    proposed investing $62 billion in new college retention and
    completion services. This, to me, seems unnecessary spending on
    a duplicative program when we have TRIO programs. And I noticed
    in your comments you bragged about the significance and value
    of TRIO, but what is the circumstance that suggests that this
    is not duplicative or that the resources that you are putting
    into new programs could not be utilized in the TRIO programs to
    achieve the same outcome?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. And I do agree that
    the investment in special education is so needed. I have spoken
    to families of children with disabilities, in particular,
    families with children with autism, who have said, ``you know,
    the laptop alone is not going to cut it.'' So I am hopeful that
    our students with disabilities are going to get the support
    that they need, and that we are on a path to fully funding it.
        With regard to the TRIO programs, you know, one thing we
    have heard is, students who are in our community colleges or in
    our 4-year colleges, due to the pandemic have had to leave. And
    there is a lot of concern whether or not they are going to be
    able to come back. And we also know that this translates into
    high school students who were maybe once thinking about going
    to college, not having that opportunity, or having to work now
    to supplement the income of the home, and have other factors
    that are pulling them in a different direction.
        So the $200 million increase in the TRIO programs, to me,
    addresses what we know to be the case. What we are hearing from
    educators, what we are hearing from families, what we are
    hearing from students is that going to college for some
    students who might have been considering it, it seems a little
    bit further removed. And we want to make sure we are addressing
    that, so that we do continue to have students in colleges
    across the country.
        Senator Moran. Well, my concern is not that you are
    increasing the TRIO program by $200 million; it is if TRIO is a
    valuable program, which I believe it is, why would we create
    new programs with new funding, the $62 billion, without further
    utilizing the TRIO programs that already exist? We have a habit
    I think in Congress, and I can't imagine that is--an
    administration that is immune. We in politics and public policy
    have a habit, when we try to highlight the value or the
    importance we place on something, we create a new program.
        And my suggestion is, my request is an understanding of why
    current programs, such as TRIO, would not be the vehicle by
    which you deliver new assistance. There are lots of schools in
    Kansas and across the country that would love to have a TRIO
    program, would love to expand the number of TRIO programs they
    have. Those are restrained in many instances because of lack of
    funding, and yet we are putting significant new dollars into a
    new program, which I would suggest has a pretty similar
    objective as TRIO.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. Well, we want to
    make sure we have opportunities for all students. And I agree
    with you, the TRIO program is successful when it is able to get
    students into college. And I hear your question. You are
    saying, why are we duplicating services if TRIO does similar? I
    look forward to working with you to discuss this further. And
    we would be happy to have conversations about where you feel we
    should be looking at things, and combining them instead of
    setting a new programs.
        Senator Moran. I look forward to working with you. And I
    was particularly interested in your response to Senator Blunt's
    question, which I--the answer at least to me, was incomplete.
    And I would be welcoming to see why, that the ideas that
    Senator Blunt suggested are ones that don't, in your view, have
    merit. Thank you.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
        Senator Murray. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here.
        Secretary Cardona. Glad to be here.

                              FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES

        Senator Durbin. This is not a trick question, but do you
    have any idea what percent of post-secondary students in
    America enroll in for-profit colleges and universities?
        Secretary Cardona. Off the top of my head, sir, I don't,
    but I can get you that information.
        Senator Durbin. I will tell you what it is. I will give you
    the answer, and it is not to trick you. It is 8, 8 percent
    post-secondary students in America enroll in for-profit
    colleges and universities.
        Next question, what percent of student loan defaults in
    America are accounted for by for-profit college students?
        Secretary Cardona. I have a feeling you are going to share
    that answer with me, sir. So, I will, turn it back to you.
        Senator Durbin. As I said, I am not trying to trick you,
    30.
        Secretary Cardona. Thirty.
        Senator Durbin. Eight percent of the students, 30 percent
    of the student loan defaults. What does it tell us? It tells us
    they are enrolling students who cannot finish, won't finish. It
    tells us also they are charging money that students cannot
    repay even if they are employed, 8 percent, 30 percent. As
    often as I meet you here each year, I am going to ask you the
    same question, because the numbers don't change.
        But here is what is interesting, in the COVID-19 situation,
    colleges and universities across America are generally
    struggling for enrollment, except for the for-profit schools.
    They have seen a 3 percent increase in students. How can that
    be? Are they that good? They market and advertise constantly.
    You don't have to turn on television, or look into the news
    except to see the latest ad for them. Now, the reason I raise
    that is because I think that raises a serious policy question
    about a branch of higher education that is failing so many
    students and yet receives such a handsome Federal subsidy.
        Now you have many roles, a Secretary of Education,
    educator, principal, president of the university, all these
    things, all of the above, and you certainly have the background
    for it, but there is one aspect of your responsibility then I
    want to delve into that is not often brought up. You are the
    Nation's--one of the Nation's biggest bill collectors. You are
    a credit agency, you are a banker. And I want to tell you the
    record that was written by your predecessor in this field is
    not one that I think we want to see continue. For example, if I
    might. Public service loan forgiveness. Are you familiar with
    it?
        Secretary Cardona. Sure.

                                 STUDENT LOANS

        Senator Durbin. Do you know what the DeVos administration
    did with public service loan forgiveness? I will tell you. 99
    percent of those who applied were denied, that is just
    outrageous. And then Congress tried to extend the program with
    a new version. That was ignored as well. So Secretary DeVos was
    channeling Henry Potter and not George Bailey many, many times.
    When it came to borrower defense of 108,000 students who
    applied, and said that they were the victims of fraud by for-
    profit colleges and universities, the DeVos Education
    Department, as they were leaving town, denied 80,000 of them
    after waiting month after month, and year after year. The lives
    of these borrowers have been compromised.
        Now, I don't know how familiar you are with ECMC
    (Educational Credit Management Corporation). Has your staff
    given you a briefing on your collection agency?
        Secretary Cardona. Yes. I have heard it.
        Senator Durbin. They have?
        Secretary Cardona. Yes.
        Senator Durbin. Well, I will tell you, the last point I
    want to make before I turn it over for your response is this.
    They are outrageous. The policies that they use to collect on
    student loans, I don't think any of us want to try to defend in
    public. If someone goes into bankruptcy court and tries with
    the one narrow exception to the bankruptcy code for student
    loans, undue hardship, they don't have a chance. ECMC is going
    to beat them back, whether or not you are dealing with
    veterans, who are so disabled that they can't pay back their
    loans, people subsisting on Social Security Disability, people
    with terminal illness, they are all beaten back and denied by
    your collection agency. So, open question: What would you like
    to do about it?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator Durbin, for bringing
    out the facts, on something, that I will be very frank with you
    is the top priority at the agency. We have done a disservice
    and it is time to act. It is time to have our students at the
    center of the conversations there. It is a high priority for me
    to make sure that we correct that, it is unacceptable to have a
    98-99 percent refusal with public service loan forgiveness.
        I had a conversation with students who had to go through
    that process and were given the run around. I was frustrated
    after that call. They had to hold on and go through different
    hoops to try to get an answer. And then the answers were not
    accurate, and they had to go somewhere else. So, there is a lot
    of work that has to be done.
        I recently hired Richard Cordray. He was recently appointed
    by the President. And we need to have a consumer protection
    mentality, we need to put the students at the center of the
    conversation, and we need to make sure that what we are doing
    at the agency, is a model for what we expect. And we have to
    put our loan providers on notice that we are going to put the
    students first.
        We have not been sitting around waiting either though, we
    have provided a $1.5 billion in relief through borrower
    defense, by delivering a billion in full relief to 72,000
    borrowers, and approving 500 million in discharges, as I
    mentioned with ITT. So, we are taking every opportunity now to
    change the culture there. And the message is very clear to
    Richard. Fix this. Fix this, and move quickly, and be
    transparent, and change the culture that people perceive.
        As you pointed out, we have a culture to change and we have
    better--we have to implement strategies better. Our students
    cannot wait, and we are contributing to the problem, you will
    see a turnaround in that. That is a priority for me.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you. Channel George Bailey. Thank you
    very much.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        I will turn to myself, and then Senator Blunt for a second
    round. I would just notify all committee--members and staff to
    please tell your members to be here, because if there is no one
    else to present at after that time we will wrap up this
    hearing. I know Mr. Secretary, you are sad to hear that.
        Secretary Cardona. I know.

                        RATIONALE FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING

        Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, the President's budget calls
    for major new investments in our Nation's public, elementary,
    and secondary schools, totaling $66 billion. That is an
    increase of $25 billion more than last year's, LHHS (Labor,
    Health and Human Services) bill, now Republican and Democrats
    were able to work together on COVID relief in our regular
    appropriations bills last year. The $125 billion in K-12
    education investments included in the American Rescue Plan Act
    passed earlier this year did not have bipartisan support. And
    some of our Republican colleagues expressed concern that those
    funds would not be spent quickly or were unnecessary.
        Tell us why you think the additional K-12 investments
    proposed in the President's budget are needed on top of the
    significant COVID supplemental appropriations that are already
    enacted into law?
        Secretary Cardona. The technical support that the
    allocations provide are critical, and I will get into that, but
    let me first talk about how important it is that the President
    signal a transformational change in how we view education as
    the foundation of our country's growth.
        As the First Lady said, any country that out-educates us
    outperforms us. So, this administration understands the
    important investment in education. And I don't have to remind
    you, because you mentioned it in your opening comments, years
    of underinvestment in education. I have seen that. I was a
    principal when we were asked to do more with less. I had class
    sizes that were very high, with teachers who were doing their
    very best to meet the needs of students, and those needs kept
    increasing, but the funds kept decreasing.
        There is a realization here, that if we don't get this
    right, so much else is going to suffer. So, when we talk about
    what this investment can turn into, it can turn into smaller
    class sizes. It can turn into better teacher preparation.
    Students are coming back from a trauma-filled year. I spoke to
    a student at Harvey Milk School 2 days ago, in New York, who
    told me his grandmother and his significant other died in the
    last year.
        This student is going back to school. If we are not
    investing in additional trauma support, training to make sure
    everyone, including our school bus drivers, our cafeteria aides
    who have been heroes this past year, have the support and
    training to help meet the needs of these students when they
    come in, then we don't stand a chance. If we are not providing
    funds to give students access to digital devices and broadband
    so that they can have access to learning wherever they are,
    then we lost an opportunity.
        The pandemic exacerbated the need. You mentioned it in your
    opening comments, the impact that it is having on our poor
    communities, in our rural communities students didn't have
    access to broadband during the entire pandemic. We cannot
    continue under-investing in education and think that we are
    going to continue to produce students that are going to lead
    the world. We have an opportunity here, an obligation, a
    privilege to make sure we are funding our schools, and giving
    our educators the tools that they need to be successful. More
    importantly, giving our students the tools that they need to be
    successful.
        Imagine our country, when students don't have to worry
    about not having a teacher in front of their classroom, enough
    materials, or access to technology so that they could get
    access to basic deliverables in education. That is where we are
    going. And this bill does that. The American Family Plan boldly
    communicates that. And I am excited about supporting it moving
    forward.

           SIMPLIFICATION OF FREE APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL STUDENT AID

        Senator Murray. Thank you. I really appreciate that
    response. Mr. Secretary, too many students miss out on college
    financial aid that they are eligible for, like Pell Grants, in
    part because the application process has been so cumbersome.
    Last December we were able to finally reach a bipartisan
    agreement to significantly simplify the Federal Student Aid
    Application process with the passage of FAFSA Simplification
    Act, and that law, by the way, also expands eligibility for
    Federal financial aid.
        The administration's budget request does include a
    significant increase in funding to implement those and other
    related changes. But unfortunately, the Department announced
    last week, as you know, that some of those changes cannot be
    implemented quite as fast as all of us had really hoped. This
    is not a criticism of the Department. Everyone wants the law
    implemented as quickly as possible, but tell us what the
    Department is doing to implement FAFSA as quickly as possible,
    including moving forward with key benefits for students on
    time?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you. And I recognize it is not a
    criticism, but, but we need to get moving on this. And I thank
    you, and Senator Blunt, and others who have really pushed this,
    and understand the importance of that simplification process. I
    have talked to students who said, you know what, that is too
    much. Or families, I can't do that. And they have missed out on
    opportunity.
        So, the simplification process is critically important, but
    the reality is we walked into a system that doesn't have the
    capacity. As I mentioned in the previous statement, you know,
    under-investment leads to results. Well, we have a 45-year-old
    computer system that can't handle the changes that are needed,
    and that you voted for.
        So, we need to move quickly, swiftly, to make sure we are
    prioritizing that, that is critically important, the FAFSA
    simplification. We are on it. We are going to prioritize that,
    again, another area that Richard is really prioritizing. And we
    are going to keep you updated. You deserve to be updated on
    what progress we are making, what challenges we have, that is a
    priority for the agency, and for me as Secretary.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
        Senator Blunt.

                     TRANSPARENCY OF COVID RELIEF SPENDING

        Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. On the topic of
    new money to schools, Congress provided in the American Rescue
    Plan and the COVID supplementals, a total of $190 billion to K
    through 12 education. Data provided to us by the Department as
    of June 4, less than $9 billion of that has actually been spent
    by schools. What can we do to ensure that that money gets
    spent, and there is more transparency about how and where it is
    being spent?
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you for that question. And it
    gives me an opportunity to share that as the commissioner of
    education, during the beginning of the pandemic and throughout
    most of the pandemic, we also had to develop systems that did
    not exist before, to distribute money in this unprecedented
    time, to make sure that LEAs had the support they needed. And
    as the Senator mentioned earlier, in some places that process
    is slower than we would like.
        So we are in communication with our districts, our State
    LEAs, and we recognize, however, and I can tell you from
    experience that, you know, a good portion, sometimes 80 percent
    of budget is human resources, right? So that money is drawn
    down as the contract, or the year goes by. And we recognize
    also that this is a 3- to 4-year process where the funds are
    going to be used to provide services for multiple years. Also,
    contracts that are signed off on are not paid for until the
    services are provided. And in many cases that extends years.
        So, we recognize the need. I think the transparency, what
    you brought up is critically important. We asked that any
    planning that is being done for funds with the American Rescue
    Plan have transparency that are posted on websites and that
    engage stakeholders, so that folks know how the money is being
    used. We have a responsibility to ensure every dollar of
    taxpayer money is being used to support what it was intended to
    use.
        Senator Blunt. Right. Now I certainly agree with that. And
    I think we actually assumed that more of that money would be
    spent on technical support and things that wouldn't have been
    part of the normal education system that districts had in
    place, as opposed to long-term contracts with individuals, and
    things that probably were in their normal and regular budget.

                             IN-PERSON INSTRUCTION

        I hope we are looking carefully to see that that money is
    spent, to be more ready for virtual education when we need it,
    and different kinds of communication when we need it.
    Obviously, as Senator Murray has pointed out, and others have,
    the loss of learning in many cases to people who couldn't go to
    school, either they didn't engage in a virtual class, or that
    wasn't the right way for them to learn. Where do you think we
    are going to be in the fall in terms of in-person learning?
    What percentage of American public school students do you think
    we will be back in school in the fall in person?
        Secretary Cardona. Some of the expenditures that take time,
    as you mentioned, are critical, virtual learning access,
    broadband access, and that does take some time. With that said,
    I do expect 100 percent of the students across the country to
    have access to in-person learning. April data shows that 96
    percent of the K-8 students had an opportunity to learn in
    person. But I would argue that hybrid isn't a great option.
        In many cases families can't do the hybrid option because
    parents have to work. It is all or nothing. I am pushing really
    hard to make sure that we are addressing, and we are working
    with States, and local LEAs to address whatever factors might
    be preventing them from offering full in-person learning, full-
    time for all students in the fall.
        That is my expectation. And we are having conversations
    regularly with different State leaders, and local education
    leaders to make sure that that is--the message is clear, and
    that the expectation is there. The funds are there. We have to
    make it happen for our students, Senator.

                             STUDENT LOAN SERVICING

        Senator Blunt. Let's talk about loan servicing for just a
    minute. Certainly, as you pointed out, and I was pleased to be
    in involved in trying to simplify those loan forms. Senator
    Murray and Senator Alexander and the Authorizing Committee,
    last year, did a great job of leading there. Now there has been
    a discussion with the Title IV additional servicers, how we
    connect better with students--with individuals who have student
    loans.
        This committee was not supportive of the last plan for the
    next generation of student loans. We are about to run out of
    the current framework of contracts. I think the current not-
    for-profit servicers contracts, and between December of this
    year and March of next year, there appears to be no plan to
    replace the current system. What I am asking is: Will you use
    the authority you have in the fiscal year 2021 labor bill to
    extend these legacy of servicing contracts while you work on a
    long-term servicing solution? Or do you expect to have a long-
    term service solution in place by December of this year?
        Secretary Cardona. We are working aggressively to make sure
    we have a system that has very high standards for loan
    servicers. We have to put the students at the center, while I
    don't have an announcement to make today, I will tell you that
    we plan on having an update, and we will update you within the
    next month or so to share what the plans are with that.
        Senator Blunt. Well, I will tell you. I have been very
    involved in this discussion. I would like to be updated, and
    would hope to be updated before you absolutely have a plan you
    are ready to announce. And then if, for whatever reason, that
    plan can't be put in place by the time these servicing and
    agreements run out I hope you are thinking about the authority
    that we gave you to extend those agreements if that was the
    best thing to do.
        Thank you, Chair.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. We will be in touch.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Braun.
        Senator Braun. Thank you, Madam Chair. I remember in our
    first or second conversations along the way, we have had a--
    kind of a spirited discussion on resources that we put beyond
    education, in general. And in my opinion education, along with
    one's healthcare, we ought to be doing that as well as
    possible, not only through public, but through the private
    arena as well.

                RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

        And post-secondary education now has the dubious
    distinction of being the place where costs are going up more
    per year than any other significant sector of our economy. Just
    eclipsed a few years ago, the rate of increase in healthcare,
    which is a place I have, since I have been here wanted to
    reform and try to fix, because I think it is a broken system
    there in terms of what we do through the private sector, and
    through government, because we have got the entity itself, the
    system that doesn't deliver, it has cost us in healthcare twice
    as much as what it does in other countries.
        So, I think it is silly to pour more resources in anything
    that is not delivering outcomes that look like they are at
    least headed in the right direction. So do you think when it
    comes to the results, and let us look at post-secondary
    education, I will come back to secondary in a moment. Do you
    think we have been getting a good bang for our buck?
        Secretary Cardona. There is always room for improvement,
    Senator. And I can assure you that the team that we are
    assembling recognizes the importance, and the moment that we
    have to make sure we are improving access and affordability.
    Again, I mentioned earlier, the American Families Plan provides
    opportunities for students to access community colleges for
    free. We know how important that is to give them an opportunity
    to join the workforce with skills that they need to be
    successful. And that the earning potential of graduates of
    community colleges can be up to 21 percent higher.
        We have work to do and we are going to be aggressive to
    make sure that students are getting a good return on investment
    in post-secondary education. And we are addressing the issues
    that exist, where students are being taken advantage of, or
    sold a bill of goods and never delivered on. We are on that.
    And that is a priority for me.
        Senator Braun. So my observation before I got here is that
    you generally don't pour resources into something until you
    look at what you have got, that you are trying to rebuild, re-
    energize, or make better. And 41 percent increase over fiscal
    2021 levels is embedded in this budget proposal. And my
    observation, from being on a school Board for 10 years, to
    wrestling with education at the State level as a State
    legislator, it is not about spending more money, it is really
    more about finding how we change the system.
        To me it is analogous to healthcare. And as long as we are
    here, since we live with no constraints, now added in the two-
    and-a-half years I have been here, nearly $10 trillion in
    national debt. The need to be a little more entrepreneurial, a
    little more concerned about changing the paradigm. And here I
    see most of this just pouring more resources into something
    that doesn't need to tell us any more clearly, that it is not
    delivering the goods.

                 SECONDARY EDUCATION ALIGNMENT WITH JOB MARKET

        Before I run out of time, let me pivot back to, the same
    point would be made in secondary education, before you get to
    college. College is runaway with costs that even parents are
    really scratching their heads. Is it worth it to send my kid
    into a system that 50 percent of the kids that go there don't
    pursue it, and many get a misguided degree, and employers don't
    have a market for?
        Why don't we try to get it better at the secondary level
    and match training and skills with the high-demand, high-wage
    jobs that all of us have out there? My State of Indiana,
    checked with my kids, I think we have got 70 to 80 job openings
    in our own company, out of a total employment of 1200. We don't
    need any more 4-year degrees, because the jobs that we have in
    a State like Indiana, where we ship out twice as many 4-year
    degrees as we use in the State, we need better skills that are
    being delivered out of high school.
        I look at a place like Garrett High School, west of Fort
    Wayne that catches kids and, obviously, parents, when they are
    fifth graders, before they go to middle school. That is
    something that would cost no more money, but would change the
    dynamic of where we need to change our emphasis in how we do
    things. And until education does that, until healthcare does
    that, I really think we are just going to be borrowing more
    money and putting it down a dubious hole. I won't refer to the
    word that comes to mind. So, a quick comment on that.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you. I agree with you. If we do
    what we have done, we are going to get what we have gotten. So,
    you know, the plans discussed CTE (Career and Technical
    Education) changes. We really, if you recall, my hearing, one
    of my goals as Secretary of Education is to make sure we evolve
    our secondary schools to meet the demands of the workforce, and
    the careers that are available today, as you mentioned, in your
    own community.
        So, this is something that I am eager to work with. Not
    only in the budget do we see that in there. And it is not just
    resources, it is the change in mindset. We are going to get
    there. And I look forward to working with you on that. I know
    the Jobs Plan has funds for that, the Families Plan. I know the
    President gets it, it is in the budget, and we are going to
    make it happen. And I look forward to working with you on that.
        Senator Braun. Thank you. And I would invite you to take a
    road trip to Indiana and visit some of the places that are
    setting the trend on what we, as employers, need which is a
    better elementary and especially secondary education, before
    you start pushing kids into a broken system after that. Thank
    you.
        Secretary Cardona. Look forward to working with you on
    that.
        Senator Murray. Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, madam Chairwoman.

                             SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE

        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Your experience as a State
    Commissioner of Education is, I think, invaluable because you
    have seen these issues up close and personal, as they used to
    say on television. And one of the issues I hope is not
    debatable is the poor status of school infrastructure, and this
    is not just an urban issue, it is a national issue.
        I have been working very hard to get resources in for
    infrastructure repairs in schools, and also in the context of
    infrastructure repairs, you can do a lot of things like, change
    the heating system to be more efficient. We discovered in the
    pandemic, in Providence they had to teach all winter with the
    windows open, because the HVAC system, and you probably had the
    same situation in Connecticut, the HVAC system would not
    support a safe instruction, and was probably built in 1930, et
    cetera.
        I am pushing very hard to get $100 billion in the Jobs Plan
    for the schools. And I hope you can assist me in doing that,
    with the President and with my colleagues.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. Part of the ``Help
    Is Here Tour'' we visited about nine or ten different States,
    and visited about ten different schools. And as I mentioned in
    an earlier response, the needs in different communities, post-
    pandemic, were different. And one really stood out to me. I was
    in Philadelphia, and I visited schools that were over 120 years
    old. You know, where the windows are shut with paint.
        Senator Reed. Lead paint?
        Secretary Cardona. Yes. The students, they need better. And
    it really just brought to the surface what educators have known
    for years; that facilities do matter, but what is the first
    thing that goes in local budgets when there is not enough
    funds, the facilities' maintenance. I remember as commissioner
    of education, talking to district leaders who said, our system
    hasn't been touched in years, the maintenance of the system
    hasn't been touched in years, the filters haven't been changed
    out.
        I learned more about MERV 13, MERV 15, more than I ever
    thought I needed to know. But the point is there has been
    negligence on facilities for years. And what we are finding is,
    in order to get students back into school safely and ensure a
    safe learning environment where the community could feel
    confidence in their schools. When we talk about reopening
    schools, we have to take that into account. So, I agree with
    you. Part of the Jobs Plan has the upgrade and building new
    public schools where it is needed, the $50 billion over 5
    years.
        But the community colleges also need the support, and the
    $12 billion over 5 years there, is a commitment to making sure
    that our facilities are safe places for our learners, for our
    educators. So that kids go to school, they attend regularly,
    and they have a learning environment where they can grow. So, I
    agree with you there, wholeheartedly, Senator.
        Senator Reed. Well, thank you. And I must confess part of
    my passion is the fact that my father was a school custodian.
    And so he would get to--in fact supervisor custodian--so he
    would get those calls in the middle of a winter night to go fix
    the boiler that was installed in 1927 or something like that.
        Secretary Cardona. Exactly.

                                    LITERACY

        Senator Reed. A further question. I had an interesting
    discussion with adult education providers, and they reported
    that 95 percent of the students that they are serving, come to
    them with virtually no literacy skills. They can't read, they
    might graduate from high school, or at least going the length
    of time they have to, but they can't read. And if they can't
    read, it is very difficult to train someone for a job,
    particularly in the sophisticated, post-industrial economy.
        Secretary Cardona. Right.
        Senator Reed. One issue I think is if making sure we know
    what at least the rates are. And I have just wondered, do you
    have national, local, and States' reliable statistics about
    literacy?
        Secretary Cardona. We do, we have data that we are tracking
    in terms of where the States are. But we have to do more. We
    have to do more to make them transparent, and to ensure that
    the funds that are being used through the American Rescue Plan
    are aimed at addressing those literacy gaps. I will tell you;
    we know in education that if a student is not reading by 3rd
    grade, you are going to be intervening for the rest of that
    student's school career.
        And in the process, probably disengaging that student in
    ways where they can't take the courses that they want to
    select, or think about college as early as they need to, to
    make sure they have the same opportunities as other students.
    But that is where I also believe, sir, that the American Family
    Plan and the commitment on early childhood education.
        Three- four-year-old programs, I saw as a principal, when
    5-year-olds walked into the kindergarten classroom on day one,
    we knew which students had access to high quality programs. We
    could tell which students didn't, and we knew, day one,
    kindergarten, which students were going to need intervention
    and support. So you pay now or pay later, we really need to
    focus on early childhood education, and literacy skills early,
    science-based, research-based practices, to make sure that we
    are allowing our students to have the best opportunity in life
    by reading by 3rd grade.
        Senator Reed. I agree, but we also have to pay attention to
    adults who will miss these prospective reforms but still have
    low literacy skills.
        Secretary Cardona. Right.
        Senator Reed. Thank you. My time has expired.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Murray. Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank
    you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I absolutely loved the
    background that you have, and it is very obvious that you
    really get it.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. And I appreciate that, because I can
    tell by your passion that you know exactly what these students
    are going through. So that I truly want you to know how much I
    appreciate that.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you.

                      FLEXIBILITY IN USE OF COVID FUNDING

        Senator Hyde-Smith. As we know from COVID, so many kids got
    just really far behind in so many areas, and great concern, not
    just in Mississippi, but everywhere. But Mississippi has
    recently received significant American Rescue Plan funding to
    help reopen our schools. The reality is that most Mississippi
    schools have been open for in-person learning for nearly 10
    months, as many Mississippi schools resumed classroom
    instructions last August. We really got back in quick with good
    results, and made some good decisions there that our leaders
    made. But the school year for most Mississippi schools ended in
    early May, and students are already out for their summer break.
        In your submitted testimony you stated that the plans to
    reopen are bold, and will require coordination among key
    stakeholders at the Federal, State, and local levels. However,
    this statement, and several others from the Department, seem to
    ignore the fact that many other States, like Mississippi, have
    been opened since fall of 2020. So, we have this money, but we
    have already been open, but how much flexibility are schools
    being given to use the American Rescue Plan funding? Because
    that is the calls that I get, and that is the questions that I
    get, from my schools and my educators.
        Secretary Cardona. Yes. Thank you, for first of all, for
    your comments, and for the thoughts that you are bringing up on
    behalf of the constituents you serve. And like you, my own
    children have attended since August, and I have been fortunate
    that some of the students in Mississippi that were able to
    attend in person, early, safely. That is critical.
        So, we know, as I mentioned in a previous response that the
    impact of COVID effected some regions differently than other
    regions. And we have to be aware of that and provide the
    flexibilities where needed. We recognize that in some places,
    while students have been in school, it might have been in a
    hybrid model, or some students have had access more than other
    students, due to, whether it is confidence, or trauma with the
    pandemic, some students will still need support even if they
    are going into school, maybe half-time, or full-time even.
        We also know that summer learning will help bridge those
    gaps of learning that we experienced through the disruption of
    COVID-19. So, flexibility is important. And what we are trying
    to do is balance flexibility while making sure that the impacts
    of COVID-19 are being addressed with the American Rescue Plan,
    as was the expectation from Congress.
        So, we are working closely with States to communicate
    flexibilities, and we are available, if there are questions in
    Mississippi, to discuss how their plans are being rolled out,
    and questions that they might have around flexibilities, or
    adherences to specific requirements that might have come out of
    the agency.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. So, all we have to do is really contact
    your Department and for these individual questions, because I
    know they have some really good ideas, but we want to make sure
    we are following the guidelines the way that we are supposed to
    be doing that.
        Secretary Cardona. Sure. Senator, you know, we do encourage
    innovation also. So, we look forward to hearing it. As matter
    of fact, we will reach out, just to make sure that we are
    partnering with Mississippi to make sure that their questions
    are answered, and that we can promote as much flexibility to
    meet the needs of the students as needed.

                                CHARTER SCHOOLS

        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you. And I have a little time
    left. We have seven charter schools operating in Mississippi
    and, you know, charter schools have given parents the
    flexibility to decide which schools best fits their child's
    needs, individually, and not the government. In some instances,
    charter schools also have the freedom to adapt their classrooms
    as they see fit. And over the years, charter schools have seen
    increases in academic gains. We have had a lot of success
    there, which allow children more opportunities as they continue
    in their academic career.
        And with your commitment to ensuring all students have
    access to a quality education, how will you support school
    choice in order to expand access to higher quality charter
    schools?
        Secretary Cardona. I am a big proponent of high-quality
    schools for all students across the country. And I recognize
    that students have options and, public charter schools are
    options for students. And I feel that all schools should be
    held to similar standards of accountability. And I think that
    is where I stand with that. I have seen examples of schools
    that needed a lot of intervention, but I have also seen
    examples of schools that really met the needs of the student
    and the families in a charter school.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Because we really had some good luck.
    We had a Senator Michael Watson, State Senator at the time,
    really worked on this a long time. He is Secretary of State
    right now. But it really proved that we made a lot of ground
    there that were good decisions and beneficial. So, you will
    continue to support funding for the charter school program? Is
    that what you are saying?
        Secretary Cardona. Yes. The President made it very clear.
    You know, we don't--we are not going to be promoting a private
    charter school growth, but we are endorsing the programs that
    exist now where students are taking advantage of public charter
    schools.
        Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Murray. Thank you. My understanding is Senator
    Manchin is going to walk in the door behind me at any moment.
    He will be our last questioner.

                         STATE PLANS FOR ESSER FUNDING

        While we are waiting for him. Mr. Secretary, I just wanted
    to thank you and your staff for all the hard work implementing
    the American Rescue Plan Act and other COVID-19 Relief
    Legislation, and the fiscal year 2021 Appropriations Bill. I
    know you got a lot on your plate. And I know the processes--the
    Department is really in the process of reviewing the State
    plans that are being submitted for each State's final one-third
    share of ESSER (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency
    Relief Fund) allocations under the American Rescue Plan.
        But one of my priorities really is, is that the
    legislation--in the legislation is the required State and
    school district set asides for evidence-based interventions
    that address the academic, and social, and emotional needs of
    students of color, students experiencing homelessness,
    underserved students.
        Secretary Cardona. Yes, right.
        Senator Murray. And I really appreciate the Department's
    template for State plans that include descriptions of state
    strategies, for carrying out these required activities, and
    strategies for States to support these district plans. Can you
    just assure us that the Department will only approve high-
    quality plans that effectively address the requirements of the
    law?
        Secretary Cardona. Yes. As I said at the beginning, that is
    where the honor lies, making sure that we are serving our
    students. And on behalf of the 50 million students, when we
    review those plans, we want to ensure that we are building back
    better, and that the plans are addressing the inequities that
    were exacerbated by the pandemic, that the plans engage our
    stakeholders in different ways, because that is critically
    important. Many folks who were already struggling in school
    prior to the pandemic are now further away. So, we need to
    engage them to make sure that the schools that we are reopening
    are welcoming places that are able to meet their needs as well.
        Senator Murray. Well, thank you. I really appreciate that
    commitment. And I just ask that you keep my staff updated on
    the review of those plans. As you know, high quality plans are
    only successful if they are effectively implemented. And I know
    your Department has hosted webinars, and established a
    clearinghouse, and taken some other actions, which I really
    appreciate.
        And while we are waiting for Senator Manchin, share some
    thoughts on how the Department will support and monitor those
    plans.
        Secretary Cardona. Senator, I appreciate you mentioning the
    actions that we have taken. We have--take your time. This is
    something I want to talk about. So, we do have a best practices
    clearinghouse, innovation doesn't come from Washington, D.C.,
    alone. In fact, across the country, we have over 1,100
    submissions of innovative practices to reopen schools, and
    engage those students that were hardest to engage during the
    pandemic.
        So, we are lifting our best practices from across the
    country. And, you know, I always say, we are going to heal
    together, we are going to learn together, we are going to grow
    together. And the tools that we have are at the disposal of the
    districts now are tools that were developed with them, not for
    them, with them. And I have to say that, you know, we are
    continuing that conversation. We are having an equity summit
    next week, where we are inviting everyone to come take a look
    at what it means to rethink addressing inequities, and be bold.
    Our students deserve it. Looking forward to that.
        Senator Murray. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Manchin.
        Secretary Cardona. Senator.
        Senator Manchin. Did I interrupt you?
        Secretary Cardona. No. Not at all.

                               HOMELESS EDUCATION

        Senator Manchin. Thank you so much. Let me, a few things.
    And I appreciate so much, Secretary, on the difficult job you
    have. And I want to go through a few things because a lot of it
    either makes sense or doesn't make sense. But the main thing
    is, I have really a problem with homelessness with children.
    And I noticed that the budget hadn't been increased for that.
    But I know that we put, myself and Murkowski, and all of our
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle supported $800 million
    going into that. But if the base doesn't move because, if it
    hasn't moved, it has been flat.
        Secretary Cardona. Right, right.
        Senator Manchin. It is growing. I hope you would show
    attention to that. I know we were able to meet it this year,
    but we won't be able to meet a year after that.
        Secretary Cardona. Right.
        Senator Manchin. Okay? So, if you can.
        Secretary Cardona. Sure. And I appreciate that. I recall
    experiences with students in the district where I worked
    before, who were experiencing homelessness. And I was always
    amazed at how they were able to engage in learning, and be a
    part of extracurriculars with housing instability, not knowing
    where they were going to go.
        And that reduces the bandwidth for learning when you are
    thinking about where am I going to sleep tonight? So, the
    money, the $800 million for homeless education through ARP
    (American Rescue Plan) is critically important. But I also want
    to share that the focus on community schools--the focus on
    community schools, and the vast proposal in the American
    Families Plan, is also intended to address some of these issues
    that lead to homelessness, right?
        Senator Manchin. And I think homelessness, and I was just
    asking, we need to describe it make sure we are all on the same
    page.
        Secretary Cardona. Right.
        Senator Manchin. McKinney-Vento describes homelessness one
    way, and the Department describes it another way. So, they
    might show in West Virginia we don't have that many. We know we
    have because we are basically talking to the schools. We know
    kids have been disrupted, things like that.
        Secretary Cardona. Right.
        Senator Manchin. We need to get that definition on the same
    wavelength. And let me go through a few more.
        Secretary Cardona. Sure.
        Senator Manchin. So, on that one there, and the second
    tranche of money is going to supposed to come out for them, the
    McKinney-Vento. These are very, very important. The other thing
    I wanted to talk about is community college. Okay. First of
    all, I will talk about pre-K 3 and 4, which I agree one million
    percent.
        Secretary Cardona. Yes.
        Senator Manchin. We have been doing it when it wasn't even
    popular.
        Secretary Cardona. Right.
        Senator Manchin. Let me tell you why we did it. Just on
    nutrition, just giving kids some stability in life. And we had
    a challenge in Appalachia. So, we had to. And I did it when I
    was governor, we have done it, and it has worked out great. So,
    I am glad the whole Nation, because you cannot get ahead of the
    curve if you don't start at 3 and 4 years of age.
        Secretary Cardona. Right.

                         FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROGRAM

        Senator Manchin. God bless you on that. Where I disagree a
    little bit on community and technical colleges, and I disagree
    on free.
        Secretary Cardona. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Manchin. And I said, let me earn it. I have told
    people this and, you know, someone said free college. I said, I
    have a child, who is up 30-40 years of age. If they had had
    free college, they would still be in college. They never left,
    they loved it so much. That is just a little tidbit on that.
        But on community, here is the thing. Community technical
    colleges usually trained to skills, skill sets. It is not the
    same as a 4-year baccalaureate, or it gives them a segue,
    because their grades might not have been good enough. Okay. I
    understand all that. But most of it is skill sets.
        If we could determine the skill sets we need in different
    categories, in different parts of our country. So, if our
    community colleges are training for one thing in West Virginia,
    you are training for another thing in California, another thing
    in different parts of the country. If those skill sets are met
    by someone who is going, and we have a Stafford loan that we
    basically guarantee federally, you take the loan out. You, you
    accomplish that within a 2-year period of a community college,
    and you have that associate degree, then it should be forgiven.
        Let them earn it. Don't give it on the front end, earn it
    on the back end. You be surprised how much more they respect
    and appreciate something they have earned, than something you
    have given them. That is the only thing I have said about that,
    because I can tell you, as a parent, it works and works very
    well. And it is very efficient. You know, that would be like
    the same as a kid getting it: Where is my allowance, dad? And
    he is 35 years old. Do you understand where I am coming from?
        Secretary Cardona. Yes. Thank you, Senator. And I look
    forward to hearing more, and working with you, too. We need to
    make sure that all students have access.
        Senator Manchin. Right.
        Secretary Cardona. We need to make sure that all students
    have either access to the skilled development that you
    mentioned. And you are absolutely right, the workforce needs--
    --
        Senator Manchin. And for a time, either way.
        Secretary Cardona. But also, it might be an opportunity for
    students who don't think that they have the potential to go to
    college, to get access to a 2-year college and then continue on
    to a 4-year school.
        Senator Manchin. No problem.
        Secretary Cardona. So, we are widening the net, and we know
    the earning potential is greater when you graduate college. And
    I can tell you, 21 percent for community college graduates, I
    believe this is good for the economy in the long term. It is
    really creating a workforce with higher earning potential,
    better discretionary income, and I do think it is----

                               FINANCIAL LITERACY

        Senator Manchin. What is the dropout rate? You ever look at
    the dropout rate? Do you know why student loans are so high?
    Because we cannot even demand that they have financial
    literacy. They come in, we cannot even have a registrar say,
    no, you are not getting that much, Miguel, you don't, you only
    need $4,000. I know you qualify because your family is for
    $11,004, but $4,000 is going to be fine. They cannot say that.
    So, end up stacking up debt, 2 years they flunk out or they
    quit because they haven't had to pay any payments out. And all
    of a sudden it comes tumbling down.
        Secretary Cardona. Yes.
        Senator Manchin. We do a horrible job of managing student
    debt, but we are talking about, eliminated before you have
    people responsible for it.
        Secretary Cardona. We are going to be aggressive on the
    student debt, and making sure that we are communicating, that
    we are advocating for students, working with students, putting
    the students at the center. I am eager to get going on that and
    get started.
        Senator Manchin. I cannot wait to work--I cannot wait to
    work with you.
        Secretary Cardona. Same here.
        Senator Manchin. There are so many good things--and I would
    love to----
        Secretary Cardona. Same here. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Murray. Thank you.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you.
        Senator Murray. That will end our hearing today. I want to
    thank all of our fellow committee members for their
    participation. Secretary Cardona, thank you for your very
    thoughtful answers today, and to talk about the President's
    budget. I do look forward to continuing to work with you, to
    support students and families in our country.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        For any senators who wish to ask additional questions,
    questions for the record will be due Friday, June 25, at 5 p.m.
    The hearing record will also remain open until then for any
    member who wishes to submit additional materials for the
    record.
        Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted to Hon. Miguel Cardona
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
        Question. I'd like to follow-up on our discussion during the
    hearing about implementation of fiscal equity requirements under
    current law. These requirements include resource allocation reviews by
    states, school districts and schools identified for support and
    improvement. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) reported most states (43 of 51) indicated helping districts
    identify resource inequities as somewhat or very challenging based on
    survey results prior to the pandemic.
        Please share the Department's plans in fiscal year 2021 and fiscal
    year 2022 for supporting, enhancing and monitoring resource allocation
    reviews by state and local education agencies and schools?
        Answer. Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) requires a State educational agency (SEA)
    to periodically review resource allocation to support school
    improvement in each local educational agency (LEA) in the State serving
    a significant number of schools identified for support and improvement.
    This requirement is part of the Department's monitoring protocol for
    Title I, Part A (available at: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/08/SEA-
    Protocol-Title-I.docx, under ``Support for LEA and School
    Improvement''). Specifically, the protocol asks each SEA to describe
    how it periodically reviews resource allocation to support school
    improvement in each LEA serving a significant number or percentage of
    schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and
    improvement.
        In addition, the Department has been providing on-going technical
    assistance to States regarding this requirement. For example, the State
    Support Network, created by the Department in 2016 to provide technical
    assistance to support the transition to the Every Student Succeeds Act
    (ESSA), hosted a community of practice (CoP) with 13 States in 2019
    that focused on planning for school resource allocation reviews. Please
    find more information and several resources here: https://oese.ed.gov/
    resources/oese-technical-assistance-centers/state-support-network/
    resources/resource-allocation-reviews-community-practice-summary/. The
    State Support Network also created a number of tools to assist with
    school improvement planning, including Tools for School Improvement
    Planning, a CoP for ``Implementing Needs Assessments'' and other
    resources for developing needs assessments. It also published several
    blogs about using school financial data in decisionmaking, including
    ``Going Beyond Finances in Resource Allocation Decisions''.
        Further, the Department's Comprehensive Centers have provided
    individualized technical assistance to several States on this topic. In
    the past 2 years (since the 2019 competition established new TA
    providers), the Comprehensive Centers have been supporting States in
    their implementation of ESEA requirements. Two centers specifically
    have provided assistance to States on resource allocation reviews. The
    Region 15 Comprehensive Center is supporting Utah in the State's work.
    WestEd and the Region 15 Comprehensive Center have worked on an equity
    driven resource allocation framework during another State collaborative
    session. The Region 13 Comprehensive Center has worked with the
    Oklahoma State Department of Education to design a Resource Allocation
    Review toolkit. The Region 2 Comprehensive Center is supporting efforts
    in Connecticut and Rhode Island to develop a process to conduct
    resource allocation reviews.
        The fiscal year 2022 request would build on these efforts to
    strengthen fisal equity through the Title I Equity Grants proposal,
    which would require each State to collect and make publicly available
    detailed data on the allocation of State and local education funding to
    school districts and schools. The proposal also would require the use
    of a consistent definition of per-pupil expenditures to support
    identification and mitigation of disparities in funding for high-
    poverty districts and schools, along with goals, interim targets, and
    timelines for closing identified gaps.
        In addition, our proposal would encourage States to undertake a
    comprehensive review of their school finance systems through a $50
    million reservation for voluntary State School Funding Equity
    Commissions that would (1) identify funding and educational opportunity
    gaps based on measures of equity and adequacy; (2) through extensive
    community engagement, develop detailed action plans for addressing
    existing gaps that include goals, interim targets, and timelines for
    closing identified gaps; and (3) report on progress toward these goals
    and targets.
        Question. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) established a
    policy requiring the reporting of actual personnel and nonpersonnel
    expenditures, disaggregated by Federal, state and local source of funds
    for each school and school district in each State. Transparently
    providing this information would allow a range of uses from parents
    seeing easily how their school's spending compares to other schools in
    the district to other stakeholders using the information to participate
    in equity conversations on differences within and between states.
        What is the Department's plan for ensuring states and school
    districts comply with ESSA's policy requiring the reporting of actual
    personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures, disaggregated by Federal,
    state and local source of funds for each school and school district and
    such information is made available to the public in an accessible and
    understandable manner?
        Answer. The Department will ensure that SEAs and LEAS meet the
    report card requirements in ESEA section 1111(h), including the
    requirement to report per-pupil expenditure data. As you are aware, to
    help facilitate compliance with these requirements, the Department
    released non-regulatory guidance on State and local report cards in
    September 2019 (available at: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/03/report-
    card-guidance-final.pdf). This document includes detailed guidance for
    SEAs and LEAs regarding how to calculate per-pupil expenditures. The
    guidance encourages SEAs to establish uniform statewide procedures for
    calculating per-pupil expenditures so that that data are uniform,
    understandable, and comparable across each LEA and school in a State.
        To help ensure SEAs and LEAs comply with applicable requirements,
    including reporting per-pupil expenditures, a complete review of State
    and local report cards is included in the Department's Title I, Part A
    monitoring protocols, which are found at: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/
    office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/performance-
    review/). An important aspect of our consolidated monitoring is a
    thorough review, for each State monitored in a particular year, of the
    State's report card to ensure that it includes all required elements.
    In addition, each January, the Department reviews each State website to
    determine if States and districts were in compliance with certain
    report card requirements, including reporting per-pupil expenditure
    data. The Department shares the results of its review with each State.
        Over the past few years, the Department has initiated several
    technical assistance activities through the State Support Network, a
    four-year technical assistance contract begun in 2016 to support States
    and districts as they transitioned to the new ESSA requirements. Some
    of the technical assistance initiatives focused on State and local
    report cards, several of which have had a particular focus on per-pupil
    expenditure data. For example, in 2018 a community of practice
    involving Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, and
    Oklahoma focused on improving financial transparency. Other relevant
    communities of practice have focused on data quality, State and local
    report cards, and resource allocations. Information about these
    communities of practice can be found at: https://oese.ed.gov/resources/
    oese-technical-assistance-centers/state-support-network/resources/. The
    Network also created the ``Financial Transparency and Reporting
    Readiness Assessment Tool.'' This tool can help States and districts
    meet the ESSA reporting requirements by identifying and analyzing
    school level expenditure data. This tool contains two components--a
    self-diagnostic framework and an analysis tool--that are designed to
    help districts and States understand the dynamics of school-level per-
    pupil reporting in their own district financial data. The tool can be
    found at: https://oese.ed.gov/resources/oese-technical-assistance-
    centers/state-support-network/resources/financial-transparency-
    reporting-readiness-assessment-tool/.
        The Department is also funding the National Comprehensive Center's
    work with Georgetown University's Edunomics Lab to improve the quality
    and utility of school-level per-pupil expenditure data that is reported
    on State and local report cards as required under ESSA. Edunomics'
    initial work through this project involved analyzing the utility and
    usefulness of the school-level per-pupil expenditure data reported by
    each State (https://edunomicslab.org/state-data-tracker/). The current
    phase of the National Comprehensive Center's project with Edunomics is
    focused on working with a little under 20 school districts across
    different States to analyze each district's school-level expenditure
    data and build staff capacity to use data to drive decisionmaking for
    school improvement and equitable allocation of resources. After
    piloting tools and communication materials with these school districts,
    Edunomics will create a data visualization tool that all districts will
    be able to access to analyze their school-level per-pupil expenditure
    data and use it for finance decisionmaking.
        Additionally, the Department's National Center for Education
    Statistics (NCES) has been working with over 20 States to improve the
    quality of expenditure data reported through a voluntary data
    collection. Recently, NCES issued a report on highlights of school-
    level finance data that were previously reported (https://nces.ed.gov/
    pubs2021/2021305.pdf).
        The Department looks forward to expanding and building upon these
    efforts.
        Question. I appreciate the Secretary's commitment to properly
    implementing the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, including required
    state and school district set-asides for evidence-based interventions
    that address the academic, social, and emotional needs of students of
    color, students experiencing homelessness and other underserved student
    groups disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.
        Please describe in detail how the Department will support, monitor
    and enforce requirements of the Elementary and Secondary School
    Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) related to these set-asides and
    implementation of State and district ESSER plans related to these state
    and district learning loss requirements.
        Answer. We support these requirements through the State plan
    process that the Department established, technical assistance efforts,
    non-regulatory guidance documents, and ongoing communication with
    States through our program officers.
        The ARP ESSER State plan template requires grantees to describe how
    they will use each required set-aside under the ARP Act. We will
    monitor grantees against their approved ARP ESSER State plans as well
    as statutory requirements. As needed, the Department will issue any
    findings and develop corrective action plans to address those findings.
    We are committed to working with grantees to resolve any findings.
        In July, the Department issued a notice inviting comment related to
    data submission requirements for the ESSER (including ESSER I, ESSER
    II, and ARP ESSER) annual performance report (APR). The public is asked
    to comment on data quality and burden-related concerns related to
    collecting data on evidence-based summer learning or summer enrichment
    programs, evidence-based afterschool programs, and extended
    instructional time, among other items. After the data collection
    instrument is finalized and APR data is submitted, the Department will
    review grantee submissions to identify technical assistance needs and
    inform future monitoring of grantees.
        Question. Department regulations state the Secretary may make a
    continuation award for a direct grant for a budget period after the
    first budget period of an approved multi-year project if Congress has
    appropriated sufficient funds for that purpose and the grantee is
    making substantial progress toward meeting the goals of the project,
    among other factors. The regulations further state ``In deciding
    whether a grantee has made substantial progress, the Secretary may
    consider any information relevant to the authorizing statute, a
    criterion, a priority, or a performance measure, or to a financial or
    other requirement that applies to the selection of applications for new
    grants.''
        For fiscal year 2018 and 2019, how many direct grantees did not
    receive a continuation award for any reason? How many of such denials
    were related to the lack of substantial progress on performance? How
    much total funding was associated with such denial of a continuation
    award due to lack of substantial progress on performance?
        Answer. In fiscal years 2018 and 2019, 11 grantees received a
    continuation award of $1, which is equivalent to a denial of a
    continuation award but is the amount required to keep the grant award
    active so grantees can complete work already funded. Of those, 10 were
    at least in part because of issues related to substantial progress. The
    total amount impacted grantees requested in their initial grant
    applications for the budget period not funded is approximately $38
    million. In addition, the Department reduced continuation awards for
    other grantees if appropriate based on lack of substantial progress or
    other considerations. Further, some grantees asked for their
    continuation award to be reduced or for the grants to end early due to
    their concerns about not being able to implement their projects
        Question. What policies or criteria have the Department adopted for
    considering information in making a determination of substantial
    progress? If none, how does the Department consistently evaluate
    substantial progress?
        Answer. The Department follows the procedures for non-competing
    continuation awards as set forth in 34 CFR 75.253 and has internal
    policy about how to determine substantial progress, including what
    should be included in documentation for non-competing continuation
    award documents. The policy includes considerations to support
    decisionmaking, including program- and grantee-specific context,
    monitoring grantee performance, and discussing performance concerns
    with grantees. There are also internal discussions across offices to
    share about office practices and lessons learned, particularly in light
    of the COVID-19 pandemic and how best to consider associated
    disruptions to the project activities in making substantial progress
    determinations.
        Question. Earlier this year, the Department withdrew a notice
    inviting applications for equity assistance centers (EACs) issued by
    the previous administration and extended existing contracts for 1 year.
    Equity Assistance Centers can play an important role in addressing
    racial and other equity concerns and designing and implementing school
    desegregation plans.
        What are the Department's plans for the new notice inviting
    applications?
        Answer. The Department plans to publish a notice inviting
    applications for new awards in the Federal Register in early 2022.
        Question. How does the Department evaluate the resources needed for
    EACs to carry out this important work? Please share any analysis
    completed that supports the sufficiency of the $6.5 million requested
    for EACs to delivery timely and effective services across the entire
    United States.
        Answer. We have not carried out any detailed analysis of EAC
    resource needs, but we do ask the EAC grantees to tell us in their
    annual performance reports the percentage of technical assistance
    requests received from organizations that they accepted during the
    performance period. Annually across 2017 to 2020, the EACs were able to
    accept between 95 percent and 98 percent of the technical assistance
    requests they received from the field.
        Question. As of June 11, more than sixty percent of the CARES
    Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds ($8
    billion of $13.2 billion) have been recorded as spent and outlaid from
    the Federal Treasury, while $2.1 billion of $54.3 billion provided
    through ESSER in the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
    Appropriations (CRRSSA) Act, 2021 and $25 million of $81 billion
    obligated from ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of
    2021 have been so reported. The Department also is in the process of
    reviewing state plans for the obligation of the remaining one-third of
    the ARP ESSER funds. However, earlier this year the Government
    Accountability Office reported ``Federal spending data alone provide an
    incomplete picture of states' and school districts' spending'' noting
    ``there is often a significant gap between when a district uses the
    funds and when those funds are reported as spent in state and Federal
    reporting systems''.
        Please describe actions taken and planned by the Department to
    provide a more complete reporting of the use and status of ESSER funds.
        Answer. Section 15011 of the CARES Act specifies the reporting
    requirements for covered programs. Existing reporting requirements,
    established under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency
    Act of 2006 (FFATA), Public Law No. 109--282, as amended by the Digital
    Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act), Public Law No. 113--
    101, were deemed sufficient to meet many of the reporting requirements
    for ESSER fund program. Specifically, States were required to report to
    the General Services Administration's FFATA Subaward Reporting System
    (FSRS), the amount of ESSER funds granted to school districts. These
    data are required to be reported directly from States and are made
    available to the Department and the public through USAspending.gov.
        To further meet the Section 15011 reporting requirements and
    additional reporting requirements described within the ESSER
    Certification and Agreements, the Department created an annual
    reporting process for ESSER grantees (States). The annual report
    captures the following information (1) award and outlay information
    from the Department to ESSER grantees (States); (2) award and outlay
    information from ESSER grantees to their subgrantees (school districts/
    LEAs); and (3) subgrantee expenditure data. States were required to
    provide these data for district awards/expenditures made March 13,
    2020--September 30, 2020 to the Department in early 2021. States will
    be required to provide additional reports on ESSER funds annually
    thereafter. The current ESSER reporting form is available for review
    through: https://api.covid-relief-data.ed.gov/collection/api/v1/public/
    docs/ESSER_Data_Collection_Final.pdf.
        The Department acknowledges the importance of collecting and
    publicly reporting information on school districts' financial
    commitments (obligations), as well as outlays in order to more
    completely reflect the status of their use of Federal COVID-19 relief
    funds. Earlier this year, the Department proposed modifications to its
    ESSER annual report on State and school district spending data to
    include obligations data in subsequent reporting cycles. The proposed
    modifications, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, are
    currently available for public comment on the Federal Register:
    (https://www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2021/07/02/2021-14200/
    agency-information-collection-activities-comment-request-education-
    stabilization-fund-elementary-and).
        Question. The Department's fiscal year 2022 Annual Performance Plan
    includes plans to identify opportunities to further build and use
    evidence in both formula and competitive grant programs.
        How many competitive grant programs will include an evidence
    priority in fiscal year 2021?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2021, 19 competitions required the use of
    evidence through a requirement or an absolute priority and 6
    competitions included a competitive priority for evidence, and 18
    encouraged applicants to rely on evidence by including it in selection
    criteria. An additional 2 competitions encouraged the use of evidence,
    such as through an invitational priority. Note that two competitions
    included evidence in more than one way and are thus counted in multiple
    categories. An unduplicated total of 43 competitions, or almost 60
    percent of all competitions in fiscal year 2021, included evidence in
    at least one of these ways.
        Question. How many competitive grant programs does the Department
    plan to include an evidence priority in fiscal year 2022?
        Answer. The Department is discussing how best to use and build
    evidence in fiscal year 2022 competitions in alignment with statutory
    requirements, the body of available evidence, and lessons learned from
    previous competitions.
        Question. Please identify the formula programs in which evidence
    building and use will be promoted and supported and the specific
    strategies to accomplish these goals.
        Answer. The Department is supporting evidence building and use in
    the ESEA formula grant programs under Titles I, II, and IV. Evidence is
    also important within the context of IDEA formula grant programs. The
    Department works with the Comprehensive Centers, the Regional
    Educational Laboratories, and the technical assistance centers funded
    by the Office of Special Education programs to identify and share
    resources related to evidence building and use. To further support the
    identification of evidence-based practices, The Institute of Education
    Sciences' What Works Clearinghouse has recently added a new feature to
    its website--evidence tier ``badges''--making it easier for users to
    know whether a given approach meets regulatory definitions of strong,
    moderate, or promising evidence. The WWC has also produced a series of
    technical assistance materials supporting the use of this feature and
    of the site overall. In addition, the Department is providing resources
    related to the evidence-based strategies required under the Elementary
    and Secondary School Education Relief Fund (ESSER Fund) under the
    American Rescue Plan. Within the context of safely reopening all
    schools, the Department has created the Safer Schools and Campuses Best
    Practices Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse provides resources for
    practices that can be leading examples of how best to provide support
    to students and educators.
        Question. Please describe efforts the Department has undertaken to
    build the internal capacity of staff in the use and implementation of
    evidence in activities funded through formula and competitive grant
    programs.
        Answer. Measuring Skills. In 2020, ED developed and fielded the
    inaugural Data and Evidence Use Survey to measure staff skills. In Q3,
    the Office of the Chief Data Officer and the National Center for
    Educational Evaluation finalized the survey to respond to requirements
    of the Evidence Act and the Federal Data Strategy. CDOs in other
    agencies, including DHS, Commerce, Labor, and the Air Force have
    requested and received ED's survey to support their efforts. The
    results of the ED Survey are used to target staff training to improve
    data literacy and the capacity to use evidence.
        The Evidence Act requires ED to assess its evaluation activities
    and agency capacity to support the development and use of evaluation.
    Congress explicitly made this requirement an agency-wide focus by
    instructing the Evaluation Officer to coordinate activities with agency
    officials in carrying out the functions of the Evaluation Officer in
    section 313(d) of title 5. Additionally, the Open Government Data Act
    requires the Chief Data Officer to support the Evaluation Officer in
    identifying and using data to carry out their statutory functions
    (Sec. 3520(c)(9)). The Evaluation Officer and the Chief Data Officer
    share common interest and authority in carrying out these functions and
    collaborate to field the annual Data and Evidence Use Survey.
        Enhancing Skills. In 2021 ED launched its new Data Literacy
    Program, an intentional commitment to upskilling and continual
    learning. The program's goal is to develop a data culture at ED which
    enables all staff to speak a shared language around data and evidence.
    An expert-based approach was designed with support from The Data Lodge
    to provide a comprehensive corpus of flexible training to reach 3,500
    staff. A partnership among ED's data office, research office, and human
    resources office resulted in a committee of 5 SES and GS15 leaders
    (including ED's Evaluation Officer) who developed the program
    blueprint. The blueprint mapped out a programmatic approach over 3
    years, engaging ED offices in waves of customized, highly interactive
    sessions. Learning pathways were developed using Skillsoft. ED also
    developed plans for its own developed content and OCDO-led introductory
    workshops. Current training consists of four major components: (1) a
    hallmark initial, interactive 2-hour session ``Exploring Data
    Literacy,'' (2) a one-hour ED-specific session, ``Data Literacy 101''
    (3) four self-paced Learning Pathways of SkillSoft and external courses
    around evidence, decisionmaking, visualization, and analytics and (4)
    Learning Bytes, 15 min interactive topics recorded for easy use.
        As ED staff begin to build data literacy, we continue our efforts
    to ensure that all staff are increasingly well-versed in the role of
    evidence in the work of schools, States, districts, and institutions of
    higher education. This past year, the Institute of Education Sciences
    and the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development's Grants
    Policy Office (GPO) began offering ``Evidence 101: Evidence Use at the
    Department of Education'' to all new hires each quarter. As part of
    that training, new staff are introduced to statutory and regulatory
    requirements related to evidence use, the history of evidence use at
    the Department, and Department resources that can support their work.
    IES and GPO have also worked to build a virtual ``community of
    practice'' focused on evidence use based on a monthly newsletter to
    staff and associated website, the Evidence Connection. Approximately
    250 staff across the Department are currently members and receive
    regular updates about resources that can support their efforts to use
    evidence in their own work and support the work of Department grantees.
        Question. What is the Department's plan for continuing to build
    this capacity in the coming year?
        Answer. In 2022, the ED Data Literacy Program will advance general
    staff ability to use, understand, and apply data and evidence to
    support decisionmaking around programs, policy, and operations. In
    2022, the program will mature current engagement, curriculum, and
    resources. First, our engagement will broaden and deepen. Current Data
    Literacy Ambassadors for the first wave of ED offices participating in
    the program will customize and deliver existing program resources for
    relevant and actionable professional development. We will onboard
    additional offices to reach all 3,500 staff. Second, we will expand our
    current curriculum and add new courses, both interactive and virtual,
    asynchronous training. In 2022, we would like to add 4 major ED-
    specific courses featuring ED leaders, data processes, core data
    collections, and projects and tools. Lastly, we plan to augment and
    enhance resources around data language (e.g., Glossary), expertise
    (e.g., Directory) best practices and technology. To address the
    specific capacity-building needs of ED data professionals who support
    the production of evidence for grant programs, ED launched its new Data
    Professionals Community of Practice (DPCoP) in August 2021. In
    alignment with ED Data Strategy Objective 2.3 ``Establish clear career
    paths and training curriculums for data professionals'', the DPCoP will
    be a member-driven collaborative forum open to all ED data
    professionals. It will provide opportunities to share resources, tools,
    and successful practices in ED, inform leadership of data-related
    issues or concerns, and establish workgroups to address specific topics
    and challenges.
        Question. How will the Department measure the growth of this
    capacity and expected improved targeting of resources to activities
    authorized by current law and aligned with evidence of effectiveness?
        Answer. Evidence Use. As noted above, the Department is currently
    fielding the second iteration of its Data and Evidence Use Survey. The
    survey provides repeated cross-sectional estimates of ED staff capacity
    to use evidence in their work in areas including: (1) designing
    performance measures, (2) providing technical assistance on evidence
    definitions and requirements, and (3) monitoring grantees for effective
    evidence use. These data can be used to inform professional development
    opportunities for ED staff and the production of new resources for both
    staff and stakeholder use.
        Resource Targeting. The Department will continue to work with SEAs,
    LEAs, institutions of higher education and other entities to support
    and increase the use of evidence to inform decisionmaking.
        Question. How does the Department support and monitor SEA and LEA
    decisionmaking related to reasonably available determinations for
    evidence use under provisions of ESEA? What are the Department's plan
    to monitor and further support such determinations?
        Answer. To support States, local educational agencies (LEAs), and
    schools in understanding the levels of evidence and interventions that
    meet them, the Department continues to disseminate information and
    provide technical assistance that highlights the evidence levels
    associated with a wide range of interventions, strategies, and
    approaches. Specifically, the Institute of Education Sciences What
    Works Clearinghouse (WWC) provides information on the evidence levels
    of interventions, strategies, and approaches on a wide range of topics
    through both Intervention Reports and Practices Guides, as well as
    individual studies. These user-friendly resources describe the level of
    evidence demonstrated, the characteristics of students, and the setting
    (urban, rural, suburban) of the research studies included. When
    evaluations produced through discretionary grant programs are submitted
    to the WWC for review to determine if they meet the evidence levels as
    defined in the ESSA, they can be highlighted in the WWC for use in
    supporting formula grantees. In addition, the Department's technical
    assistance network also produces resources to support their respective
    target audiences in understanding and using evidence. For example, this
    resource from the Regional Education Laboratory West provides important
    considerations for using evidence-based interventions.
        With respect to monitoring use of evidence consistent with
    statutory and regulatory requirements, the Department includes
    questions regarding State and local compliance with evidence
    requirements as relevant in its monitoring protocols. In addition to
    understanding compliance with these requirements, these monitoring
    protocol questions allow program officers to identify areas for future
    technical assistance to support States, LEAs, and schools in their
    efforts to support student achievement.
        Question. Last year, Congress removed a limitation on Federal
    education funds that prevented the use of such funds for transportation
    costs associated with school integration efforts.
        How will the Department and its technical assistance providers work
    with state educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies
    (LEAs) and schools to inform and support them in this use of funds?
        Answer. While Congress has removed certain limitations on the use
    of Federal education funds for transportation costs related to school
    integration plans, section 8526(2) of the Elementary and Secondary
    Education Act of 1965 (ESEA; 20 U.S.C. 7906(2)) prohibits ESEA funds
    from being used for transportation unless otherwise authorized by the
    ESEA. Most ESEA programs, including Title I Grants to LEAs and Title
    IV-A Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, do not authorize
    the use of funds to transport students to or from the regular school
    day.
        In addition, section 802 of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20
    U.S.C. 1652), titled ``Prohibition against busing'' includes a
    restriction for the use of funds under ED programs for the
    transportation of students or teachers to carry out a plan of racial
    desegregation of any school system, subject to certain contingencies.
        Question. The previous administration failed to hire sufficient
    staff at the Office for Civil Rights, despite increases in
    appropriations and direction to do so.
        Please describe the impact of each staff member having such a large
    caseload on their ability to thoroughly investigate complaints for
    associated evidence of systemic discrimination, timely process
    complaints, conduct compliance reviews, and monitor corrective actions.
        Answer. A critical component of OCR's mission is the prompt
    investigation and resolution of complaints. A large per-staff caseload
    hinders OCR's ability to discharge this responsibility in a timely
    manner, which is also unacceptable to both complainants and recipients.
    OCR enforcement staff are required to conduct investigations and make
    determinations that are factually accurate and legally sound. Ensuring
    that these standards are met is a process that requires careful
    consideration of evidence provided by complainants and recipients.
    There are no ``short cuts'' to fulfilling OCR's mission. Current
    caseload numbers may impact OCR's ability to pursue proactive
    enforcement activities--compliance reviews and directed
    investigations--as well as effectively address an anticipated increase
    in complaints. In short, large caseloads can slow the delivery of
    justice for complainants and disserve school districts and
    postsecondary institutions that need guidance from the Department to
    ensure that they provide all students with an environment that is free
    from discrimination.
        Question. How would the additional staff requested in the budget be
    utilized to enable OCR to more effectively fulfill its mission?
        Answer. The majority of the additional staff will be utilized to
    resolve complaints and proactive activities (compliance reviews and
    directed investigations). OCR also requested additional legal staff
    that will develop policy guidance and regulatory materials for civil
    rights enforcement. Additional administrative staff will respond to
    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and help reduce the FOIA
    backlog and support Civil Rights Data Collection. Requested
    administrative staff are also needed to provide oversight of OCR's IT
    security, systems operations, website and records management.
        Question. With respect to the Charter School Grants program, the
    fiscal year 2022 Congressional Justification indicates: ``The
    Department will work to ensure that Charter Schools Grants funds
    support schools that are opened and operated with demonstrated family
    and community support, serve students from diverse racial and
    socioeconomic backgrounds, provide meaningful access to instruction for
    students with disabilities and English learners, maintain diverse
    educator workforces, and are subject to strong accountability,
    transparency, and oversight.'' The document also indicates that 14
    state entity grantees provide or plan to provide technical assistance
    to charter school subgrantees in meeting the needs of students with
    disabilities, while 13 provide or plan to provide technical assistance
    to subgrantees in meeting the needs of English learners.
        Please describe how the Department will accomplish each of the
    objectives outlined above.
        Answer. The Department looks forward to working with you and with
    other stakeholders to address these important priorities.
        Question. What does the Department know about the evidence base
    supporting the state entity technical assistance strategies for
    students with disabilities and English learners? With which tier, if
    any, of the definition in section 8101(21)(A) of the Elementary and
    Secondary Education Act (ESEA) do they align?
        Answer. The program statue does not require applicants to propose
    evidence-based technical assistance strategies, as such, information
    regarding the evidence base for specific state entity (SE) technical
    assistance strategies implemented by SE grantees to support students
    with disabilities and English learners was not examined as part of the
    review referenced in the program's Congressional Justification.
        Question. Please describe how the Department would use national
    activities funds available in fiscal year 2022 or supported by fiscal
    year 2022 appropriations for each of the national activities
    authorities available under the ESEA.
        How would these plans be informed by evidence of effectiveness and
    the needs of those served by each of the authorities?
        Answer. The Department does not yet have detailed plans for
    national activities in fiscal year 2022, since most planning for
    discretionary grant programs, including national activities
    authorities, takes place in the summer and fall prior to the beginning
    of the fiscal year. In addition, such plans depend in part on
    completion of final appropriations action, which includes both final
    funding levels and any applicable Congressional priorities for the use
    of national activities funds. Consideration of the needs of those
    served by our programs, as well as maximizing the use of evidence-based
    practices in meeting those needs, is the starting point for the
    Department's planning process.
        Question. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, SEAs and LEAs were
    required to develop plans for how they will identify and address the
    disparities of low-income and minority children being
    disproportionately taught by ineffective or inexperienced teachers.
        How does the Department plan to support the timely implementation
    of such plans, including through the use of funds appropriated and
    requested for Title II-A of ESEA and other current law authorities?
        Answer. ESEA section 1111(g)(1)(B) requires each SEA to describe
    how low-income and minority children enrolled in Title I, Part A
    schools are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-
    of-field, or inexperienced teachers, and the measures the SEA will use
    to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the SEA with respect to
    such description. Consistent with ESEA section 8302, the Department
    determined that this description was required as part of the
    consolidated State plan. Thus, each SEA was required to provide a
    description and how it will publicly report its progress in addressing
    any identified disparities. This provision does not require each SEA to
    submit a plan to the Department regarding how it will address those
    disparities. Information about the ESSA Consolidated State Plan,
    including each State's plan, can be found at: https://oese.ed.gov/
    offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/
    essa-consolidated-state-plans/.
        The Department includes a review of this requirement in our
    monitoring protocols for Title I, Part A (available at: https://
    oese.ed.gov/files/2020/08/SEA-Protocol-Title-I.docx). The Department
    requires each SEA monitored to describe how it evaluated its progress
    toward ensuring that low-income and minority children in Title I
    schools are not served at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-
    of-field, and inexperienced teachers and requests updated educator
    equity data. The Department also requires each SEA to describe how it
    publicly reported its progress toward meeting this requirement and asks
    for documentation of public reporting. Finally, the Department asks
    each SEA to describe how it supports LEAs in meeting this requirement.
    The SEA must describe how it ensures each LEA receiving a Title I, Part
    A subgrant identifies and addresses disparities resulting in low-income
    and minority students having disproportionate access to ineffective,
    out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers and requests that the SEA
    provide the following documentation, if applicable: LEA plan template
    reflecting this requirement; SEA guidance for LEAs related to equitable
    access to educators; and/or SEA monitoring protocol that demonstrates
    the SEA is verifying compliance with this requirement.
        In our review of States over the past several years, the Department
    has issued two monitoring findings related to these requirements. In
    2020, the Department cited Kentucky for two issues: 1) the State
    publicly reported inaccurate educator equity data; and 2) the State did
    not adequately document how it ensures that each LEA receiving a Title
    I subgrant identifies and addresses disparities resulting in low-income
    and minority students having disproportionate access to ineffective,
    out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers. In 2019, the Department
    issued a finding for New Jersey because although the State provides
    LEAs with multiple sources of related data, NJDOE is not currently
    evaluating or publicly reporting its progress in ensuring that low-
    income and minority children in Title I, Part A schools are not served
    at disproportionate rates by ineffective, inexperienced, and out-of-
    field teachers. The Department also issued a recommendation that New
    Jersey incorporate the requirement in ESEA section 1112(b)(2) in the
    State's subrecipient monitoring protocol to ensure that LEAs are
    meeting the statutory requirements to ensure that low-income and
    minority children in Title I, Part A schools are not served at
    disproportionate rates by ineffective, inexperienced, and out-of-field
    teachers. The reports for Kentucky and New Jersey (and all information
    related to the Department's consolidated monitoring, can be found at:
    https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-
    and-accountability/performance-review/).
        Regarding the use of Title II, Part A funds, the ESEA consolidated
    State plan asks each State to describe how it will use Title II, Part A
    funds to address this requirement, if it chooses to do so. In addition,
    the Department conducts an annual use-of-funds survey that asks SEAs to
    account for how State-level Title II, Part A funds are used. In school
    year (SY) 2019-2020, the most recent year for which survey data are
    available, 20 States indicated that they had spent at least some of
    their State-level Title II, Part A funds on activities to improve
    equitable access to effective teachers. The Department also conducts an
    annual survey on how LEA-level Title II, Part A funds are used; this
    survey is distributed to a nationally- and State-level-representative
    sample of LEAs in the country. In the survey covering expenditures in
    SY 2029-2020, 34 percent of responding LEAs indicated that they had
    spent at least some of their Title II, Part A funds on strategies to
    recruit, hire, and retain effective educators, although it is not clear
    if these expenditures specifically focused on ensuring equitable access
    effective educators in the districts. Additional detail on the results
    of the 2019-2020 surveys on how Title II, Part A funds were used is
    available at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/2021011/index.asp.
        The Department looks forward to expanding and building upon these
    efforts.
        Question. Analysis of CDC data and other reports indicate a
    reduction in routinely recommended vaccination of children and youth
    last year resulting from the disruption to routine healthcare caused by
    the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of proper vaccinations could provide an
    additional challenge to the return to in-person learning in the fall.
        How is the Department working with HHS to support the vaccination
    of children and youth needed for school enrollment for in-person
    learning?
        Answer. The Department is working to support HHS/CDC in the
    dissemination of guidance on vaccination of children and youth in the
    following manner:
      --Collaborated and hosted a number of webinars to share mitigation
            strategies and guidance with the educators, school personnel,
            families, education stakeholders, and public
      --Participated in bi-weekly ED/CDC planning calls to coordinate and
            organize scheduled webinars with HHS/CDC and the Department
      --Posted resource materials on the Department of Education website,
            federally supported National Technical Assistance websites, as
            well the newly launched Safer Schools and Campuses Best
            Practices Clearinghouse (https://
            Bestpracticesclearinghouse.ed.gov)
      --Participated in weekly established ED/CDC K-12 Touchbase calls to
            share information/research/guidance/upcoming agency planned
            activities
      --Released Guidance Handbooks for the education community and
            included information on the topic
        Question. The Department is developing supplemental priorities that
    may be applied to fiscal year 2022 and future grant competitions. The
    fiscal year 2022 Congressional Justification cites building and
    enhancing the instructional skills of a more diverse educator workforce
    as one possible supplemental priority.
        What other supplemental priorities may be applied in fiscal year
    2022 competitions?
        Answer. The Department published a Notice of Proposed Priorities on
    June 30, 2021. There are six draft priorities: (1) Addressing the
    Impact of COVID-19 on Students, Educators, and Faculty; (2) Promoting
    Equity in Student Access to Educational Resources, Opportunities, and
    Welcoming Environments; (3) Supporting a Diverse Educator Workforce and
    Professional Growth to Strengthen Student Learning; (4) Meeting Student
    Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs; (5) Increasing Postsecondary
    Education Access, Affordability, Completion, and Post-Enrollment
    Success; and (6) Strengthening Cross-Agency Coordination and Community
    Engagement to Advance Systemic Change.
        Question. Please identify the programs in which supplemental
    priorities will be applied.
        Answer. The public comment period on the Notice of Proposed
    Priorities closed on July 30. The Department is reviewing the comments
    received and is considering how best to incorporate the Secretary's
    priorities in fiscal year 2022 competitions once the priorities are
    finalized.
        Question. The budget includes $180 million, an increase of $15
    million more than the fiscal year 2021 LHHS bill, for the National
    Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The requested funds would
    maintain the current assessment schedule and provide funding for
    initial research and development investments intended to improve
    assessment quality and reduce future program costs. Over the past year,
    staff of the Department, National Center for Education Sciences and
    National Assessment Governing Board have provided informative updates
    on COVID-19-induced changes to the NAEP schedule and cost increases.
    Please provide:
        A description of the policies and procedures implemented to ensure
    sufficient oversight and monitoring of contracts, including cost
    controls.
        Answer. All Institute of Education Sciences (IES) acquisition
    activities, including NAEP, adhere to the Department's internal control
    strategies, policies, and procedures, with support from the
    Department's Contracts and Acquisition Management (CAM) team and Budget
    Service:
      --Budget Service reviews every planned and on-going contract over
            $100k. The Budget Service team reviews, approves, and allots
            funds in the Department's payment management system before
            funds can be obligated to support payments to vendors (by CAM).
      --CAM ensures that new and current contracts are legal and consistent
            with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR). Contracting
            Officers (who possess warrants to sign off on new acquisitions
            and day-to-day commitments) independently review every invoice
            submitted by vendors before payment to ensure that costs are
            allowable. CAM also partners with IES to validate that FAR
            requirements are maintained across the lifecycle of every
            individual Assessment contract.
        In the Department's most recent A-123 internal control entity level
    review of IES, completed in Fall 2020, IES (including the Assessment
    Division) provided evidence that IES meets and effectively implements
    all 17 GAO Green Book principal areas across all five GAO Internal
    Control component areas. IES recognizes that we need to do more to
    better anticipate the challenges of increased cost and uncertainties
    related to our assessment activities and unforeseeable events such as
    COVID-19.
        IES recently established an Acquisition Program Management Office
    (PMO) that is focused on modernizing IES acquisition practices to
    better align with our business model and improve outcomes for
    customers. IES also recently awarded a small contract to conduct an
    independent validation and review of our current controls and funds
    management practices for the Assessment program. We initiated this
    contract in part due to the rising costs of assessments, reflected in
    the 2019 NAEP Alliance contracts, and in part due to the recent volume
    of unplanned and unforeseen task revisions and cost adjustments within
    the NAEP Alliance contracts resulting directly from COVID-19. We expect
    the results of this quick-turnaround review at some point early in the
    2022 calendar year.
        Question. The amount and descriptions of additional funding needed
    in each of fiscal year 2022, fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024 for
    research and development investments;
        Answer. The requested $15 million increase would support NAEP
    operations to fiscal year 24 and beyond for the current assessment
    schedule and would begin to support necessary R&D investments. However,
    we anticipate that additional investments would be needed in future
    years both to maintain NAEP as the gold standard of large-scale
    assessments and to produce cost savings and efficiencies in program
    administration costs over time (see responses to 1d and e below).
        We also note that while this response is based on the most accurate
    budgetary estimates currently available, there may be adjustments to
    these estimates based on additional modifications to NAEP alliance
    contracts in response to the impact of COVID-19 on NAEP activities.
        Estimated Allocations to Operations and R&D based on increase of
    $15 million per year (as of 8.4.21)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                     Total
                             Funding stream                              FY22       FY23       FY24       FY25       FY26       FY27       FY28      approp
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operational.....................................................       $14M       $10M       $12M       $12M       $12M       $12M       $12M       $84M
    Current R&D\*\..................................................        $1M        $5M        $3M        $3M        $3M        $3M        $3M       $21M
        Total.......................................................       $15M       $15M       $15M       $15M       $15M       $15M       $15M      $105M
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \*\See response to question 1d below for current R&D activities.

        Question. The amount of additional funding needed in each of fiscal
    year 2022, fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024 for operating costs;
        Answer. Please see the response to 1b. above. Based on the best
    estimates available at this time, the requested $15 million increase
    would support operational funding needs through fiscal year 2024;
    however, as noted above, it may not fully support currently planned R&D
    efforts.
        Question. Studies planned and other actions necessary for
    maintaining the continuity and integrity of NAEP in any changes
    implemented to reduce future program costs;
        Answer. We have a number of actions planned to achieve
    efficiencies, starting in 2022. These include (i) transitioning to
    online assessments, (ii) transitioning from Surface Pro tablets to more
    cost-efficient devices in the short term and to school-owned devices in
    the longer term, (iii) introducing automated scoring, (iv) reducing the
    number of field staff needed to conduct the assessments, and (v)
    implementing design changes, including adaptive testing and two-subject
    design. Each change will be carefully studied in multiple rounds of
    reviews to first explore feasibility and examine effect(s), if any, on
    student performance. If any effect on student performance is detected,
    IES will need to implement a bridge study to account for the effect and
    maintain trends.
        Question. Expected savings and supporting information by fiscal
    year associated with research and development investments for reducing
    future program costs; and
        Answer. We expect to realize savings beginning in fiscal year 2024
    as currently funded R&D efforts in automated scoring and the eNAEP test
    platform take effect. These savings, which are measured against
    estimated costs on the current NAEP platform in the absence of proposed
    R&D-based modernization efforts, will grow through fiscal year 2030
    assuming IES is able to implement fully its planned R&D investments on
    eNAEP, which would enable NAEP to be administered on less costly
    devices, including school equipment (device agnostic), and with reduced
    NAEP field staff. We also note that the capacity to test individual
    students in multiple subjects using such devices should dramatically
    reduce student and school sample sizes, yielding further savings.
    Estimated savings by two-year NAEP cycle are in the table below. Total
    expected savings associated with current (and planned future R&D)
    investments over the period are approximately $98 million. Note that
    these estimated savings assume increased R&D funding in future years.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Expected
                            Two-year cycle                          Savings
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY23--24.....................................................        $4M
    FY25--26.....................................................       $20M
    FY27--28.....................................................       $42M
    FY29--30.....................................................       $32M
        Total....................................................       $98M
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Potential additional reductions to future program costs
    or program enhancements resulting from recommendations made under
    current contract with National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
    Medicine.
        Answer. An independent expert panel convened by the National
    Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is currently
    underway. This 17-month study focuses on how NAEP might modernize its
    operations and reduce costs through innovations such as those mentioned
    in (d) above. We expect that NASEM's recommendations, once released in
    February 2022, will help further refine current plans for
    modernization. Some of the innovations under consideration by NASEM are
    not expected to result in cost savings (e.g., adaptive testing), but
    could improve measurement quality, especially for students scoring at
    below NAEP Basic level.
        Question. The current NAEP assessment schedule outlines plans to
    conduct the Long-Term Trend (LTT) assessment for 17 year-olds in 2022
    as a result of the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, also
    repeating the LTT for 9-year-olds in 2022 would provide nationally
    representative information on the impact of COVID-19 on reading and
    math learning, including for students of color. This kind of
    information would be one type of information and research on learning
    loss intended to be funded by the $100 million provided to the
    Institute of Education Science by the ARP.
        Will the assessment schedule be changed to collect this important
    information?
        Answer. Yes. NCES and NAGB agreed that the NAEP schedule should be
    changed to collect this important information for age 9-year-olds in
    2022, while canceling the LTT for 17-year-olds. NAGB will take an
    official vote on the change to the schedule at the August meeting.
    Additionally, preparation for both LTT age 9 and age 17 would be
    unsustainably expensive given available funding and the expected $8m
    cost for each of these age groups. That is, preparation for paper
    booklets, quality control reviews, printing, and distribution could not
    be done for both cohorts given anticipated budget shortfalls in 2024.
    Accordingly, we put preparations for LTT age 17 on hold in June based
    largely on cost considerations. NCES has also confirmed that it is too
    late to restart preparation work for age 17, even if funds were made
    available.
        Question. If the LTT for nine year olds was not paid for with funds
    available to IES in the ARP, how would such a change impact the NAEP
    2021 operating plan? How would such an additional cost for LTT impact
    the rest of the currently approved assessment schedule? Please provide
    a revised operating plan.
        Answer. The Department considered using ARP funds for LTT but
    decided against doing so because of legal concerns with using ARP funds
    for research. Regarding the impact on the NAEP budget, since the data
    collection costs for the two cohorts are comparable, changing from an
    assessment of 17-year-olds to 9-year-olds would have no real effect on
    anticipated outlays. The anticipated shortfall in 2024 would remain the
    same if the requested $15 million increase in fiscal year 2022 is not
    enacted.
        We note that in 2025 the schedule calls for all three ages, 9, 13,
    and 17 to be collected again as part of a bridge study to transition
    the assessments from paper to digital formats.
        Question. ESEA contains provisions on parent and family engagement
    under ESEA programs and authorizes support for Statewide Family
    Engagement Centers. These ESEA provisions include a 1 percent set-aside
    of LEA Title I-A allocations for effective parent and family engagement
    activities, along with requirements for parent, family and community
    engagement activities using English Language Acquisition funds.
        What are the Department's plans for supporting SEAs and LEAs in
    implementing parent and family engagement requirements under section
    1116 of ESEA, including in identifying and overcoming barriers to
    greater participation by parents who have limited English proficiency
    or are of any racial or ethnic minority background?
        Answer. The Department administers the Statewide Family Engagement
    Centers program which is authorized under Title IV, Part E of the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. The purpose
    of the SFEC program is to provide financial support to organizations
    that provide technical assistance and training to SEAs and local
    educational agencies LEAs in the implementation and enhancement of
    systemic and effective family engagement policies, programs, and
    activities that lead to improvements in student development and
    academic achievement. For those families from diverse background and
    who have limited English proficiency, there are 12 statewide family
    engagement centers across the country that (1) carry out parent
    education and family engagement in education, programs and (2) provide
    comprehensive training and technical assistance to SEAs, LEAs, schools
    identified by SEAs and LEAs, organizations that support family-school
    partnerships and other such programs.
        In addition, the Department administers the Comprehensive Centers
    program, which is authorized under Title II, Sec. 203, of the
    Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002. The Comprehensive Centers
    address needs identified by SEAs in meeting ESEA student achievement
    goals, as well as priorities established by states. As part of this
    work, Comprehensive Centers have developed resources on various topics
    (e.g., literacy instruction) to support SEAs, LEAs, and educators.
    Building SEA and LEA capacity to engage parents and families is a key
    element of this support (e.g., Evidence Based Literacy Instruction:
    Families as Partners). Comprehensive Centers have also developed
    resources that specifically focus on establishing and nurturing
    successful school-family relationships. Finally, parent and family
    engagement has played an important role in the Summer Learning and
    Enrichment Collaborative (SLEC). Several SLEC sessions have provided
    SEAs, LEAs, and other participants with support on developing
    partnerships for family engagement in high-needs communities, creating
    authentic partnerships with marginalized families and communities, and
    meeting whole student and family needs through collaborative
    partnerships at school.
        The Department looks forward to expanding and building upon these
    efforts.
        Question. How does the Department monitor and support the
    coordination and integration of parent and family engagement strategies
    under Title I-A with other relevant Federal programs?
        Answer. Under ESEA section 1116, an LEA receiving Title I, Part A
    funds must develop a written parent and family engagement policy in
    collaboration with parents and family members of participating
    students. Among other things, the policy must describe how, to the
    extent feasible, the agency will coordinate and integrate Title I
    parent and family engagement strategies with strategies under other
    relevant Federal, State, and local laws and programs. An LEA's policy
    also must describe how it will annually evaluate of the content and
    effectiveness of the parent and family engagement policy, including
    identifying barriers to participation, with particular attention to
    parents who are economically disadvantaged, disabled, have limited
    English proficiency, have limited literacy, or are of any racial or
    ethnic minority background. The Department monitors ESEA section 1116,
    Parent and Family Engagement, as part of the Title I, Part A monitoring
    protocol (available at: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/08/SEA-Protocol-
    Title-I.docx). Within the protocols, the Department specifically asks
    each SEA it monitors to describe how it reviews LEA parent and family
    engagement policies and practices to ensure the LEA meets the
    requirements of section 1116, including those referenced above. In
    addition, the Department asks each SEA to describe how, in its review
    of the LEA's parent and family engagement policies and practices, it
    ensures that the LEA's parent and family engagement policies provides
    opportunities for the participation of all parents and family members
    (including parents and family members who have limited English
    proficiency, parents and family members with disabilities, and parents
    and family members of migratory children) and provides information and
    school reports, in a format and, to the extent practicable, in a
    language that parents understand. The Department asks that each SEA
    submit its process to review LEA policies and procedures for family
    engagement as evidence during the monitoring review.
        Additionally, the Department of Education has an Office of
    Communications and Outreach that has a Family and Community Engagement
    Team. The goal of the Team is to expand efforts to help schools,
    districts, and states better engage families in education. This team
    works to monitor and support the coordination and integration of parent
    and family engagements strategies under Title I, Part A (and other
    Titles) with other relevant Federal programs.
        Question. The fiscal year 2022 Annual Performance Plan identifies a
    goal of improving access to quality educational programs in
    correctional settings.
        Please identify the programs and strategies involved in improving
    access to quality educational programs in correctional settings.
        Answer. The Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education's
    Integrated Education and Training (IET) in Corrections Project will
    identify, develop, and document IET in corrections models to
    demonstrate how to extend existing secondary-postsecondary pathway
    models to include the corrections system. The project is intended to
    provide strategies that can be disseminated and replicated.
        Second Chance Pell (an Experimental Site Initiative) launched in
    2016 and allowed 67 colleges and universities enroll incarcerated
    students using Pell Grants on an experimental basis. In 2020, the
    program was expanded to allow an additional 67 colleges and
    universities to serve even more students. On July 30, 2021, the
    Department announced a further expansion of Second Chance Pell to gain
    critical insights about how to reinstate Pell Grant eligibility within
    correctional facilities, consistent with the implementation of the
    provisions of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 that will
    expand Pell Grant eligibility for all eligible incarcerated students on
    July 1, 2023. The Department has announced plans to publish regulations
    on the program prior to its implementation and held public hearings in
    June of 2021 to that end.
        The Department has already taken steps to implement changes to the
    Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which incarcerated
    students and education institutions alike have reported as a major
    stumbling block in implementing college-in-prison programming. For
    example, for the 2021-2022 award year FAFSA, the Department has removed
    the impact of responses to questions about Selective Service
    registration and requirements around drug convictions. These questions
    will be removed entirely from future FAFSAs.
        Question. How will the Department work with relevant Federal
    agencies on this goal?
        Answer. The Department currently staffs interagency working groups
    including the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, the Legal
    Aid Interagency Roundtable, and the Interagency Working Group for Youth
    Programs. The Department liaises on a regular basis with other Federal
    agencies including the Departments of Justice, Labor, Health and Human
    Services, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to update these
    agencies on Departmental initiatives, such as Pell reinstatement, that
    are focused on quality educational program in correctional settings.
    The Department also works collaboratively with these agencies as they
    implement programming for incarcerated.
        Question. CRDC data from the 2017-18 school year survey show that
    Black students represented 15 percent of student enrollment but 38
    percent of students who received one or more out-of-school suspensions.
    Such discipline contributes to lost instructional time and negative
    life outcomes.
        Please describe planned activities for how the Department will
    support a reduction in racial disparities in school discipline.
        Answer. The Department is aware of these and other disparities in
    the administration of school discipline nationwide--and the adverse
    impacts that these disparities have on students--and is actively
    planning to address these issues. The Department anticipates issuing
    new guidance following its 2018 rescission of the Dear Colleague letter
    on Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline and related
    materials, which provided guidance to schools on how to identify,
    avoid, and remedy discrimination based on race, color, or national
    origin in the design and administration of school discipline and create
    a positive school climate. As part of that process, on May 11, 2021,
    the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Civil Rights
    Division of the U.S. Department of Justice organized a virtual
    convening session, Brown 67 Years Later: Examining Disparities in
    School Discipline and the Pursuit of Safe and Inclusive Schools, where
    students, educators, school administrators, civil rights lawyers, and
    researchers considered the impact of exclusionary school discipline
    policies and practices on our nation's students, particularly students
    of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students. As a follow
    up to the convening, on June 8, 2021, OCR published a Request for
    Information (RFI), seeking public comments on what guidance schools and
    school districts need to ensure all students attend welcoming,
    supportive, and safe schools. As stated in the RFI, OCR recognizes that
    students may experience multiple forms of discrimination at once and
    encourages commenters to identify and address individual and
    intersectional discrimination as appropriate. OCR expects that the
    public comments in response to the RFI will inform future decisions
    about what policy guidance, technical assistance, or other resources
    would assist schools that serve students in pre-K through grade 12 with
    designing and administering school discipline in a nondiscriminatory
    manner and improving school climate and safety. The comment period for
    the RFI closed on July 23, 2021, and OCR is in the process of reviewing
    the comments received.
        Question. The fiscal year 2022 President's budget proposes to
    continue authority for performance partnership pilot and proposes a
    priority for such pilots to include communities disproportionately
    impacted by COVID-19.
        What are the Department's plans for inviting new applications for
    performance partnership pilots?
        How will these pilots be informed by the national evaluation
    released earlier this year, including the recommendations for more
    planning time, additional guidance and technical assistance, and
    support of systems change through developing and implementing related
    metrics?
        Answer. The Department, as part of the ongoing Administration
    transition, is continuing to evaluate the lessons learned from previous
    Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3), including
    recommendations from the national evaluation, and how best to position
    the program for maximum impact in the context of State and local needs
    arising from the COVID-19 pandemic (including any flexibilities that
    could facilitate more effective use of ARP funds), as well as other
    Administration priorities.
        Question. The ``Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of
    2018'' includes key provisions related to developing a multi-year
    learning agenda, evaluation plan, improving coordination of data
    government at the Department, and improving accessibility of education
    data.
        What is the Department's timeline for release of its multi-year
    learning agenda? Please describe stakeholder consultations that have
    occurred or will occur during its development.
        Answer. Per OMB guidance, the Department will publish its multi-
    year Learning Agenda for fiscal year 22-26 in February 2022, concurrent
    with the release of the President's fiscal year 2023 Budget.
    Consultation with stakeholders will include a broad Request for
    Information published in the Federal Register, along with targeted
    outreach to specific communities based on their role (e.g., chief state
    school officers) or area of emphasis (e.g., researchers focused on, or
    advocacy organizations related to, Federal student aid).
        Question. When will the Department release its evaluation plan?
        Answer. Per OMB guidance, the Department will publish its fiscal
    year 2023 Annual Evaluation Plan in February 2022, concurrent with the
    release of the Presidents' fiscal year 2023 Budget. The Department's
    fiscal year 22 Annual Evaluation Plan, which was delayed so that
    elements of the document could be better aligned to the Secretary's
    priorities and the Department's strategic planning efforts, will be
    posted in August 2021 to https://ed.gov/data.
        Question. What is the Department's timeline for implementing other
    provisions of the Act?
        Answer. ED's implementation of the Evidence Act is informed by the
    recommendations of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, the
    Federal Data Strategy's Principles and Practices, and the Office of
    Management and Budget's Phase 1 guidance on Evidence Act implementation
    (M-19-23). Our implementation also is informed by discovery and
    assessment activities in our own agency that led to a coherent ED Data
    Strategy that now serves as ED's roadmap to data maturity.
        The ED Data Strategy--the first of its kind for the U.S. Department
    of Education--was released in December of 2020. The four ED Data
    Strategy goals are highly interdependent with cross-cutting objectives
    requiring a highly collaborative effort across ED's offices.
      --The strategy calls for strengthening data governance to administer
            the data it uses for operations, answer important questions,
            and meet legal requirements. To that end, we are developing a
            holistic agency-wide framework with established data governance
            structures, functions, roles, policies, and procedures and
            developing a comprehensive data quality framework for the
            agency.
      --To accelerate evidence-building and enhance operational
            performance, it requires that ED make data more interoperable
            and accessible for tasks ranging from routine reporting to
            advanced analytics. To inform decisionmaking processes, we are
            working to connect fragmented data from disparate sources, so
            we can answer critical questions, and strengthen grant
            programs' performance and accountability measures.
      --The high volume and evolving nature of ED's data tasks necessitates
            a focus on developing a workforce with skills commensurate with
            a modern data culture in a digital age. We are developing an ED
            data workforce plan to support long-term planning for our data-
            related human capital needs; we are also building the capacity
            of our data workforce while we increase data literacy among all
            staff.
      --At the same time, safely and securely providing access for
            researchers and policymakers helps foster innovation and
            evidence-based decisionmaking at the Federal, state, and local
            levels. Aligned with these efforts, we are developing an Open
            Data Plan, while awaiting OMB guidance on final requirements
            for that plan; we are also building toward a comprehensive data
            inventory to catalog data assets for both external open data
            and internal sources and will incrementally expand the number
            of Department data assets listed in the Federal Data Catalog.
        Achieving the four ED Data Strategy goals requires a concerted
    effort to address short-term challenges and thoughtfully set a course
    for long-term data maturity. Each Goal includes a set of objectives--
    designed to be completed in the next 12 to 18 months--that form an
    action plan for tackling short-term challenges to continue building the
    foundation of a data-driven culture. Future objectives under the four
    goals will iteratively represent the next set of implementation
    challenges to raise ED offices and the agency as a whole to an even
    higher level of data maturity.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
        Question. The Department notified me and other Members of Congress
    on February 13, that Secretary DeVos had decided not to extend the
    closed school discharge look-back period for students who attended
    schools owned by Education Corporation of America (ECA). As the
    Department has previously stated, ``during the months of March, April,
    and May 2018, ACICS placed many locations of ECA on either campus-level
    show-cause or campus-level compliance warning due to student
    achievement rates'' and on ``May 8, 2018, ACICS placed ECA on show-
    cause due to adverse action by another agency.''
        Actions toward the removal of accreditation are a clear example of
    exceptional circumstances as provided under 34 CFR Sec. 685.214. Will
    you reconsider this decision?
        Answer. Question answered elsewhere in this document.
        Question. In that same February notification, the Department noted
    that Secretary DeVos had not yet made a decision on the request from me
    and other Members of Congress made on December 21, 2018, to extend the
    look back period for Vatterott students--which also met the exceptional
    circumstances bar in the law.
        Will you look into this matter and render a decision?
        Answer. The Department is cognizant of the significant harm to
    students that occurs when a college suddenly closes. We are reviewing a
    number of school closures to determine whether an extension of the
    look-back window is appropriate, and hope to be able to share more on
    the results of that review soon.
        Question. On June 23, 2021, the Department provided a response to a
    letter I sent on October 29, 2020, with several colleagues to then-
    Secretary DeVos. Secretary DeVos failed to respond. Your Department's
    response mentioned the announced rulemaking in several of the areas
    mentioned in the letter--including closed school discharge.
        While I'm pleased the Department is taking up many of these issues
    in rulemaking, when can we expect a decision from you to the specific
    requests in the letter--related to extending closed school look-back
    dates?
        Answer. We are reviewing a number of school closures to determine
    whether an extension of the look-back window is appropriate, and hope
    to be able to share more on the results of that review soon.
        Question. Since June 2018, the Department has released borrower
    defense data on a quarterly basis:
        Please provide a breakdown of ``total denied'' borrower defense
    claims to date by institution.
        Answer. Beginning in December 2019, the term ``total denied'' was
    no longer used in the quarterly borrower defense reports. The term
    ``total ineligible'' is used to refer to applications in which the
    borrower has been notified that their claim does not meet the
    requirements for a borrower defense to repayment discharge.
        Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total ineligible''
    borrower defense claims to date by institution.
        Answer. An Excel file providing the requested data as of June 30,
    2021, is enclosed.

        Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total closed'' borrower
    defense claims to date by institution.
        Answer. An Excel file providing the requested data as of June 30,
    2021, is enclosed.

        Question. How many schools are being investigated for misconduct
    due to borrower defense claims filed by their students?
        Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberative,
    preliminary, or ongoing investigative work, including disclosing a
    number or list of institutions that may be subject to such work until
    the outcomes of any investigations have been issued to the institutions
    or entities. Nevertheless, the Department notes that it has opened
    numerous investigations in 2021 and will be holding schools accountable
    where appropriate. For schools with findings of misrepresentation or
    misconduct, the Department will use evidence in connection with our
    borrower defense fact-finding process.
        Question. Please provide a list of for-profit colleges for which
    the Department is aware of pending state or Federal investigations or
    lawsuits--and the corresponding state or Federal entities.
        Answer. The Department does not maintain a formal list of for-
    profit colleges with pending state or Federal investigations or
    lawsuits. However, the Department collaborates closely with law
    enforcement partners where appropriate and requests evidence and input
    when their investigations of for-profit colleges result in evidence
    that the Department may consider in connection with its efforts to hold
    schools accountable.
        Question. For how many borrowers whose borrower defense
    applications have been approved has the Department or its agents made
    corrected reports to credit reporting agencies? What percentage?
        Answer. FSA requires our vendors to remove the credit tradeline for
    any loans that are approved for 100 percent borrower defense relief.
        Question. How many and which institutions is the Department
    currently investigating for purposes of making findings related to
    borrower defense?
        Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberative,
    preliminary, or ongoing investigative work, including disclosing a
    number or list of institutions that may be subject to such work until
    the outcomes of any investigations have been issued to the institutions
    or entities. To the extent that a Department investigation results in
    obtaining evidence that may be relevant to borrower defense claims, the
    evidence will be given to FSA's Borrower Defense Group for use in its
    fact-finding process. Additionally, the Department is in the process of
    increasing staffing within FSA's Investigations Group to advance these
    efforts.
        Question. Since the 2014 collapse and 2015 bankruptcy of Corinthian
    Colleges, Inc., many for-profit colleges have followed suit--closing
    their doors as part of a planned teach-out or shuttering precipitously.
    In these cases, students are eligible for Federal closed school
    discharges. Many are also eligible for Federal student loan discharges
    through the Higher Education Act's borrower defense provision as a
    result of their institution's fraud and misconduct. We cannot let
    students be left holding the bag. At the same time, the Department's
    enforcement failures, failures to hold accreditors accountable,
    attempts to roll back the Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense
    rules--including provisions allowing students to hold institutions
    directly accountable in court for misconduct--mean that taxpayers are
    ultimately on the hook.
        Please provide the cumulative cost of approved closed school and
    borrower defense discharges (including automatic closed school
    discharges under the 2016 Borrower Defense rule) associated with for-
    profit colleges since 2014.
        Answer. As of June 30, 2021, the cumulative effectuated closed
    school and borrower defense discharges amount is approximately $2.2
    billion. This includes almost $1.1 billion in borrower defense
    discharges and more than $1.1 billion in closed school discharges,
    including automatic closed school discharges. The Department is
    continuing to process the discharges of the roughly 91,800 borrower
    defense approvals that have been announced in press releases in recent
    months.
        Question. Please provide the cumulative amount that the Department
    has recouped from institutions for closed school discharge costs
    associated with for-profit colleges since 2014.
        Answer. The Department's recoupment of loan discharge liabilities
    is a trailing process which follows the Department's quantification of
    actual discharged loan amounts and assertion of liabilities. In
    general, when an institution closes, it is required to submit a
    ``Close-Out Audit'' report to the Department. When FSA resolves a
    close-out audit, it quantifies closed school loan discharges and
    asserts liabilities in the final audit determination for the close-out
    audit report. FSA may also pursue additional recovery of liabilities
    arising after the close-out audit is resolved. In all cases, the
    Department must provide institutions with appeal rights to challenge
    asserted liabilities and the Department does not pursue collections
    while an appeal is pending. In addition, the circumstances of some
    school closures may require the Department to pursue recoveries through
    protracted bankruptcy proceedings. To that end, the Department has
    recouped more than $10.4 million from institutions for closed school
    discharge costs associated with for-profit colleges since 2014.
        Question. Please provide the cumulative amount that the Department
    has recouped from institutions for borrower defense discharge costs
    associated with for-profit colleges since 2014.
        Answer. The Department has not recouped any costs associated with
    borrower defense discharges from institutions. All approved claims to
    date relate to closed schools.
        Question. According to the April 2021 borrower defense report, the
    Department currently has nearly 108,000 pending borrower defense
    claims. Please provide:
        The average length of time the 108,000 claims have been pending;
        Answer. The average length of time that all applications have been
    pending as of June 30, 2021, is 748 days. This is not specific to the
    108,000 claims referenced, but rather the total number of pending
    applications, which includes those in the Awaiting Adjudication and
    Pending Notification categories, as of June 30, 2021.
        Question. The percentage of pending claims related to for-profit
    institutions (including institutions that have been for-profit
    institutions within the past 10 years), public institutions, and
    private not-for-profit institutions respectively;
        Answer. As of June 30, 2021, 88 percent of total pending
    applications were related to for-profit institutions; 4 percent were
    related to public institutions; and 8 percent were related to private
    not-for-profit institutions. A small number of applications (less than
    1 percent) include those without a school assigned and those involving
    foreign institutions.
        Question. A breakdown of the 108,000 pending claims by institution;
    and
        Answer. An Excel file providing the requested data as of June 30,
    2021, is enclosed. Please note that institutions may appear on the list
    several times because the data was pulled based on the institutions' 8-
    digit OPEID.

        Question. A list of all group discharge applications the Department
    has received from State attorneys general including the date submitted,
    by whom, the school/programs, and the number of covered borrowers and
    the status of each application.
        Answer. Information regarding the group discharge requests from
    attorneys general is provided in the enclosed file.

        Question. How many of the applications referenced in (d) are
    pending? How many have been granted? How many have been denied? Please
    provide a list of each.
        Answer. All of the AG submissions referenced in (d) are currently
    under review.
        Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and
    2021 how many borrowers covered by a group discharge application are in
    default on their Federal student loans?
        Answer. At this time, the Department cannot narrow its reporting to
    individual applications submitted by attorneys general. Most of the
    attorney general submissions did not specifically identify the
    borrowers covered by their group requests, and the Department is
    currently working to identify the borrowers at issue.
        Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and
    2021 how many loans of the borrowers covered by a group discharge
    application have been certified by the Department of Education for
    Treasury offset?
        Answer. Please see answer to question 10(f), above.
        Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and
    2021 how many borrowers covered by a group discharge application have
    been subject to an administrative wage garnishment order put in place
    by the Department?
        Answer. Please see answer to question 10(f), above.
        Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and
    2021 what are the total dollar amounts of Federal student loans
    (interest and principal) covered by each group discharge application
    from a State attorney general?
        Answer. Please see answer to question 10(f), above.
        Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021
    what are the total dollar amounts collected through the Treasury Offset
    Program on defaulted student loans covered by each group discharge
    application from a State attorney general?
        Answer. Please see answer to question 10(f), above.
        Question. In January 2017, State attorneys general--led by
    Illinois--provided the Department with program-level enrollment data
    for borrowers in their states that were covered by the Department's
    Corinthian job placement misrepresentation findings. How many of these
    borrowers have still not received relief despite being eligible?
        Answer. Due to data limitations, FSA is unable to respond to this
    question at this time. While the Illinois Attorney General did provide
    a borrower list in December 2016, the list did not contain the unique
    identifiers (Social Security Number and/or date of birth) necessary to
    confidently match to borrowers in FSA's systems. The Department is now
    working to identify any borrowers submitted by the Illinois Attorney
    General and any other attorneys general who may be covered by the job
    placement rate findings, as that work was not done previously.
        Question. 34 CFR 685.300 governs Program Participation Agreements--
    the contracts between schools and the Department of Education. CFR
    685.300(e) prohibited schools from making or enforcing class action
    bans and mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements.
        Answer. As a preliminary observation, the Program Participation
    Agreement (PPA) is primarily governed by 34 C.F.R. Sec. 668.14. 34
    C.F.R. Sec. 685.300 provides additional participation requirements when
    a school participates in the Direct Loan program. The provisions of 34
    C.F.R. Sec. 685.300 are inapplicable if an institution elects not to
    participate in the Direct Loan program. The provisions were removed
    effective July 1, 2020. Therefore, the response to question a. extends
    only to June 30, 2020.
        Question. In how many schools' Program Participation Agreements did
    the Department include this prohibition?
        Answer. From July 21, 2019 and through June 30, 2020, the
    Department created and executed Program Participation Agreements (PPAs)
    that have included specific language referencing class action bans and
    pre-dispute arbitration agreements for 1,155 schools. As of July 29,
    2021, 1,070 of these schools were approved to participate in the Direct
    Loan program, and 85 schools were not approved to participate in the
    Direct Loan program. PPAs created before July 21, 2019, contained
    overarching language indicating that schools were required to comply
    with all Title IV, Higher Education Act and Direct Loan program
    participation requirements, which would extend to the restrictions
    relating to class action suits and pre-dispute arbitration agreements.
        Question. In how many instances did the Department seek to enforce
    this prohibition? What actions did it take?
        Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberative,
    preliminary, or ongoing investigative work, including the enforcement
    of the Title IV regulations. Generally speaking, through our program
    review authority, we will monitor compliance with the requirements that
    schools end enforcement of any existing mandatory pre-dispute
    arbitration clauses and class action restrictions in enrollment
    agreements.
        Question. Are you aware of any class actions that schools
    participating in Title IV forced into arbitration while the prohibition
    was in effect?
        Answer. The Department is aware of two competing cases that relate
    to the prior regulation, which is no longer in effect. The regulation
    itself was subject to multiple implementation delays and litigation. In
    Kourembanas v. InterCoast Colleges, a class action in the District of
    Maine, 17-cv-00331, the court granted a motion to compel arbitration.
    And in Young v. Grand Canyon University, the appellate court reversed
    the Northern District of Georgia's initial decision to compel
    arbitration in Carr et al. v. Grand Canyon University, 19-cv-01707.
        Question. Please provide a list of all institutions for which the
    Department currently holds a letter of credit or other surety and the
    amount of such letter of credit or other surety.
        Answer. Enclosed is an Excel file containing data on the Letters of
    Credit (LOC) and other surety that the Department held as of July 14,
    2021. As of July 14, 2021, the Department held 403 LOCs and other
    surety from institutions, totaling more than $607.3 million in
    financial protection. The first tab of the Excel file contains
    institutional and other data regarding the LOCs held by the Department
    as of July 14, 2021. The second tab provides the field definitions and
    descriptions of the reasons why a LOC was requested from a listed
    institution. Please note that this report differs from reports posted
    to FSA's Data Center identifying LOCs requested by the Department
    during an Award Year period. It is a ``snapshot'' of LOCs held by the
    Department as of July 14, 2021 and it provides the most recent
    information recorded in FSA's data sources regarding these LOCs. The
    report does not provide historical context for the LOCs held as of July
    14, 2021 in cases where FSA may have required an institution to renew
    or amend a previously provided LOC. In a limited number of cases, the
    report also identifies and includes funds held on deposit by the
    Department in lieu of a LOC.

        Question. Regarding institutional compliance with the incentive
    compensation rules to date, please provide:
        The number of program reviews, investigations, audits, or other
    reviews that have examined institutional compliance with the
    requirements of incentive compensation;
        Answer. The Department has issued determinations for 60 program
    reviews that were initiated during fiscal years 2017--20 and fiscal
    year 2021 through June 30, 2021 that examined institutional compliance
    with incentive compensation requirements.
        The Department received and finalized its review and audit
    resolution process for more than 15,900 compliance audit reports whose
    audit period included any portion of fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019,
    2020, or 2021 through July 28, 2021. The compliance audit reports were
    prepared either in accordance with the OIG's Guide for Audits of
    Proprietary Institutions and For Compliance Attestation Engagements of
    Third Party Servicers Administering Title IV Programs, or in accordance
    with the OMB Compliance Supplements (2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI--
    Compliance Supplement) for audits reports prepared under the Single
    Audit Act. The scope of these audits included audit objectives for an
    independent auditor to determine whether the auditees did or did not
    comply with the incentive compensation prohibitions.
        Additionally, the Department conducted close to 300 ``New School
    Visits'' during fiscal years 2017--20 and fiscal year 2021 through July
    28, 2021 that reviewed incentive compensation requirements. A New
    School Visit is a process focused on the start-up issues and needs of
    schools that are new Title IV participants or that might not have
    recent Title IV experience. A New School Visit is not a program review,
    but rather a tool used to identify and eliminate any weaknesses that,
    if left unaddressed, could result in improper use of Federal funds and
    possible liabilities for the school. A standard component of a New
    School Visit includes a discussion of incentive compensation
    requirements, which may lead to the identification of a compliance
    deficiency.
        Question. how many program reviews, investigations, audits, or
    other reviews found;
        Answer. The Department has identified 10 instances of incentive
    compensation noncompliance in the population of finalized program
    reviews, investigations, and other reviews conducted in fiscal years
    2017--20 and fiscal year 2021 through July 28, 2020, and finalized
    compliance audit resolutions whose audit period included any part of
    fiscal years 2017-20 and fiscal year 2021 through July 28, 2021.
        Question. Noncompliance with the requirements of incentive
    compensation; and the actions the Department has taken to ensure that
    institutions correct deficiencies in compliance with the requirements
    of incentive compensation
        Answer. The Department has issued fine actions totaling $3,411,002
    for four institutions in fiscal years 2017--20 and fiscal year 2021
    through July 28, 2021.
        Question. In recent years, several for-profit colleges have
    attempted to convert to not-for-profit status in an effort to avoid the
    stigma associated with the predatory for-profit college industry and to
    avoid regulations meant to protect students and taxpayers. Dream Center
    Education Holdings, which collapsed leaving thousands of students
    stranded and whose conversion received preliminary Department approval,
    is just one example. Please provide a list of all for-profit
    conversions in the last 10 years including those pending (with current
    status), previously approved, and denied or withdrawn.
        Answer. An Excel file providing the requested information is
    enclosed. Within the last 10 years, the Department has received 78
    applications for a for-profit to nonprofit conversion. Of those 78
    applications, the Department has made final decisions on 40 conversion
    requests as of August 1, 2021. Of those 40 decisions, 37 were
    approved.\*\ The Department denied Argosy University's request for
    nonprofit recognition. The Department also denied Grand Canyon
    University's and the American Academy of Art College's requests for
    nonprofit recognition when it approved their respective Change in
    Ownership applications. Additionally, 18 applications, including pre-
    acquisition review applications, were closed due to a voluntary
    withdrawal or school closure. There are 19 outstanding conversion
    requests, and one pending pre-acquisition application where the Change
    in Ownership date is imminent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \*\ In August 2016, the four main locations operated by the Center
    for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE) were originally denied their
    conversion request. Following the receipt of additional information and
    an updated valuation in October 2018, the Department determined that it
    would be appropriate to grant those institutions conditional approval
    to convert to nonprofit institutions and issued Provisional Program
    Participation Agreements in December 2018. The Department's December
    2018 determination of CEHE's nonprofit status--based on the new
    information CEHE provided--also provided a basis to dismiss a
    longstanding lawsuit filed against the Department, because that was the
    relief sought in the lawsuit. Just recently, under pressure from
    further reviews of its conduct by FSA, CEHE made the decision to close
    its remaining campuses effective Aug. 1, 2021. Additionally, one
    approved Change in Ownership transaction involving Kaplan University
    and Purdue University resulted in Kaplan University's conversion to
    public institution status (rather than to nonprofit institution
    status).

        Question. Please provide, disaggregated for Corinthian Colleges,
    Inc., ITT Educational Services, Inc., Charlotte School of Law,
    Education Corporation of America, Vatterott Colleges, and Dream Center
    Education Holdings, respectively:
        The number of borrowers and the total loan amount of such borrowers
    for whom the Department estimates are eligible for the applicable
    closed school discharge window (either 120 days or as extended due to
    ``exceptional circumstances'');
        The number of borrowers and the total loan amount of borrowers who
    applied for a non-automatic, traditional closed school discharge;
        The number of borrowers and the total loan amount that has been
    discharged through non-automatic, traditional closed school discharge;
        The number of borrowers and the total loan amount that has been
    discharged through automatic closed school discharge; and
        The number of borrowers and the total loan amount of such borrowers
    in some form of debt collection (Treasury offset, wage garnishment,
    assigned to PCAs).
        Answer. Please find an Excel file with the requested data enclosed.

        Question. Your predecessor allowed borrower defense claims to
    balloon at the Department without processing any claim for more than a
    year. At one time, the backlog had grown to several hundred thousand
    claims. As pressure mounted to clear the backlog--of her own creation--
    Secretary DeVos issued blanket and cursory denials of tens of thousands
    of claims. Many of these are potentially meritorious claims that were
    simply cast aside by the previous administration that always looked at
    borrower defense as more of a problem to ignore than a mechanism for
    justice and fairness. What steps will you take to review the DeVos
    Department's borrower defense denials?
        Answer. The Department agrees that all borrowers who have filed
    borrower defense to repayment applications deserve a thorough and fair
    review that is done as expediently as possible. While the Department
    continues to approve new categories of borrower defense claims, I have
    asked Federal Student Aid to conduct extensive outreach to state
    attorneys general, other government agencies, and any other parties
    that might be in possession of evidence showing institutional
    misconduct. I have also asked FSA to reopen any borrower defense
    denials when new evidence, or any other evidence in FSA's possession,
    indicates misconduct or other concerns that were not considered during
    the initial adjudication. In addition, FSA is conducting a review of
    our policies related to borrower defense and will reopen any denied
    claims based upon any of those policy changes.
        The Department is working diligently to process borrower defense
    claims in a timely manner. We are aware of the significant number of
    borrowers with a denied claim and are reviewing potential options for
    these borrowers.
        Question. You recently announced an ambitious higher education
    regulatory agenda which will include topics like gainful employment,
    for-profit conversions, borrower defense, financial responsibility,
    administrative capability. While I'm pleased the Department is
    undertaking this process, it is lengthy and the Department's rules
    subject to litigation. As it goes through the negotiated rulemaking
    process, how will the Department--under your leadership--use its
    extensive existing authorities to engage in aggressive oversight and
    enforcement activities related to predatory for-profit colleges?
        Answer. The Department of Education is working to ensure stronger
    oversight of predatory institutions through multiple venues. I expect
    that the rulemaking process will help the Department to design far
    stronger protections against predatory practices by institutions.
    Additionally, the Office of Federal Student Aid is working to ensure
    careful oversight of institutions, investigating reports of problematic
    practices and increasing monitoring of institutions that receive
    Federal aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The new Chief
    Operating Officer of FSA, Richard Cordray, is committed to ensuring
    consumer protection is embedded in how FSA serves students and
    borrowers.
        Question. During the Obama Administration, then-Secretary Arne
    Duncan created a Federal interagency taskforce to coordinate oversight
    and enforcement efforts related to for-profit colleges. The task force
    was based on a bill that the late Rep. Elijah Cummings and I wrote
    called the Proprietary Education Oversight Coordination Improvement
    Act. The task force was successful in coordinating Federal action in
    response to misconduct by several for-profit colleges--including a $100
    million DeVry settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. Would you
    be open to recreating this task force that was disbanded by Secretary
    DeVos?
        Answer. The Department is deeply interested in strengthening
    oversight of misconduct across higher education. The interagency task-
    force created by the Obama Administration provided a critical
    opportunity for collaboration to identify potential illegal practices
    and misrepresentations. The Department is already working to
    reestablish those relationships with other Federal agencies through
    MOUs and data-sharing agreements, as well as opening the lines of
    communication with state Attorneys General, to improve accountability
    in higher education.
        Question. As part of the American Rescue Plan (Public Law 117-2),
    Congress closed the 90/10 loophole which incentivized for-profit
    colleges to prey on student veterans and servicemembers. I understand
    that the bill prohibited the Department from promulgating regulations
    to implement the statutory change before October 2021. In the meantime,
    will the Department release Federal 90/10 data which counts accurately
    as Federal revenue all revenue received by for-profit colleges from
    Federal taxpayer-funded educational assistance programs? This would
    include Department of Veterans Affairs GI Bill and Department of
    Defense Tuition Assistance funding. While this data could not be used
    for enforcement purposes yet, it would be very helpful to the public's
    understanding of the problem. In fact, the Department released this
    data, upon my request, in December 2016. On December 10, 2018, Chairman
    Takano, Senator Carper, Representative Cohen, Ranking Member Murray,
    Chairwoman DeLauro, Ranking Member Reed, Chairman Adam Smith, Senator
    Blumenthal, Representative Susan Davis, and I wrote to then-Secretary
    DeVos asking her to continue this data release. She refused during her
    tenure.
        Answer. As referenced in your question, section 2013 the American
    Rescue Plan Act modifies section 487(a)(24) of the Higher Education Act
    of 1965 (HEA) to require a proprietary institution to derive not less
    than 10 percent of such institution's revenues from sources other than
    ``Federal funds that are disbursed or delivered to or on behalf of a
    student to be used to attend such institution.'' The Department
    unfortunately does not have an updated report covering Federal 90/10
    data that counts accurately as Federal revenue all revenue received by
    for-profit colleges from Federal taxpayer-funded educational assistance
    programs report to release to you. Additionally, the Department does
    not maintain the requisite VA, DoD, and other Federal education
    benefits program funding data to prepare an updated 90/10 impact
    analysis.
        The Department wishes to clarify that although it released a 90/10
    data report in 2016 covering VA and DoD funds, the Department did not
    prepare that report. The Department's 2016 press release indicates DoD
    and VA prepared that 90/10 estimate. The Department's December 21,
    2016, transmittal letter identifies significant data limitations and
    includes a cautionary note against using the data to draw inferences
    about individual institutions or trends. The Department's subsequent
    March 28, 2019, response to your December 2018 letter reiterated these
    themes.
        Due to the complexity and individualized nature of the 90/10
    evaluation including, but not limited to, a requirement for an
    institution to use the cash basis of accounting under section
    487(d)(1)(A) of the HEA, an institution's 90/10 compliance is disclosed
    in an institution's audited financial statement notes. To perform an
    accurate analysis of the impact of the statutory change, an evaluation
    must be conducted at the individual student account receivable level
    for every recipient of any type of Federal taxpayer-funded educational
    assistance program who attended every proprietary school. This type of
    analysis is necessary in view of the requirements. The Department has
    no confidence that any other analytical approach would yield the
    accurate assessment requested.
        The Department appreciates your longstanding concern with
    institutions receiving Federal education benefits from multiple funding
    sources. However, the knowing release of a report that uses
    questionable data and depends on unsound assumptions could have harmful
    effects in advance of the upcoming rulemaking, including possibly
    misinforming and misleading members of the public who may seek to
    forecast the anticipated impact of new rules, which may undermine
    public trust. The Department is also concerned that the release of an
    inaccurate report would violate the Government Accountability Office's
    (GAO's) Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (GAO-
    14-704G), especially Principle 13, ``Use Quality Data.''
        Question. Over the last four fiscal years, this Subcommittee--with
    the support of Chairman Blunt and Ranking Member Murray--has provided
    $24 million to an Open Textbooks Pilot to expand the use of open
    textbooks on college campuses to achieve savings for students. While
    this program may be small, it has energized students and faculty across
    the country who see open textbooks--free, high-quality alternatives to
    costly traditional textbooks--as key to reducing student debt and
    improving learning outcomes. Many students don't purchase required
    course materials because they are too costly. It puts them at an
    academic disadvantage and hits low-income, first-generation, and
    students of color hardest. So, on a bipartisan basis, Congress created
    this program. In early June, the Department made nine new awards with
    its fiscal year 2021 appropriation--funding down the slate of fiscal
    year 2020 applications. I am pleased that the Department took
    Congressional directive and made a great number of awards. In order to
    do so though, the Department only funded 1 year of the applicants'
    projects. It was my understanding that if the Department took that
    step, it would fully fund those nine projects pending the appropriation
    of additional funds in fiscal year 2022.
        Please confirm that remains the Department's intention.
        How is that intention being relayed, with the appropriate caveats,
    to the 9 grantees?
        Answer. The Department worked extensively with Congress to identify
    and implement a funding strategy that would maximize the number of new
    awards in fiscal year 2021 that could be awarded with the $7 million in
    available funding, ultimately making nine new awards from the fiscal
    year 2020 slate. This strategy required a shift from the previous
    strategy of frontloading OTP grantees, an approach that fully paid all
    multi-year project costs with a single year's appropriation, but which
    consequently required making a much smaller number of awards. The
    larger number of awards enabled by the shift to incremental funding
    allowed roughly twice as many highly rated applicants to launch their
    projects in fiscal year 2021 as would have been possible with
    frontloading. The Department used approximately $5.9 million to pay
    first-year costs and approximately $1.1 million to partially pay down
    the second-year costs for the 2021 OTP cohort. We plan to use an
    estimated $8.3 million in fiscal year 2022 funds to pay remaining
    second- and third-year costs for this cohort, as shown in the fiscal
    year 2022 Congressional budget justification for this program.
        While the project period for these grantees does not begin until
    September 1, 2021, program staff have held post-award calls with the
    nine grantees to explain the impact of the change in funding strategies
    for the 2021 OTP cohort.
        Question. When you came before us, I asked you about the high
    percentage of denials under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
    program. You voiced your support for PSLF and your determination that
    borrowers receive the forgiveness that they expected and to which they
    are entitled. PSLF reform is part of the higher education regulatory
    agenda that you have announced. What steps will you take
    administratively, outside of formal rulemaking, to help fix the
    problems with PSLF?
        Answer. As we continue investigating the challenges of PSLF, the
    Department is committed to undertaking a serious review of the PSLF
    program and to making improvements that will result in better access to
    relief for eligible borrowers. In addition to including PSLF on the
    regulatory agenda, we recently issued a Request for Information (RFI),
    inviting feedback on borrower experiences and possible policy solutions
    with the PSLF program, to identify broader areas for improvement. The
    Department has already begun to make improvements, including by
    launching and updating the PSLF Help Tool, by allowing lump sum and
    prepayments to count as qualifying payments, and by creating a single
    application for PSLF, Temporary Expanded PSLF (TEPSLF), and Employment
    Certification Forms (ECFs). We look forward to making additional
    administrative and operational improvements that help eligible
    borrowers access the benefits they have earned.
        Further, on October 6, 2021, the Department of Education announced
    an overhaul of the PSLF Program that it will implement over the next
    year to make the program live up to its promise. This policy will
    result in 22,000 borrowers who have consolidated loans--including
    previously ineligible loans--being immediately eligible for $1.74
    billion in forgiveness without the need for further action on their
    part. Another 27,000 borrowers could potentially qualify for an
    additional $2.82 billion in forgiveness if they certify additional
    periods of employment. All told, the Department estimates that over
    550,000 borrowers who have previously consolidated will see an increase
    in qualifying payments with the average borrower receiving another 2
    years of progress toward forgiveness. Many more will also see progress
    as borrowers consolidate into the Direct Loan program and apply for
    PSLF, and as the Department rolls out other changes in the weeks and
    months ahead.
        The first major change will result in a limited PSLF waiver that
    allows all payments by student borrowers to count toward PSLF,
    regardless of loan program or payment plan. This waiver will allow
    student borrowers to count all payments made on loans from the Federal
    Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program or Perkins Loan Program. It will
    also waive restrictions on the type of repayment plan and the
    requirement that payments be made in the full amount and on-time for
    all borrowers.
        Given this new policy, borrowers who currently have FFEL, Perkins,
    or other non-Direct Loans, will receive the benefit of this limited
    waiver if they apply to consolidate into the Direct Loan program and
    submit a PSLF form by October 31, 2022. The waiver applies to loans
    taken out by students.
        Also, these changes will allow active duty service members to count
    deferments and forbearances toward PSLF. This solves a problem for
    service members who have paused payments while on active duty but were
    not getting credit toward PSLF.
        The Department is automatically providing credit toward PSLF for
    military service members and Federal employees using Federal data
    matches. The Department will implement data matches next year to give
    these borrowers credit toward PSLF without an application.
        Finally, the Department is reviewing denied PSLF applications for
    errors and giving borrowers the ability to have their PSLF
    determinations reconsidered. These actions will help identify and
    address servicing errors or other issues that have prevented borrowers
    from getting the PSLF credit they deserve.
        Question. Students' Federal financial aid for higher education is
    dependent on their expected family contribution. For many students from
    low-income families, their expected family contribution qualifies them
    for Federal assistance in the form of a Pell Grant. To confirm accurate
    family contributions, some financial aid applications are flagged for
    additional verification. Past data from the Department shows that over
    half of Pell-eligible applicants were selected for verification in
    2015-2016. It is estimated that more than 1 in 5 low-income students
    selected for verification never complete the process, thus never end up
    receiving Federal financial aid. Students who receive Pell grants have
    much higher college retention rates than their peers who are Pell
    eligible but do not receive the aid. This data implies it is possible
    that the verification process is disproportionately harming the
    educational success of low-income students, which is the opposite
    intention of the Pell Grant program. The 2017/2018 Award Year ushered
    in a new verification model. The Quality Assurance Program ended, which
    had given institutions of higher education discretion on application
    verification, leaving the Department to select which students needed to
    be verified. The risk-model developed by the Department to identify
    which FASFA applications needed verification led to a drastically
    higher percentage of applications flagged. In fact, some schools
    reported that nearly 50 percent of Pell eligible students were selected
    for verification multiple times over their course of study even though
    their financial information hadn't changed.
        Please provide the metrics by which the Department selects which
    applications are to be verified.
        Answer. Prior to 2018, FSA relied solely on a Classification and
    Regression Tree (CART) model to choose FAFSA filers for financial
    verification. The CART model used combinations of Targeted Selection
    Criteria (TSC) to choose FAFSA filers for verification. In September
    2017, FSA funded the creation of an advanced Python-coded machine
    learning model (MLM) to improve FSA's verification selection model by
    better identifying applicants for whom an error on the FAFSA was more
    likely to impact their Expected Family Contribution and, ultimately,
    their Federal aid award. FSA has used this model since October 1, 2018.
    The MLM updates the criteria used for selection of FAFSA filers for
    verification to a gradient boosting classification and regression
    model. The metrics the model employs to choose FAFSA filers for
    verification include data from the FAFSA, as well as demographic data,
    in several complex algorithms. In certain cases, TSC are used to
    supplement MLM selection, and a small percentage of applicants are
    randomly selected to provide necessary data for model building and
    evaluation. As part of this single, overall selection process, a
    separate TSC model is used to select applicants for identity/fraud
    verification.
        Finally, for your awareness, in July we announced some
    modifications to our verification approach to the 2021-2022 FAFSA
    processing cycle in response to the challenges and barriers resulting
    from the ongoing national emergency by focusing solely on identity and
    fraud. We continue to evaluate potential approaches for upcoming cycles
    to ensure that they are balanced and equitable.
        Question. What percentage of students chosen for verification, did
    not complete, and failed their verification during the last award year
    under model?
        Answer. FSA uses the receipt of either a Pell Grant or Subsidized
    Direct Loan as a measure of whether an applicant successfully completes
    verification once selected. Of those selected for verification during
    the 2020-21 FAFSA cycle, 64.5 percent received either a Pell Grant or a
    Subsidized Direct Loan. Some students that submit a FAFSA do not enroll
    in an institution of higher education for a variety of reasons, so we
    would not expect this percentage to equal 100. Therefore, to understand
    the impact of the verification process on student enrollment, the
    Department compares this rate to the population not chosen for any type
    of verification. The rate for those not selected for verification
    receiving either a Pell Grant or a Subsidized Direct Loan is 56.8
    percent. Please note this data is as of July 28, 2021 and may change
    slightly as Award Year 2021 aid is finalized.
        Question. We have a student debt crisis that isn't going to resolve
    itself. Currently 45 million Americans hold more than $1.7 trillion in
    student loan debt. Student debt is larger than credit card debt in our
    nation. It is second only to mortgages when it comes to consumer debt.
    The average debt per student borrower is more than $37,000. Most of
    this is in Federal student loans. The student debt crisis is limiting
    young people's life and career choices. Americans are putting off
    starting a family and buying a home because of student debt. And it's
    not just young people. More than 8 million Americans over age 50 have
    student loan debt. For years, I have introduced legislation to fix the
    absurd way that the bankruptcy code treats student debt. If a person
    overextends himself on his credit card or goes into debt buying a car
    or a boat or a luxury watch, he can address those debts in bankruptcy.
    But the bankruptcy code provides no meaningful relief for student loan
    debt. In 1998, Congress put Federal student loans in the category of
    nondischargeable debts, along with alimony, child support, overdue
    taxes, and criminal fines. Right now, the only way a student borrower
    can get bankruptcy relief for student loans is if she can demonstrate
    ``undue hardship.'' This standard is not defined in law, and courts
    have interpreted it to make it nearly impossible to meet. But,
    Secretary Cardona, you have the ability to help this situation. The
    Department of Education can set internal standards for when it views an
    undue hardship as being met, and can direct its contractors and
    servicers not to challenge those undue hardship claims in bankruptcy
    court. For years, I have urged previous Secretaries of Education to use
    this authority and to issue undue hardship guidance for its guaranty
    agencies and contractors. There are categories of debtors where undue
    hardship can be presumed--for example, debtors who suffer from certain
    disabilities, or who have had a low income for a number of consecutive
    years. If the Department would use this authority, it would create an
    option of last resort for student debtors who truly have nowhere else
    to turn. Will you commit to issue guidance on the Department's views of
    when an undue hardship claim can be met?
        Answer. The Administration is committed to ensuring that student
    loan borrowers have options to make the burden of student loans more
    manageable . The consequences of delinquency and default on Federal
    student loans can be substantial, particularly for borrowers who are
    suffering from other economic hardships, including many who ultimately
    file for bankruptcy relief on their debts. We have already taken
    initial actions to support borrowers; but we recognize that more work
    remains to be done.
        To that end, the Department is committed to reviewing its 2015
    guidance on undue hardship student loan discharges in bankruptcy
    proceedings, as well as other policies related to such proceedings to
    assess the types of changes that might better protect borrowers. We
    hope to have more to share on this soon.
        Question. A recent report by the National Student Loan Defense
    Network, entitled ``The Missing Billion,'' highlights the aggressive
    tactics the Department uses to collect from struggling borrowers--
    including challenging claims of undue hardship in bankruptcy. At the
    same time, the report finds that the Department has failed to collect
    on more than $1 billion owed to taxpayers by for-profit institutions
    and executives. Please comment on the findings of this new report.
        Answer. The National Student Loan Defense Network's (NSLDN's)
    report, ``The Missing Billion,'' compares the differences in the
    Department's collection of liabilities owed by institutions and its
    collection of student loans owed by individual borrowers in default.
    This difference primarily comes from statutory provisions that make it
    difficult to hold individual owners liable for the corporate debts of
    the institutions, in contrast to provisions that substantially limit
    any bankruptcy relief under an ``undue hardship'' standard. See 11
    U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(8). The ``undue hardship'' standard applies to
    educational debts when individuals seek bankruptcy protection. In
    seeking to enforce that standard uniformly, the Department considers as
    a factor the availability of several student loan repayment plans that
    can take a borrower's circumstances into account to reduce a borrower's
    scheduled loan installments to a more affordable monthly payment.
        The Department uses oversight measures as provided in the
    Department's regulations to identify institutions that are financially
    weak and institutions with impaired administrative capability. These
    measures include monitoring the numeric composite score of financial
    responsibility, requiring institutions with failing financial scores to
    provide letters of credit (LOCs), using Heightened Cash Monitoring
    (HCM) methods of payment, and provisional certification to monitor
    schools' compliance with the Department's requirements to mitigate
    risk.
        Frequently, LOC amounts, HCM requirements, and provisional
    certification are linked to an institution's performance under the
    Department's financial responsibility requirements and an institution's
    numeric composite score determined by financial analysis of the
    institution's annual financial statements in accordance with the
    Department's regulations. Consistent with the Department's regulations,
    LOC amounts are indexed to an institution's annual Title IV, HEA
    funding. The proceeds of LOC collections can be applied towards an
    institution's unpaid debts after any related appeals are fully
    resolved. When the Department perceives increased financial or
    administrative risk, the Department may require institutions to comply
    with more stringent requirements, such as raising the amount of
    financial protection an institution must provide and increasing the
    level of scrutiny applied to payment requests through the HCM2 method
    of payment. The Department also considers risks associated with
    increased compliance requirements. One outcome of stringent enforcement
    and oversight can be that an IHE may close if it is unable to fully
    comply with more rigorous requirements, such as a posting a larger LOC.
        The Department's Office of Finance and Operations collects debts
    owed to the Department and follows applicable Federal debt collections
    laws, including the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, when
    collecting debts and when referring delinquent debts for collections.
    If an institution files for bankruptcy, it immediately loses
    eligibility to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs. The
    Department is bound to follow applicable bankruptcy law and pursues
    debt recovery from the institution's estate through the bankruptcy
    court. Institutions that close often do so with a lot of debt and
    limited assets to be distributed among the creditors. Collection of
    liabilities against an institution is generally limited to the direct
    owner corporate entity unless there is litigation to ``pierce the
    corporate veil,'' which often proves difficult. Litigation to recover
    liabilities against individuals can only be brought by the U.S.
    Department of Justice and requires piercing the corporate veil in order
    to hold individuals personally accountable. The Department has taken
    steps to prevent individuals with unpaid school debts or bad track
    records running schools from operating other schools. The Department's
    past performance regulations can bar school owners who owe unpaid debts
    from owning or exercising substantial control over other schools until
    their outstanding debts are paid.
        We are reviewing the report to determine if there are any
    outstanding actions that need to be resolved for currently
    participating schools. While the report is critical of the Department's
    administration of debts owed by institutions, an initial reading also
    indicates the report contains unfounded conclusions and inaccurate
    claims because it fails to take into account the requirements to
    establish liabilities against institutions. The report also appears to
    misinterpret the data provided to NSLDN via the Freedom of Information
    Act (FOIA).
        As an example, the report is critical of the Department's
    administration of debts owed by institutions owned by Zovio, Inc, and
    claims the Department failed to collect a $883,613 liability amount
    assessed against the University of the Rockies (owned by Zovio, Inc.).
    In actuality, the Department's efforts to collect this liability
    (arising from a final close-out audit determination) have been
    suspended in accordance with 34 C.F.R. Part 668, Subpart H--Appeal
    Procedures for Audit Determinations and Program Review Determinations
    because an appeal is currently pending resolution with the Department's
    Office of Hearings and Appeals. The suspension of collections is
    required under the Department's regulations at 34 C.F.R.
    Sec. Sec. 668.23(f)(1); (g)(1)(i)-(ii); and 668.123. These regulations
    provide that an institution must repay an audit liability within 45
    days of the date of the Department's notification, unless the
    institution files a timely appeal or unless a longer repayment period
    is permitted. A liability may be established but not paid in full
    because an institution is repaying the liability owed under a repayment
    agreement. The Department monitors institutional compliance with
    repayment requirements. Failure to comply with these repayment
    requirements is a violation of the Department's financial
    responsibility standards, as described above.
        The report suggests that Department improperly issued a Program
    Participation Agreement to Ashford University (also owned by Zovio,
    Inc.) while Ashford owed a $32,965 liability. The Department's Federal
    Student Aid office received confirmation on Oct. 5, 2016, that Ashford
    University had fully repaid the $32,965 liability to the Department on
    Sept. 9, 2016. The Department would not dispute that the $32,965
    receivable erroneously included in the records provided to NSDLN
    through the FOIA request was the result of a recordkeeping error.
    However, before the Department provided a Program Participation
    Agreement to Ashford University on Oct. 20, 2017, the Department had
    determined that Ashford had fully paid the liability.
        As another example, the report states ``The Department has asserted
    a $283,782,751 claim in the bankruptcy proceeding against ITT Technical
    Institute, plus an additional $1,544,738 against the school due to its
    ownership and operation of Daniel Webster College. Yet the Department's
    list of unpaid debt only includes approximately $343,000 from ITT and
    nothing with respect to Daniel Webster College.'' In this instance, the
    Department did not issue final determinations associated with the debts
    identified in the proof of claim to avoid violating the automatic stay
    provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
        The NSLDN report unfortunately misinforms its readers that ``[t]he
    Department's inaction has irrevocably cost at least $218 million
    because the statute of limitations on collections has expired'' by
    misconstruing 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2462. The NSLDN report cites as support 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 2462 and the Lincoln University case (Docket 13-68-SF),
    April 25, 2016, in Footnote 35. A reading of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2462
    undermines the notion that there is a statute of limitations on
    collections. Rather, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2462 establishes a statute of
    limitations for commencing actions to assess civil fines, etc. which
    must be commenced within 5 years from the date when the claim first
    accrued. In Lincoln University, the Department asserted on Oct. 25,
    2013, fines for Clery Act violations which occurred on Oct. 1, 2006,
    and were repeated annually on that date until 2009 under the
    Department's regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 668, Subpart G--Fine,
    Limitation, Suspension and Termination Proceedings (Subpart G). The
    question was whether the Sec. 2462 statute of limitations for these
    violations had elapsed based on the date the violation occurred. After
    close review of Sec. 2462, the Subpart G hearing official held in the
    initial decision dated March 16, 2015 that the statute of limitations
    barred the Department's fines for the 2006, 2007, and 2008 Clery Act
    violations, but that the fines for the 2009 violations were not barred.
    There is however no discussion in the Lincoln University decisions to
    support the assertion that a fine is uncollectable under Sec. 2642
    simply because the debt is asserted or continues to exist more than 5
    years after the claim first accrued. Indeed, the initial and remand
    decisions ordering payment of fines in Lincoln University were dated
    more than 5 years after the violation. To assert otherwise implies that
    those who are subject to a civil penalty or fine action can evade and
    self-discharge their payment obligation after 5 years of making no
    payments. Additionally, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2462 only applies to civil
    fines, penalties and forfeitures; it does not apply to repayment
    liabilities. Funds owed back to the Title IV program are not subject to
    any statute of limitations.
        Question. Two decades ago, a CDC study came out that changed the
    way we think about public health. It was called the Adverse Childhood
    Experiences or ``ACEs'' study and it established the link between
    exposure to trauma--things like witnessing violence or an overdose--and
    our long-term health, education, and economic outlook. We now
    understand how trauma and ACEs harm brain development and how having
    multiple of these emotional scars can reduce life expectancy by up to
    20 years make you two times less likely to graduate high school and
    make you 10 times more likely to attempt suicide. Prior to COVID-19, we
    already had an epidemic of gun violence, suicides, and overdoses--all
    of which exacerbate and stem from the root issue of trauma. But the
    pandemic has magnified this problem, with a recent CDC study finding a
    50 percent increase in suicide attempts by teenage girls. Senator
    Capito of West Virginia and I teamed up in 2018 to pass legislation to
    increase funding and coordination across the Departments of Education
    and HHS to promote this understanding of trauma in more Federal grant
    programs. Specifically, we authorized a $50 million trauma and mental
    health services grant program for schools, which we have not yet been
    able to fund. This grant program--Section 7134 of the SUPPORT Act--
    would support schools in adopting trauma-informed practices, training
    more staff, engaging families, and forging partnerships with clinical
    mental health professionals. I know the Biden Administration is
    proposing $1 billion to support more counselors in schools--sign me up
    for that. Would you also support appropriations for this already
    authorized program to address the breadth of trauma needs in schools--
    setting up comprehensive plans, trainings, and partnerships, beyond
    just adding school psychologists or counselors?
        Answer. COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on many families,
    contributing to significant trauma resulting from isolation, economic
    stress, housing insecurity, and the loss of loved ones, among other
    traumatic events. Prior to COVID-19, many of these kinds of traumas and
    others already existed and were only further exacerbated by the
    pandemic. A significant number of students, predominantly students from
    low-income backgrounds, rely on their schools for access to mental
    health services and other services that are intended to meet their
    physical, social, emotional, and mental health needs. The need for all
    students, especially those most underserved, to have access to these
    critical services is why the Department requested $1 billion to double
    the number of school counselors, nurses, social workers, and school
    psychologists over the next decade. It is also why we requested $250
    million for IDEA, Part D Personnel Preparation to support the pipeline
    into the profession , including mental health service providers, and
    their preparation, development, and support. The Department is also
    requesting $443 million to support Full Service Community Schools--
    schools which have in place the kinds of comprehensive plans and
    partnerships you describe to support students and families. We also
    call for increased investments in the Promise Neighborhoods, School
    Safety National Activities, and Student Support and Academic Enrichment
    Grants programs, all in effort to provide a comprehensive set of
    investments intended to mitigate the impact of traumatic experiences
    and help our students heal from the trauma, develop, and thrive. We
    look forward to working with you to make these kinds of critical
    investments in existing programs and identify additional opportunities
    for targeted and increased investments.
        Question. Multiple Congressionally mandated Department of Education
    studies of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program--the only
    federally-funded voucher program--have found that the program does not
    improve the academic achievement of students in the program. In fact,
    two recent Department of Education studies of the program found that
    students using vouchers have performed worse academically than their
    peers not in the voucher program. And, previous studies have indicated
    that many of the students in the voucher program are less likely to
    have access to key services such as ESL programs, learning supports,
    special education supports and services, and counselors than students
    who are not part of the program. Moreover, a study from the Urban
    Institute found that receiving a voucher does not increase D.C.
    students' college enrollment rates. Given these troubling findings, do
    you support continuing Federal support for the program?
        Answer. The Administration seeks to phase out the D.C. Opportunity
    Scholarship Program while providing scholarships to students currently
    participating in the program through 12th grade. Accordingly, the
    Administration has requested level funding for fiscal year 2022 to
    continue funding scholarships for continuing students in school year
    2022-2023.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
        Question. PSLF and Military Service Members--Earlier this year, the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report finding that 94
    percent of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) applicants in
    military service or Department of Defense (DoD) civilian jobs were
    denied. Additionally, the GAO recommended that the Department of
    Education could take additional steps to improve information sharing
    about PSLF with DoD about military service members and DoD civilian
    personnel seeking to participate as well with potential beneficiaries.
    According to the GAO, as of February 17, 2021, 178,215 active-duty
    service members had direct loans eligible for PSLF, and another 16,195
    active-duty service members had Federal loans that could be
    consolidated into new qualifying direct loans. These statistics offer
    just a small snapshot of the full scope of eligible military borrowers
    who should be benefiting from the protections of PSLF since borrowers
    first became able to secure forgiveness through the program in 2017.
        Using the Department of Defense's DMDC website, please provide the
    total number of active duty service members (and veterans) with Federal
    student loans who have served since PSLF launched on October 1, 2007
    and who continue to be in repayment on Director Loans and/or FFELP
    loans.
        Answer. FSA is working to produce such an analysis, in
    collaboration with the Department's Office of the General Counsel and
    the Department of Defense.
        Question. Please provide information on the Department's efforts to
    implement the GAO recommendations. Also please include information
    about the Department's plans to use any other authority, such as
    authorities under the HEROES Act of 2003, to ease the process and
    expand access to PSLF for military service members.
        Answer. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) made two
    recommendations for the Secretary of Education in its recent report,
    ``Public Service Loan Forgiveness: DoD and Its Personnel Could Benefit
    from Additional Program Information (GAO-21-65).'' The other three
    recommendations in the report were addressed to the Department of
    Defense (DoD).
        First, the GAO recommended that Federal Student Aid (FSA)
    collaborate with officials in DoD's Office of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Personnel and Readiness to share information about the
    Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program, including current
    information on program participation and eligibility, as well as
    program requirements. The Department concurred with the recommendation
    and has already begun this collaboration with DoD. For example, FSA had
    already begun discussions with DoD about enhancements to our digital
    toolsets and is actively working with DoD on providing more and
    improved information to employees interested in PSLF.
        Second, the GAO recommended that FSA update the student loan guide
    for service members to provide information on applying for PSLF and
    TEPSLF, as well as the steps borrowers can take to count their annual
    payment from DoD's student loan repayment program as multiple
    qualifying payments for the PSLF program. The Department again
    concurred with the recommendation and intends to update the next
    version of the student loan guide for service members to reflect the
    new combined PSLF form, which no longer requires borrowers to
    separately apply for TEPSLF. In addition, FSA currently makes
    information available on lump sum payments made by DoD for service
    members through StudentAid.gov. We agree this information should be
    included in the next version of the student loan guide for service
    members. FSA will work with DoD to ensure there are clear instructions
    for borrowers participating in DoD's student loan repayment program to
    earn qualifying payments for the PSLF Program.
        On October 6, 2021, the Department of Education announced a set of
    actions that, over the coming months, will restore the promise of PSLF.
    We will offer a time-limited waiver so that student borrowers can count
    payments from all Federal loan programs or repayment plans toward
    forgiveness. This includes loan types and payment plans that were not
    previously eligible. We will pursue opportunities to automate PSLF
    eligibility, give borrowers a way to get errors corrected, and make it
    easier for members of the military to get credit toward forgiveness
    while they serve. We will pair these changes with an expanded
    communications campaign to make sure affected borrowers learn about
    these opportunities and encourage them to apply.
        The Department is working hard to eliminate barriers for military
    service members to receive PSLF. The Department will allow months spent
    on active duty to count toward PSLF, even if the service member's loans
    were on a deferment or forbearance rather than in active repayment.
    This change addresses one major challenge service members face in
    accessing PSLF. Service members on active duty can qualify for student
    loan deferments and forbearances that help them through periods in
    which service inhibits their ability to make payments. But too often,
    members of the military find out that those same deferments or
    forbearances granted while they served our country did not count toward
    PSLF. This change ensures that members of the military will not need to
    focus on their student loans while serving our country. Federal Student
    Aid will develop and implement a process to address periods of student
    loan deferments and forbearance for active-duty service members and
    will update affected borrowers to let them know what they need to do to
    take advantage of this change.
        Finally, the Department is working to automatically help service
    members and other Federal employees access PSLF. Military service
    members and other Federal employees devote themselves to serving the
    United States, and we should make it as easy as possible for them to
    receive PSLF. Next year, the Department will begin automatically giving
    Federal employees credit for PSLF by matching Department of Education
    data with information held by other Federal agencies about service
    members and the Federal workforce. To date, approximately 110,000
    Federal employees and 17,000 service members have certified some
    employment toward PSLF. These matches will help the Department identify
    others who may also be eligible but cannot benefit automatically, like
    those with FFEL loans.
        Question. Restarting Student Loan Repayment--Payments on Federal
    student loans have been paused for over a year due to the pandemic,
    with borrowers currently expected to begin repaying their student loans
    on October 1 of this year. There are indications that the restart will
    trigger unprecedented outreach to servicers, with survey data showing
    that servicers could field inquiries from more than 9 million
    borrowers. There have been indications that it will take approximately
    2-4 months for servicers to rehire, train, and obtain background checks
    for their workforce.
        As the U.S. Department of Education and its student loan servicers
    prepare for the repayment restart, what are the essential steps that
    the Department is considering to ensure a seamless return to repayment?
    What is the timeframe for implementing these steps so that the Office
    of Federal Student Aid and servicers have sufficient time to implement
    this plan so that both borrowers and servicers can prepare? What is the
    Department's monitoring plan for servicers on their implementation of
    the restart of repayment?
        Answer. The Department's goal is to achieve a smooth transition
    that minimizes borrower harm due to confusion, lack of awareness, and
    insufficient servicing capacity. To this end, the Department has
    produced a comprehensive plan that combines elements of borrower
    outreach, servicer hiring, training and preparation, and vendor and
    process oversight to ensure borrowers have the resources they need to
    effectively manage the process of returning to repayment.
        From an outreach perspective, in March 2020, FSA launched an
    ongoing communications and engagement campaign to provide borrowers
    clear, concise messaging related to available CARES Act benefits and
    the eventual transition to repayment. Since then, FSA has engaged in
    continuous communication efforts to encourage student loan borrowers to
    take actions to put them on the best repayment plan for their economic
    situation before payments resume. From July 2020 until the end of
    February 2021, FSA sent over 220 million emails to borrowers,
    supplemented by multiple paid media campaigns.
        FSA has also posted information on StudentAid.gov to assist
    borrowers in preparing for payments to resume, specifically
    recommending that borrowers update their contact information with their
    loan servicer and in their StudentAid.gov profile, use Loan Simulator
    to find a repayment plan that meets their needs and goals, and consider
    applying for an income-driven repayment plan. As we approach the end of
    the forbearance period, outreach to borrowers will increase and include
    broad campaigns aimed at increasing general awareness of payment
    resumption and options to address ability to repay, as well as targeted
    outreach to at-risk borrowers.
        To ensure our servicers are prepared for the restart of repayment,
    FSA engaged in ongoing conversations with loan servicers about their
    preparations and staffing levels since the CARES Act was passed in
    March 2020. During the payment pause, FSA has clearly communicated
    expectations for how loan servicers should engage with borrowers. FSA
    is continually analyzing historical, current, and projected future loan
    servicer staffing levels against several customer service metrics to
    ensure servicers are ready for payments to resume. As we prepare for
    borrowers to enter repayment, FSA will provide detailed communications
    ``playbooks'' for loan servicers to follow. To ensure loan servicers
    are held accountable for customer service performance during the return
    to repayment effort, FSA plans to add explicit return-to-repayment
    performance expectations, called service level agreements (SLAs), to
    the servicers' existing contracts. Proposed SLAs would focus on call
    center performance, such as abandon rates and Average Speed to Answer,
    to ensure borrowers have prompt, easy access to information. As
    borrowers exit the payment suspension period, FSA will expand our
    monitoring to include all aspects of return to repayment. Vendors who
    fail to adhere to any statutory, regulatory, or contractual standards
    will be held accountable through appropriate corrective actions, which
    may include financial penalties.
        On Aug. 6, 2021, the Department announced a final extension of the
    payment pause until Jan. 31, 2022. The Department is already working
    diligently to ensure a smooth transition back to repayment for all
    borrowers
        The pause on student loan repayment will end on January 31, 2022,
    and we are planning around that date. The Department's priority is to
    ensure students and borrowers get the service they deserve. We are
    committed to ensuring that student loan borrowers are able to
    transition smoothly into repayment. The Department has established
    timelines with key deadlines related to returning student loans to
    repayment. Those plans include substantial communications and outreach
    to make borrowers aware of the resumption of loan payment obligations.
    FSA also continues to communicate with servicers about return to
    repayment as information becomes available. Additionally, the
    Department plans to collaborate with Federal and state regulators to
    ensure our oversight of Federal student loan servicers is as effective
    as possible, and are working to ensure the tools available to the
    Office of Federal Student Aid are used to the fullest extent possible.
        Question. FFEL and Repayment Relief--In April, Senator Murkowski
    and I sent you a letter asking you to address the over 5 million FFEL
    and the roughly 1.7 million Perkins loans borrowers who have been left
    out of the CARES Act relief and the subsequent extensions of the pause
    on student loan repayment.
        What steps is the Department taking to ensure that all Federal
    student loan borrowers have equal access to any current or proposed new
    relief and benefits?
        Answer. We have taken steps to assist those FFEL borrowers that
    have defaulted during the national emergency. In March 2021, the
    Department announced that the payment pause on interest and collections
    would be extended to all defaulted FFEL loans, protecting more than
    800,000 borrowers from debt collection activity such as wage
    garnishment and seizure of tax refunds. FFEL loans on which borrowers
    defaulted since March 13, 2020, the start of the national emergency,
    are being restored to good standing, and the record of default removed
    from their credit reports. The Department continues to explore
    additional opportunities to aid all Federal student loan borrowers,
    whether they hold FFEL, Perkins, or Direct Loans, and to ensure that
    their payments remain affordable, particularly during a period that has
    been challenging for so many borrowers.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin, III
        Question. I want to once again thank you for working with myself
    and Senator Murkowski on getting out the first tranche of the American
    Rescue Plan funding for homeless children and youth in an expedited
    manner, so we could ensure that homeless children and youth are
    identified and are able to access summer programming and wrap-around
    supports they need in light of the COVID-19 Pandemic. In the
    Department's initial announcement surrounding this funding, you
    indicated that the second tranche of this funding could be available as
    soon as June, to help states and school districts prepare for the fall.
    This is critical as we expect to see even greater numbers of
    homelessness and higher level of service needs, as communities return
    to in person learning.
        Can you tell me if those plans for the release of the second
    tranche of homelessness funding are on schedule, and will be out this
    month?
        Answer. The awards for the second tranche of American Rescue Plan
    funding for homeless students were made on July 27, 2021.
        Question. In the final fiscal year 2021 spending package, I was
    able to secure language urging the Department to ensure that local
    educational agencies (LEA's) set aside adequate amounts of Title I Part
    A funds for students experiencing homelessness and use those resources
    effectively.
        Can you tell me what the Department has done to date to implement
    this request and does this budget proposal do anything to implement
    that language further?
        Answer. In July 2018, the Department sent a letter to State
    educational agencies (available at: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/02/
    letterforessatitleialeahomelesssetaside-1.pdf) that highlights the
    requirement that an LEA reserve sufficient funds under Title I, Part A
    to provide services for students experiencing homelessness. This
    clarification was included in an update in August 2018 to the non-
    regulatory guidance for the Education for Homeless Children and Youth
    (EHCY) program and it is also part of the monitoring protocol for the
    EHCY program. The Department asks the States that it is monitoring to
    provide a list of all Title I, Part A set-asides by LEA. These are
    compared with the latest available homeless student enrollment counts,
    which usually lag by 1 year. The SEA is asked to explain if any LEAs
    had homeless students enrolled but did not set aside a reservation from
    Title I, Part A to serve them. We also correlate a per-pupil amount to
    look for statewide patterns of insufficiency. The EHCY State
    Coordinator Handbook developed by the National Center for Homeless
    Education (NCHE) has a Summary of EHCY Performance Management Pilot
    Monitoring, fiscal year 2015-18 that summarizes which States had
    findings or recommendations in this area (Indicator 3.3). For fiscal
    year 2022, due to the American Rescue Plan funds for homeless children
    and youth, the Department will expand its monitoring of States for
    homeless education programs, including the Title I, Part A LEA set-
    aside.
        In addition, NCHE also provides technical assistance concerning
    Title I, Part A requirements for serving students experiencing
    homelessness (see https://nche.ed.gov/legislation/title-1-part-a/).
        The key proposal in the fiscal year 2022 request that would support
    stronger implementation of Title I requirements related to meeting the
    needs of homeless students is the additional $20 billion for Title I,
    which would more than double funding for Title I districts and schools,
    direct more funds to LEAs with the greatest concentrations of poverty,
    and help close equity gaps for all students, including homeless
    students.
        Question. Student loan disclosure forms are essential in helping
    students and families understand the costs and terms of their student
    loans, but as currently written they are filled with unhelpful legal
    jargon, are complicated. lengthy, and don't show the true cost
    associated with taking out the loans leading to excess borrowing,
    further contributing to the nation's student debt crisis.
        What is the Department doing to address this issue and simplify
    student loan disclosure forms? Is there anything in this budget
    proposal to help with this?
        Answer. We are regularly looking at ways to help students,
    families, and borrowers better understand and support their efforts to
    meet their student loan obligations. For instance, we continue to
    promote use of the College Financing Plan, which provides a
    standardized financial aid offer letter so students can understand and
    compare their options for paying for college. If there are additional
    improvements you have in mind, my staff would be grateful to have them
    for consideration.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
                             student loan servicing
        Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget requests $2.1 billion, which
    is an increase of $200 million from the fiscal year 2021 level, to
    administer the student aid programs. Yet the budget provides very few
    details about how those funds would be used on student loan servicing
    activities aside from mentioning a ``long-term servicing solution.''
    Can you provide the Subcommittee additional details on your plans for
    the long-term servicing solution?
        Answer. The Department is currently working on its long-term
    servicing plans and looks forward to sharing more information in the
    future.
        Question. For the last several years the Labor/HHS bill has
    included appropriations language requiring the allocation of Federal
    student loans to servicers based on the quality of their performance to
    encourage the Department to leverage competition among student loan
    servicers. The budget request proposes to strike this language because
    the requirement will be included in FSA's ``long-term servicing
    solution'' despite the fact that no information is included in the
    request on what the long-term solution will look like. How will you
    continue to hold the Federal student loan servicers to performance-
    based allocations as required by years of appropriations laws
    regardless of what a future long-term servicing solution may look like?
        Answer. The Department currently allocates loan volume based on
    servicer performance. We will continue this practice going forward
    under the two-year extensions of servicer contracts (as outlined in the
    appropriations language), as well as in the future under the final
    servicing solution.
        Question. The Department has struggled to complete the contracting
    process to fully implement its Next Generation Financial Services
    Environment. In light of that prolonged struggle, what are your plans
    for using the current five Business Process Operations contractors,
    which were awarded in June 2020, in the servicing of student loans
    moving forward?
        Answer. As you are aware, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
    included several provisions related to the future state of loan
    servicing, including provisions directly applicable to the Interim
    Servicing Solution (ISS) solicitation and Business Process Operations
    (BPO) contracts. Specifically, the language prohibited the use of ISS
    as a transitional servicing solution and called for an accelerated BPO
    implementation that would make it possible for BPO providers to perform
    the full suite of loan servicing activities upon migrating accounts to
    the ISS platform. After reviewing the change in the solicitation's
    requirements as a result of the appropriations provisions, Federal
    Student Aid (FSA) decided to cancel the ISS solicitation.
        FSA is using this opportunity to work with our new leadership in
    the Biden-Harris Administration to refine our long-term strategy for
    loan servicing, with the first priority being to ensure student loan
    borrowers have a stable, reliable, and accountable solution that meets
    their needs. In developing this long-term solution, FSA will continue
    to build on the newly modernized systems, tools, and resources for
    customers. In particular, FSA expects to leverage the new
    StudentAid.gov, the myStudentAid mobile app, and enhanced systems that
    allow FSA to improve how we collect and analyze data, offer more self-
    service options, provide better customer service, and communicate
    directly with students, parents, and borrowers.
        In addition, FSA will continue its work to bring BPO vendors online
    in preparation for a fall 2021 migration of all non-servicing contact
    center work. This work includes taking on FSA's legacy contact center
    functions, including the Federal Student Aid Information Center,
    Student Loan Support Center, Feedback Center, FSA Ombudsman, borrower
    defense hotline, and Office of Inspector General fraud referral. The
    BPO vendors will handle much of FSA's direct communication with
    customers and partners, including inbound and outbound calls, email,
    chat, social media inquiries, and physical correspondence. BPO vendors
    will receive training from FSA to ensure they are providing customers
    with correct and consistent information and are treating customers and
    partners equitably.
        The five-month transition to fully onboard the BPOs is expected to
    begin in November 2021 and be finalized by April 2022.
                                career pathways
        Question. Programs that provide academic and career counseling and
    exposure to postsecondary opportunities to students, as early as 8th
    grade and continuing through secondary and postsecondary education,
    have been shown to significantly increase rates of postsecondary
    enrollment and completion among rural students. To that end, the fiscal
    year 2021 Labor/HHS bill included $10 million for the Department of
    Education to improve rates of postsecondary enrollment and completion
    among rural students through development of career pathways aligned to
    high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors and occupations in
    the region. What is the timeline for publishing a Notice Inviting
    Applications for these funds? What can you tell me about how the
    Department plans to prioritize and spend this funding this year?
        Answer. While the Department is still developing a notice inviting
    applications (NIA), we plan to make up to 7 awards to institutions of
    higher education and other public and private non-profit organizations
    and agencies for 3-year projects that would implement innovative
    approaches to improve rates of postsecondary enrollment and completion
    among rural students through development of career pathways aligned to
    high-skill, high-wage or in-demand industry sectors and occupations in
    a specific region.
        Question. The budget request proposes a new $1 billion program to
    expand career pathways for middle and high school students,
    particularly in underserved communities. This Subcommittee will only be
    considering the discretionary request, but providing students in high
    school or middle school with access to quality work-based learning
    opportunities and exposure to their full range of postsecondary college
    and career opportunities should be happening in every school. How will
    additional funding for CTE help meet that goal?
        Answer. Additional funding under both the Career and Technical
    Education (CTE) State Grants formula program and CTE National Programs
    would support opportunities to provide high school or middle school
    students with access to quality work-based learning opportunities and
    exposure to postsecondary college and career opportunities, albeit in
    different in ways. The reauthorization of the Perkins Act in 2018 added
    provisions and requirements pertaining to work-based learning and
    including students in middle school in certain CTE activities. However,
    States and local grantees have been expected to implement these and
    other new requirements with relatively small increases in funding.
    After more than a decade of relatively flat funding, the increase in
    funding for the program since fiscal year 2019 (the implementation date
    for the reauthorized Perkins program) has been approximately 5.7
    percent. Increases for this program would provide additional resources
    to State and local grantees to implement these provisions.
        Increases in funding under CTE National Programs would provide
    opportunities to quality work-based learning opportunities and exposure
    to support and evaluate targeted activities to provide high school or
    middle school students with access to postsecondary college and career
    opportunities. Under that program the Department could fund focused,
    high quality proposals for such activities and set priorities for
    funding, such as funding to high-poverty LEAs and LEAs serving a high
    percentage of students of color or a high percentage of students from
    low-income backgrounds.
                     k-12 covid-19 funding/school reopening
        Question. Mr. Secretary, you and I both agree it is crucial that we
    get kids back in the classroom to prevent further learning loss. While
    I'm encouraged to see that more and more schools are reopening for in-
    person learning, the latest data from the Department shows that only 51
    percent of 4th graders and 41 percent of 8th graders are enrolled in
    fully in-person learning and these numbers are even worse for low-
    income and minority students. Given the significant amount of COVID-19
    emergency funding that has gone to K-12 schools, I would expect these
    numbers to be closer to 100 percent. What actions have you taken to
    help states and school districts use their ESSER funds to reopen
    schools and get kids back in the classroom? Do you expect that all
    schools will be fully open for in-person learning this fall?
        Answer. We are doing everything possible to support students,
    families, teachers, staff, school leaders, and communities to in
    returning to full-time, in-person learning this fall, and the
    Administration is confident that we, as a nation, will achieve this
    goal to the greatest extent possible.
        Most recently, on August 2, 2021, the Department released the
    ``Return to School Roadmap,'' an online resource available at https://
    sites.ed.gov/roadmap/to support students, schools, educators, and
    communities as they prepare to return to safe, healthy in-person
    learning this fall and emerge from the pandemic stronger than before.
        The Roadmap includes three ``Landmark'' priorities that schools,
    districts, and communities are encouraged to focus on to ensure all
    students are set up for success in the 2021-2022 school year: (1)
    prioritizing the health and safety of students, staff, and educators,
    (2) building school communities and supporting students' social,
    emotional, and mental health, and (3) accelerating academic
    achievement. The Roadmap also includes planned releases of additional
    resources for practitioners and parents on each of these priorities and
    will highlight schools and districts that are using innovative
    practices to address these priorities. These resources also will
    explain how American Rescue Plan funds, including ESSER funds, can be
    used to address these priorities in schools and communities across the
    country.
        The Roadmap is part of the Department's broader efforts to support
    schools and districts in the safe and sustained return to in-person
    learning since the beginning of the Biden Administration. In addition
    to releasing the Roadmap, the Department has issued three volumes of
    the COVID-19 Handbook to support K-12 schools and institutions of
    higher education in their reopening efforts, prioritized the
    vaccination of educators, school staff and child care workers,
    published a Safer Schools and Best Practices Clearinghouse, which
    includes over 200 examples of schools and communities safely returning
    to in-person learning, held a National Safe School Reopening Summit,
    provided $122 billion in support through the American Rescue Plan
    Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund for K-12 schools,
    provided over $3 billion in IDEA funds within the American Rescue Plan
    to support children and families with disabilities impacted by the
    pandemic, awarded $800 million within the American Rescue Plan to
    support students experiencing homelessness who have been
    disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, released a report on the
    disparate impacts of COVID-19 on underserved students, and launched an
    Equity Summit Series focused on addressing school and district
    inequities that were made worse by the pandemic.
                               student loan pause
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that the Administration has
    not outlined a plan to transition borrowers back into repayment when
    the student loan pause ends this fall. Now that the pandemic is winding
    down, it is time for this pause to end. Furthermore, the extension of
    the pause beyond what was originally authorized in the CARES Act cost
    taxpayers an additional $36 billion. I understand that some borrowers
    may still be struggling, but they have access to income-driven
    repayment plans where they can pay as little as $0 per month. Will you
    commit to end the pause as scheduled at the end of this fiscal year?
        Answer. On Aug. 6, 2021, the Department announced a final extension
    of the payment pause until Jan. 31, 2022. We believe this additional
    time and definitive end date will allow borrowers to plan for the
    resumption of payments and reduce the risk of delinquency and defaults
    after restart. The Department is already working diligently to ensure a
    smooth transition back to repayment for all borrowers
        Question. Federal student loan borrowers have gone over a year
    without making a payment on their loans. It is absolutely imperative
    that the Department begins communicating with borrowers early and often
    to ensure that all borrowers understand their responsibilities and
    their repayment options when their loans come due on October 1, 2021.
        What are your plans to help ensure that borrowers are prepared to
    begin repaying their loans when the pause ends?
        Answer. In March 2020, FSA launched an ongoing communications and
    engagement campaign to provide borrowers clear, concise messaging
    related to available CARES Act benefits and the eventual transition to
    repayment. Since then, FSA has engaged in continuous communication
    efforts to encourage student loan borrowers to take actions to put them
    on the best repayment plan for their economic situation before payments
    resume. From July 2020 until the end of February 2021, FSA sent over
    220 million emails to borrowers, supplemented by multiple paid media
    campaigns.
        FSA has also posted information on StudentAid.gov to assist
    borrowers in preparing for payments to resume, specifically
    recommending that borrowers update their contact information with their
    loan servicer and in their StudentAid.gov profile, use Loan Simulator
    to find a repayment plan that meets their needs and goals, and consider
    applying for an income-driven repayment plan. As we approach the end of
    the forbearance period, outreach to borrowers will increase and include
    broad campaigns aimed at increasing general awareness of payment
    resumption and options to address ability to repay, as well as targeted
    outreach to at-risk borrowers.
        Question. How will the Department engage the Federal student loan
    servicers and provide the necessary instructions so that the return to
    repayment process goes smoothly?
        Answer. FSA has engaged in ongoing conversations with loan
    servicers about their preparations and staffing levels since the CARES
    Act was passed in March 2020. During the payment pause, FSA has clearly
    communicated expectations for how loan servicers should engage with
    borrowers. FSA is continually analyzing historical, current, and
    projected future loan servicer staffing levels against several customer
    service metrics to ensure servicers are ready for payments to resume.
    As we prepare for borrowers to enter repayment, FSA will provide
    detailed communications ``playbooks'' for loan servicers to follow.
        To ensure loan servicers are held accountable for customer service
    performance during the return to repayment effort, FSA plans to add
    explicit return-to-repayment performance expectations, called service
    level agreements (SLAs), to the servicers' existing contracts. Proposed
    SLAs would focus on call center performance, such as abandon rates and
    Average Speed to Answer, to ensure borrowers have prompt, easy access
    to information. As borrowers exit the payment suspension period, FSA
    will expand our monitoring to include all aspects of return to
    repayment. Vendors who fail to adhere to any statutory, regulatory, or
    contractual standards will be held accountable through appropriate
    corrective actions, which may include financial penalties.
        Question. Both the CARES Act and the December COVID-19
    supplemental, as well as the American Rescue Plan, provided a total of
    $161 million to FSA to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the COVID-
    19 pandemic. How much of this funding has been used and what has it
    been used for?
        Answer. As of July 30, 2021, approximately $25 million has been
    committed and obligated for the following activities: system changes
    due to COVID-19; targeted communication campaigns to notify borrowers
    of administrative forbearance; increased server capacity and support
    for telework; and personnel and compensation for approximately 38 on-
    board staff at FSA to support CARES Act related activities.
        Question. Does the Department intend to use the remaining funds to
    improve communications and outreach with borrowers about the upcoming
    end of the repayment pause?
        Answer. Yes, the remaining funds will be used to improve
    communications and outreach to borrowers, as well as any additional
    actions needed to support borrowers regarding the end of the payment
    pause.
                                charter schools
        Question. During the last school year, several states saw
    significant enrollment shifts into charter schools. For example,
    charter schools in California saw an increase of around 2.5 percent
    while districts saw a decrease of 3 percent, Colorado saw a 4 percent
    increase while districts saw the same decline. New York City charter
    schools had an influx of 10,000 students--a 7 percent increase. And yet
    the President's budget does not request new funding for the Charter
    Schools program. Given the demand we are seeing at the state level, why
    isn't the administration requesting more funds for the Charter School
    Program?
        Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2022 request would provide
    over $210 million for new awards under the various grant components of
    the Charter Schools Program. We believe these resources will be
    sufficient to meet demand for funding.
        Question. The budget proposes prohibiting Charter School Program
    funds from being provided to schools that are substantially operated or
    managed through a contract with a for-profit entity. However, most
    public schools are utilizing the services of for-profit entities in
    some way, including for spending their COVID-19 relief funds.
        What does ``substantially operated or managed'' mean? Does it
    include contracting for services such as payroll and benefits,
    staffing, curriculum, professional development, or individual student
    services?
        Answer. We recognize that public schools, including charter
    schools, may contract with for-profit vendors for specific services
    that do not constitute management or control of operations and do not
    intend to prevent schools engaged in such procurements from accessing
    funds under the CSP or other programs.
        Question. Why are you proposing this restriction only for charter
    schools? Are you considering this requirement for other programs?
        Answer. The Administration believes that Charter Schools Program
    (CSP) funds should not support charter schools that are operated or
    managed by for-profit entities, and we urge Congress to adopt language
    that would prohibit CSP funds from supporting schools that are operated
    or managed by such entities through contractual relationships. We
    believe this is consistent with intent of the program statute, under
    which charter school developers or management organizations seeking CSP
    funds must be nonprofit.
                             title i equity grants
        Question. The budget request includes $20 billion for a new Title I
    Equity grant that proposes to create a new formula not authorized in
    statute to force State and local behavior changes related to school
    funding systems, teacher compensation, access to advanced curricula,
    and access to preschool. There have been a lot of questions and
    concerns about this proposal, specifically how funding would be
    allocated. Do you have any further details on the impact of this
    formula and where the money would be allocated?
        Answer. The Administration remains committed to addressing
    longstanding concerns around equity in education funding at the
    Federal, State, and local levels. However, we also recognize that
    further consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including
    Congress, will be necessary to develop a comprehensive set of proposals
    aimed at improving education funding equity that can generate broad
    support. Consequently, the Administration supports allocating the
    proposed $20 billion increase for Title I through the authorized
    funding formulas.
        Question. Why is the Department proposing to create a new grant
    program that interferes with decisionmaking that is best left to State
    and local school districts rather than putting additional funding into
    programs we know work to increase student achievement, such as the
    Charter Schools Program, or further increasing this existing Title I
    programs or IDEA, which has long been underfunded?
        Answer. The nearly $30 billion, or 41 percent, increase for the
    Department of Education proposed by President Biden for fiscal year
    2022 provides strong support for Federal education programs across the
    board, including a $3 billion or 21 percent increase for IDEA State
    formula grant programs. However, because nearly all Federal education
    programs provide supplemental funding, the impact and effectiveness of
    that funding depends in large part on a level playing field in terms of
    the overall education resources made available at the State and local
    levels. For this reason, the Administration strongly believes that a
    key goal of any major new Federal investment in education should be to
    leverage significant improvement in equity for all students, but
    especially for students from low-income families and students of color.
    In this context, the Administration is working closely with Congress
    and stakeholders to leverage additional investments in Title I to
    improve education funding equity, support high-quality preschool,
    address teacher compensation, and enhance rigorous coursework in Title
    I schools. In that context, the Department believes the proposed $20
    billion increase for Title I would provide a meaningful incentive for
    systemic changes in the equity of our decentralized education system.
                                  naep funding
        Question. NAEP provides crucial information about what our nation's
    students know and can do in various subject areas. Ensuring we continue
    to have this information is more important than ever given the
    widespread learning loss that is expected as a result of the pandemic.
    Your budget requests an additional $15 million for NAEP in fiscal year
    2022. Will this increase ensure that the planned assessment schedule
    can remain on track?
        Answer. The $15 million proposed for fiscal year 2022, if sustained
    in future years, would support operational funding needs, including
    planned assessments, through 2024.
                                 mental health
        Question. Mr. Secretary, one of my priorities in the Senate has
    been mental health--and ensuring that a person's mental health is
    treated the same as their physical health. The Department's budget
    requests $1 billion for a new program to increase the number of health
    professionals in our public schools, including school counselors,
    nurses, school psychologists, and social workers. I share your concern
    about the well-being and mental health of our nation's students,
    particularly given the widespread disruption to school that students
    have experienced over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    However, states and school districts have yet to spend the vast
    majority of COVID-19 funding provided to them, and one of the ways they
    can spend this money is to provide mental health services to students.
    What has the Department done to help states and school districts use
    their COVID-19 funding to support the mental health of their students?
        Answer. The Administration has recognized from the beginning of its
    response to the pandemic that students need a strong social and
    emotional foundation to excel academically. It is clear that many
    students, and especially students from low-income backgrounds and
    students of color, have suffered much over the past 18 months and
    require additional support to help them heal and recover from all the
    trauma and hardship the pandemic has brought. And we know for many
    students, schools are the only place where they can access mental
    health professionals, school counselors, nurses, and support structures
    they need--including their friends--to help them through the adversity
    of the last year. This is why we have emphasized meeting students'
    mental health needs as part of our overall effort to reopen schools for
    fully in-person learning, including through the hiring of school-based
    health professionals as well as other efforts to address social and
    emotional development needs.
        For example, the Department published Volume 2 of the ED COVID-19
    Handbook: Roadmap to Reopening Safely and Meeting All Students' Needs
    (see https://www2.ed.gov/documents/coronavirus/reopening-2.pdf), in
    April, 2021, which includes a section on Supporting Student Mental
    Health Needs that highlights examples and best practices that States
    and school districts can implement using funds provided by the American
    Rescue Plan. Additional guidance is provided in our ESSER Fund
    Frequently Asked Questions document (see Question C-14 at https://
    oese.ed.gov/files/2021/05/
    ESSER.GEER--.FAQs_5.26.21_745AM_FINALb0cd6833f6f46e03ba2
    d97d30aff953260028045f9ef3b18ea602db4b32b1d99.pdf).
        We have seen the results of these efforts in the plans that States
    have developed for using ARP ESSER funds. For example, Nevada is
    reserving ARP funds to hire 100 school-based mental health
    professionals and Alaska is using ARP funds to help social workers
    provide virtual lessons in self?care and methods to reduce student
    stress, depression, and anxiety. The New York City Department of
    Education is using ARP funding to hire over 600 mental health
    professionals to provide care as students returned back this fall. This
    means that every school will have at least one full-time social worker
    or school-based mental health clinic.
        In addition, we plan to issue guidance on using ARP funs to address
    student mental health needs in fall 2021.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
        Question. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) funds education
    research, data collection and analysis, and a national assessment of
    student progress. The fiscal year 2016 Omnibus included a $44 million
    (8 percent) increase for IES. The budget request includes a further $76
    million (12 percent) increase. The Investing in Innovation (i3) grant
    program required that at least 20 percent of recipients be located in
    rural areas. The i3 competition has been replaced with a new grant
    program, the Education Innovation and Research program, in fiscal year
    2017. Geographic diversity in all research grant programs is important.
    From 2013 to 2015 the Department made almost 1,900 grants to
    institutions of higher education and other research organizations.
    However, those grants went to colleges, universities, and research
    organizations in only 35 states. Not one went to a school or
    organization in Mississippi and generally the same schools and
    organizations tend to get the bulk of research grants year after year.
        In my state, 92 percent of school districts and more 50 percent of
    students are rural, yet most research is conducted in urban and
    suburban communities. The Every Student Succeeds Act requires that
    schools implement evidence-based strategies to improve student outcomes
    yet most education research is conducted in urban and suburban
    settings.
        How will you ensure that education research addresses the unique
    needs of rural districts?
        Answer. Supporting education research to help understand and
    address the unique needs of rural districts is a priority for IES. We
    support education research, including on rural education, primarily
    through two funding mechanisms: (1) field-initiated research grants,
    and (2) research conducted by the Regional Educational Laboratories. We
    discuss the role of each below.
        Research Grants. As a scientific agency, funding decisions are
    based on peer reviewer's independent assessments of the scientific
    merit of applications, including the significance of the proposed
    research project, the scientific quality of the research plan, the
    skills of the personnel, and the resources available to support the
    proposed project. We hold competitions on various topics to ensure that
    the education research that we fund meets the needs of the diverse
    populations and geographic settings of our nation.
        For example, in 2021, IES launched a new research competition
    inviting State agencies to apply for funds to expand use of their State
    Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) for generating evidence in support of
    education policy decisions. Using SLDS as a data source ensures that
    all districts within a State can be included in their research
    activities. Of the 7 awards made, 5 are made to States with substantial
    rural populations, including Tennessee, Montana, Virginia,
    Pennsylvania, and Oregon. Mississippi received $6.6 million in 2016 for
    an NCES SLDS grant that ended 9/30/20 to enhance its SLDS system, so we
    encourage the State education agency to apply for funding under this
    program for projects using data from its SLDS for research on rural
    populations, and to reach out to IES program officers for input as they
    prepare their application.
        In addition, IES invested $20 million in two five-year research and
    development centers focused on the needs of rural education in 2019:
    The National Center for Rural Education Research Networks (NCRERN) and
    The National Center for Rural School Mental Health (NCRSMH): Enhancing
    the Capacity of Rural Schools to Identify, Prevent, and Intervene in
    Youth Mental Health Concerns. Rural districts participating in the work
    of these two centers are located in: New York, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico,
    Wyoming, Missouri, Virginia, and Montana. Both rural centers are
    actively engaged with communities in these States and beyond and are
    developing and sharing resources for the rural education community. For
    example, NCRSMH has developed an Early Identification System (EIS)
    Intervention Hub (https://www.ruralsmh.com/intervention-hub/) designed
    to connect rural educators to resources focused on preventing and
    remediating student mental health challenges.
        In addition, 27 of our new fiscal year 2021 research awards and 16
    of our fiscal year 2020 research awards are being carried out in rural
    settings. These studies are addressing teacher retention in rural
    schools, fostering positive family-school involvement for students from
    economically disadvantaged households in rural communities,
    interventions to help special educators with behavior management, and
    web-based professional development to help teachers improve students,
    reading comprehension in rural districts.
        The Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs). For more than 50
    years, the REL program has worked in partnership with State, district,
    and college and university leaders to develop and use research that
    improves academic outcomes for students and their communities. REL
    Southeast serves has successfully completed a number of projects
    focused on the needs of rural communities in Mississippi, including:
      --The Improving Schools in Mississippi Research Alliance, a
            professional learning community that supports research and
            practice on rural school improvement. Partners include district
            leadership from the Vicksburg/Warren Public Schools, Durant
            Public Schools, Yazoo City Public Schools, Holmes County Public
            Schools, and Humphreys County Public Schools, as well as Alcorn
            State University and Mississippi Valley State University.
      --The Southeast School Readiness Research Alliance, which seeks to
            build the capacity of preschool teachers and administrators
            across Mississippi and the other five States in the Southeast
            region to use evidence-based emergent literacy instruction to
            support three-to five-year old children's language and literacy
            learning and to help policymakers understand the factors that
            influence access to high-quality childcare and preschool
            programs.
      --Examining School-level Reading and Math Proficiency Trends and
            Changes in Achievement Gaps for Grades 3-8 in Florida,
            Mississippi, and North Carolina, which detailed student
            achievement trajectories for Mississippi students overall and
            within student group, supporting stakeholders decisionmaking
            about how to prioritize school improvement efforts.
      --Educator Outcomes Associated with Implementation of Mississippi's
            K-3 Early Literacy Professional Development Initiative, which
            examined changes in teacher knowledge of early literacy skills
            and ratings of quality of early literacy skills instruction,
            student engagement during early literacy skills instruction,
            and teaching competencies.
      --Beating the Odds in Mississippi: Identifying Schools Exceeding
            Achievement Expectations, which identified K-12 schools that
            were performing better than would have been predicted and was
            used to inform decisionmaking on statewide school improvement
            efforts.
      --Math Course Sequences in Grades 6-11 and Math Achievement in
            Mississippi, which examined the relationship between students'
            course-taking patterns in middle- and high-school and their
            subsequent performance on college admission tests, supporting
            local and State college readiness efforts.
        Question. In awarding research grants, how will you ensure that the
    Department considers the geographic distribution of research projects
    and geographic disparities in education research funding? How will you
    ensure funding is going to colleges, universities, and research
    institutions in under-researched and underserved areas?
        Answer. IES is required by law, under the Education Sciences Reform
    Act, to base our funding decisions on the independently assessed
    scientific merit of applications. In all of our grant competitions, we
    explicitly seek to broaden participation in our research studies and to
    expand the populations and geographic settings within which our studies
    are taking place. We are currently supporting a research project at the
    University of Southern Mississippi (grant award R305A200185) and two
    projects that are collaborations between Arizona State University and
    Mississippi State University (grant awards R305A180261 and
    R305A180144). IES also periodically holds competitions with a specific
    focus on addressing the unique needs of rural America, such as the two
    R&D Centers on rural education awarded in 2019. It is important to
    stress that these are competitive grant programs which are funded based
    on the scientific merit of the applications submitted. We do not
    include the State or geographic region in which the applicant
    institution is located in the selection criteria for our education or
    special education research grant programs.
        We also actively seek to broaden participation in our applicant
    pool through our research training programs. For example, our Pathways
    to the Education Science Research Training program was established to
    develop a pipeline of talented education researchers who bring fresh
    ideas, approaches, and perspectives to addressing the issues and
    challenges faced by the nation's diverse students and schools. These
    grants are awarded to minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and their
    partners. In the initial two rounds of competitions, IES made awards to
    7 institutions and their partners. IES is currently accepting
    applications for a new program: Early Career Mentoring Program for
    Faculty at Minority Serving Institutions that seeks to prepare faculty
    at MSIs to conduct high-quality education research that advances
    knowledge within the field of education sciences and addresses issues
    important to education policymakers and practitioners.
        Question. President Biden's campaign included a Plan for Rural
    America. That plan opened with the statement ``Rural America is home to
    roughly 20 percent of Americans, but we are all connected to rural
    communities in many ways. Rural Americans fuel us and feed us. Rural
    lands provide us with places to spend time outdoors with friends and
    family and relax.'' This statement suggests an attitude that rural
    people and places exist to provide for and serve more populated urban
    and suburban areas. The current version of the plan, available here
    https://joebiden.com/rural-plan/contains some of the same language but
    has been revised. It will be important that the administration move
    beyond metro-centric policy making to ensure rural schools are treated
    equitably.
        How will you ensure that policies and practices in the Department
    recognize and value the strengths and unique contexts of rural schools
    and communities?
        Answer. The Department is committed to educational opportunity and
    academic achievement for all students throughout the nation, including
    those in rural areas. Our Rural Education Achievement Program, for
    example, recognizes the need of many rural school districts for
    additional funding, as well as flexibility around the use of Federal
    education funds, to address their unique circumstances. Similarly, many
    of our discretionary (competitive) grant programs include rural set-
    asides to ensure that rural applicants receive an equitable share of
    grant funds, and we also use grant priorities for rural and new
    applicants that help level the playing field and ensure that rural
    applicants can compete successfully for Federal funds.
        Question. In 2018, the Department released the Section 5005 Report
    on Rural Education in response to a provision in the Every Student
    Succeeds Act that called on the Department to critically examine its
    policies and procedures in related to rural education. The 2018 report
    touted some things the Department is doing to ensure the needs of rural
    schools and students are met, and also listed steps the Department
    intended to implement to address the needs of rural schools. To date,
    not all of those seven steps have been accomplished, most notably, NCES
    has not updated its 2007 report on the status of rural education. In
    2019 this analysis by Devon Brenner (of MSU) of the Section 5005 report
    summarized the reports findings and plans or implementation and
    critiqued the report, saying ``it falls short of the 5005 mandate to
    self-assess and determine actions to be taken. The Department engaged
    in listening sessions and sought feedback from rural stakeholders, but
    does not seem to have incorporated feedback from key stakeholder
    organizations (e.g., AASA and Rural School and Community Trust, The
    University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), the National
    Indian Education Association (NIEA), and the National Association of
    federally Impacted Schools). The Department commits to increasing
    listening sessions and improving communication but is not clear that
    rural input is or will be ``baked into'' the system to ensure that
    rural communities are considered in every facet of the Department's
    work, particularly rulemaking.'' See https://
    journals.library.msstate.edu/index.php/ruraled/article/view/535/501.
        How will you ensure that the Department completes these commitments
    to improve policies and procedures for rural schools and considers the
    needs of rural schools in the development of regulations and the
    implementation of programs?
        Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring educational
    opportunity for all students, including those in rural areas, and
    recognizes the need to account for all education settings when
    developing policies and procedures.
        To that end, in recent years, the Department's Rural Interagency
    Working Group has helped offices responsible for our programs,
    including the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), collaborate
    on issues such as access to broadband services which disproportionately
    impacts rural schools and communities. Department staff are examining
    how we can build upon these internal collaborations. Drawing on the
    experience of other Federal agencies, the Department also plans to
    collaborate more closely with the Departments of Agriculture, Interior,
    and Health and Human Services to better support and serve students in
    rural communities.
        The Department interacts regularly with REAP grantees and
    organizations advancing the interests of rural schools. The Department
    appreciates input from rural stakeholders and is working toward being
    responsive to that feedback. For example, in order to reduce burden on
    rural local educational agencies (LEAs), the Department has simplified
    the application process for the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA)
    grant, under which OESE awards over 4,000 LEA grants annually. OESE
    plans to increase its outreach to REAP grantees and its participation
    in events organized by rural advocacy organizations such as the
    National Rural Education Association (NREA). Additionally, the
    Department has recently been in contact with the Organizations
    Concerned about Rural Education (OCRE) regarding issues affecting rural
    schools and communities and emphasizing collaborative efforts to
    support rural schools.
        The Department will continue to rely on local leaders and rural
    stakeholders for their expertise and knowledge of rural schools, with
    those conversations informing plans to support student achievement in
    all settings.
        Question. Across the nation, equitable access to effective teachers
    remains an issue. Rural schools, especially, often struggle to recruit
    and retain talented teachers and school leaders. Previous programs such
    as the Transition-to-Teaching grant program provided for scholarships
    for teacher preparation programs to meet the needs of schools with
    demonstrated teacher shortages. In Mississippi, Transition-to-Teaching
    grants awarded in the last decade led to the successful licensure of
    hundreds of new teachers in the past 5 years, addressing the needs of
    rural schools.
        Please discuss how you envision the that the Department can
    explicitly addresses inequitable distribution of effective teachers,
    particularly in rural areas.
        Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2022 request provides both
    flexible ESEA formula grant funding and competitive opportunities that
    can help States and school districts carry out strategies aimed at
    putting effective teachers in front of every classroom:
      --The $20 billion increase proposed for the Title I program would
            more than double the formula grant funding available to help
            address under-resourced school districts while helping to
            ensure that teachers in Title I schools, including thousands of
            rural Title I schools, are paid competitively.
      --The $2.1 billion requested for Title II will support ongoing State
            and local efforts to improve teacher and principal
            effectiveness and help ensure that all students have equitable
            access to well-prepared, qualified, and effective teachers and
            principals. In particular, States may use Title II-A funds for
            programs that provide alternative routes for State
            certification of teachers in areas where the State experiences
            a shortage of educators, similar to the previously authorized
            Transition to Teaching program.
      --The $250 million request for IDEA Personnel Preparation, an
            increase of nearly $160 million, would help ensure that there
            are adequate numbers of personnel in underserved rural schools
            with the skills and knowledge necessary to help children with
            disabilities succeed educationally, including enhanced support
            for beginning special educators.
      --The $80 million requested for Supporting Effective Educator
            Development (SEED) would support evidence-based educator
            preparation and development efforts that can serve as models
            for similar efforts across the country; new projects could have
            a stronger focus on building and enhancing the instructional
            skills of a more diverse educator workforce.
      --The $200 million requested for Teacher and School Leader (TSL)
            Incentive grants would support reforms to human capital
            management systems and performance-based compensation systems;
            the statue requires that priority be given to applicants that
            support teacher and leaders in high-need schools; in addition,
            consideration is given to ensuring an equitable geographic
            distribution of grants, including equitable distribution
            between urban and rural areas.
      --The $30 million requested for first-time funding (since
            reauthorization) of the School Leader Recruitment and Support
            program would support grants for high-quality professional
            development for principals, other school leaders, and aspiring
            principals and school leaders. Under the first competition for
            the program since the reauthorization of the ESEA, projects
            would focus on ensuring that the nation's most underserved
            schools have resources to improve school leadership.
      --The $132.1 million request for the Teacher Quality Partnership
            program, an increase of $80 million, supports projects that
            improve the preparation of teachers, including through teacher
            residencies and ``grow your own'' programs that can be
            especially valuable in rural communities.
      --The $20 million request for first-time funding of the Hawkins
            Centers of Excellence program would support diversifying the
            educator workforce, including in rural areas, by increasing the
            number of high-quality teacher preparation programs at Minority
            Serving Institutions.
        Question. Rurally located and rural serving public colleges and
    universities have an important role to play in the economic and social
    recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Public institutions of higher
    learning are important economic anchors in their communities and
    provide important access to educational opportunities that drives rural
    economies. However, rural colleges and universities are often
    underfunded compared to more urban and suburban institutions of higher
    learning, and students face particular challenges including geographic
    access and access to broadband Internet and technology. This report on
    the role that rural serving institutions play and Federal policy
    solutions to strengthen rural anchor institutions https://
    www.regionalcolleges.org/project/ruralanchor.
        How will you work to enact policies and practices that strengthen
    rural serving and rurally located public colleges and universities,
    including HBCUs and other minority serving institutions, and the
    communities they serve?
        Answer. The Department, in general, provides funding to
    institutions of higher education (IHEs) through two primary vehicles:
    (1) formula-based institutional capacity-building grants, and (2)
    discretionary competitive grants. For the Department's formula-based
    institutional capacity-building grants, such as HBCUs, HBGI, PBIs, and
    HBCU Masters, the Department has little flexibility given statutory
    requirements to provide additional funding to rural IHEs. For
    discretionary competitive grants, unless specifically prohibited by
    statute, the Department generally can give priority to particular types
    of institutions.
        More broadly, rural-serving postsecondary institutions, include
    HBCUs, would benefit significantly from key mandatory programs proposed
    as part of the American Families Plan and now included in the Building
    Back Better Act. These include Free Community College, which would
    provide $108.5 billion over 10 years to create a new partnership with
    States, territories, and Tribes to make 2 years of community college
    free for first-time students and workers wanting to reskill,
    potentially allowing up to 5.5 million students to pay zero in tuition
    and fees for 2 years of community college; the Advancing Affordability
    for Students program, which would award $39 billion over 10 years for
    eligible 4-year HBCUs, TCUs, or MSIs to provide 2 years of subsidized
    tuition for students from families earning less than $125,000; and
    Completion Grants, which would provide $62 billion over 10 years for
    grants to States and Tribes to support completion and retention
    activities designed to ensure postsecondary success for low-income and
    underserved students in high-need institutions.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
        Question. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, Vermont was facing a
    mental health crisis in its schools. Many students have been
    irrevocably impacted by the opioid epidemic, losing parents and
    caregivers. This trauma has had a negative impact on their mental and
    behavioral health, leaving many teachers and school staff struggling to
    deal with the consequences. This is why I am so pleased to see the new
    $1 billion fund proposed by the administration to help schools hire
    more counselors, nurses, and mental health professionals.
    Unfortunately, Vermont is plagued with a severe shortage not only of
    teachers but of mental health professionals. As of May 2021, there were
    780 staffing vacancies among our mental health agencies in the state.
    The number of kids seeking inpatient mental healthcare in Vermont
    tripled between 2010 and 2019, as a dearth of community-based resources
    has led many families no choice but to turn to the Emergency Room as a
    last resort.
        How does the administration propose to help schools, particularly
    schools in rural areas, utilize this fund to hire school based health
    staff in areas where there are community, or even statewide, shortages
    of mental health professionals?
        Answer. The School-Based Health Professionals proposal recognizes
    the challenges to hiring such professionals in areas facing shortages,
    and would allow State educational agencies to reserve up to 15 percent
    of their allocations to address shortages of health professionals by
    establishing partnerships with institutions of higher education to
    recruit, prepare, and place graduate students in school-based health
    fields in high-need LEAs and to complete required field work, credit
    hours, internships, or related training as applicable for the degree,
    license, or credential program of each health-based candidate. SEAs
    also may use a portion of these funds for review and revision of State
    licensure standards to promote mobility of health professionals into
    school settings.We look forward to working with both chambers to ensure
    this proposal provides adequate support for both hiring these key-staff
    and developing the pipeline.
        Question. I strongly support the administration's goal to increase
    equity in public education funding. The COVID-19 pandemic has
    particularly laid bare the systemic inequalities that exist in our
    nation's schools. Vermont has many small and rural schools that have
    historically struggled to close both the equity gap and the digital
    divide due to a lack of resources. The proposed $20 billion for a new
    Title I equity grant program would represent the most significant
    Federal investment the program has ever seen. It is vital that this
    grant program is an option for all schools that need it around the
    country.
        How will you ensure that these equity grants are distributed among
    geographically diverse areas, particularly rural areas?
        Answer. State educational agencies would allocate funds to school
    districts based on existing Title I formulas, ensuring that virtually
    all school districts--urban, suburban, and rural--receive significantly
    more Title I funding to help close equity gaps in teacher compensation,
    access to rigorous coursework, and access to preschool.
        Question. TRIO and GEAR UP are vital student assistance programs
    that helps first generation, disabled and low income college students
    in Vermont succeed in all aspects of college life. These programs have
    proven effective in increasing postsecondary enrollment and graduation
    rates, as well as helping to address workforce shortages in the state.
    Unfortunately, both the COVID-19 pandemic and a historical lack of
    Federal funding for the programs has meant that many of the grant
    application cycles have become highly competitive. For example, the
    fiscal year 2020 TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) competition faced
    a significant increase in applicants. Separated by mere percentage
    points, 80 longstanding SSS programs were defunded, among more than 600
    un-funded applicants. This left nearly 15,000 high-need students
    without access to services provided by the program.
        How does the administration propose to allocate the increase in
    fiscal year 2022 funding for TRIO and GEAR UP? Will any of the funding
    become eligible to programs that were defunded in the fiscal year 2020
    SSS cycle?
        Answer. The Administration recognizes that limited resources under
    the TRIO and GEAR UP programs have historically resulted in an
    inability to fund all high-scoring applicants. This is why the
    increased funding proposed for TRIO in fiscal year 2022 would be
    allocated, in part, based on historical trends in the programs
    scheduled for competition in fiscal year 2022. Specifically, the
    Administration reviewed peer review scores on all applications
    submitted for fiscal year 2017 competitions under Upward Bound, Upward
    Bound Math and Science, Veterans Upward Bound, and McNair
    Postbaccalaureate programs (the last year in which competitions were
    held under these programs also scheduled for competition in fiscal year
    2022), and proposed to allocate additional funds to each program based
    on the number of high-scoring unfunded applicants from that year to
    ensure that funding more appropriately met demand. In addition, the
    Administration has proposed to provide all grantees under the Student
    Support Services program a 10 percent supplemental award to support the
    critical services they provide our students. However, at this time
    there are no plans to make additional Student Support Services awards
    to applicants that were unsuccessful in the fiscal year 2020
    competition.
        Question. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program
    forgives Federal student loan debt of borrowers who work for at least
    10 years in qualifying public service employment. The program has been
    plagued by complicated eligibility criteria and ongoing administrative
    problems that have resulted in a dismal approval rate. I was pleased to
    see the administration recently announce a regulatory review of PSLF
    and other Federal student loan relief programs to understand how they
    can better serve the needs of our nation's borrowers. However, the
    President's Budget proposes a decrease in funding for PSLF.
        Could you explain the justification for a 50 percent budget
    decrease for PSLF? What progress has the agency made in addressing the
    issues that have resulted in such a low approval rate for loan
    forgiveness?
        Answer. The Department recognizes that there are PSLF areas for
    improvement and we are committed to addressing them as quickly as
    possible so that our public servants receive the benefits they have
    worked hard to earn. We have already made some improvements to make it
    easier for eligible borrowers to access relief through administrative
    actions and others are in store. For instance, the Department has
    launched and updated the PSLF Help Tool, is now allowing lump sum and
    prepayments to count as qualifying payments, and created a single
    application for PSLF, Temporary Expanded PSLF (TEPSLF), and Employment
    Certification Forms (ECFs). However, we recognize more needs to be
    done. To that end, we recently announced that PSLF is among the topics
    we intend to revisit through an upcoming rulemaking process. We also
    recently issued a Request for Information, inviting feedback on
    borrower experiences and possibly policy solutions with the PSLF
    program, to identify broader areas for improvement.
        At the same time, Congress has provided funds annually toward
    TEPSLF so borrowers who may have made payments in a repayment plan not
    previously eligible for PSLF could still qualify for relief. Though
    these funds have remained largely unspent to-date, the Department still
    requested additional funds for fiscal year 2022 in recognition of the
    importance of this program to public servants. The additional $25
    million the Administration requested will ensure even more borrowers
    can access the program and receive relief under the TEPSLF program. In
    addition to those funds, we are also working to improve administration
    of the TEPSLF program and streamline access to its benefits; we believe
    those improvements will lead to these funds being more easily awarded
    to borrowers in the future.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Murray. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., Wednesday, June 16, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]