[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.]