[Senate Hearing 118-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


 
  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tammy Baldwin (chairwoman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Baldwin, Murray, Reed, Shaheen, Schatz, 
Capito, Hyde-Smith, Boozman, and Britt.

                        DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                        Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF HON. MIGUEL CARDONA, SECRETARY


               opening statement of senator tammy baldwin


    Senator Baldwin. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related 
Agencies, will please come to order.
    Good morning. Today we are having a hearing on the Biden 
administration's fiscal year 2024 budget request for the 
Department of Education. And I am very happy to welcome 
Secretary Cardona to the subcommittee.
    This hearing is an important opportunity for us to hear 
about how our non-defense discretionary investments support the 
learning and development of our Nation's students, and help 
build a stronger and fairer economy for all.
    I am looking forward to working with Ranking Member Capito, 
in allocating and overseeing these investments in order to make 
sure they are improving the lives of the constituents we serve.
    We won't agree on everything, but I am committed to working 
together to find common ground, and make progress for 
Wisconsinites, West Virginians, and communities all across the 
United States.


                              budget cuts


    Unfortunately, a measure that was passed by House 
Republicans 2 weeks ago, would actually slash and cap funding 
for vital programs that educate our youth, in exchange for 
raising the debt limit. This bill passed 2 weeks ago utterly 
fails. The House Republican Bill would force deep cuts to 
education and training programs, on average, of at least 22 
percent, or $17.5 billion, from the Department of Education.
    This would be absolutely devastating for students, 
educators, and families. You know, this is Teacher Appreciation 
Week, and what we saw from the House Republicans 2 weeks ago, 
they proposed funding that would--cuts in funding that would, 
otherwise, support key education, formula grants like IDEA 
(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), and that would 
mean funding also for an estimated 100,000 fewer teachers and 
educators. That is no way to show appreciation for their 
important work. That spending plan would cut funding for TRIO 
and Pell Grants, and ultimately programs that help students 
graduate with less debt.
    It would mean cuts to Impact Aid for schools serving 
students from military families, and other federally connected 
school districts, and programs that support HBCUs (Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities), and other minority-serving 
institutions. And the list goes on.


                     the president's budget request


    But I am happy to see that the budget before us today 
rejects that approach. President Biden's proposal for the 
Department of Education wisely invests in our future, by 
increasing support for students from preschool to post-
secondary education.
    I look forward to the hard work of finding compromise with 
my colleagues, to mark up our fiscal year 2024 Labor, HHS 
(Health and Human Services) bill that does the same.
    Mr. Secretary, as you know, addressing our Nation's 
education and workforce needs is critical to maintaining our 
competitiveness globally. We have near record low unemployment, 
but also near record job openings, including 174,000 unfilled 
openings in Wisconsin, which I hear echoed in my conversations 
with employers in my State.
    I am happy to see a $226 million increase in this budget 
for career and technical education, which helps students obtain 
the skills needed for in-demand careers. Perkins funding is 
helping Wisconsin to expand regional career pathways, and 
improve work-based learning programs.
    Mr. Secretary, I look forward to working with you to ensure 
investments in CTE (Career and Technical Education) support and 
address the needs of States and local communities. I am also 
pleased to see that the budget proposes increased investments 
in key Federal elementary and secondary education programs. 
This includes an increase of $2.2 billion for the Title IA 
Grant Program, and $2.1 billion in increases for the IDEA state 
grants.
    These programs help ensure all students, including students 
from low-income families, and students with disabilities; have 
access to high quality educational opportunities. These 
proposed increases would build on increases provided in the 
bipartisan appropriations bills we passed in fiscal years 2022 
and 2023.


                        mental health challenges


    As we mark National Adolescent Health Month, we have to 
acknowledge the significant mental health challenges facing 
many of our youth. In my home State of Wisconsin, the latest 
survey data released late last year revealed that more than 
one-third of high school students experienced symptoms of 
depression. The highest rate since the survey was first 
administered nearly 30 years ago. An alarming 18 percent of 
students surveyed seriously considered attempting suicide in 
the past 12 months, the highest rate in nearly 20 years, and 
nearly half of all LGBTQ students surveyed reported they 
seriously considered or attempted suicide.
    We must do more to support all of our students, which I am 
happy to see this budget does with increased investments in key 
formula and competitive grants that could increase access to 
mental health services in schools.


                        support for all students


    Finally, if we really want to help all of our students, we 
also need to start accepting them for who they are, and 
welcoming and supporting them in our schools. I am greatly 
concerned by the increasing divide and rhetoric in our schools 
and communities, from laws targeting transgender students, to 
taking books off school shelves.
    Mr. Secretary, I hope you can help, by effectively 
supporting States and school districts, in providing all 
students with the high-quality education and support they need 
to reach their full potential.
    In a moment I will turn it over to Ranking Member Capito 
for her opening remarks. Following Senator Capito's opening 
statement, we will hear from you Secretary Cardona; and after 
that Senators will each have 5 minutes for a round of 
questions.
    And we do expect that people will be in and out this 
morning. There are multiple competing hearings and markups.
    So, Senator Capito.


               statement of senator shelley moore capito


    Senator Capito. Good morning. And thank you, Senator--Chair 
Baldwin.
    Thank you, Secretary Cardona, for the phone call earlier in 
the week, but also for appearing before the subcommittee today 
to discuss your funding priorities for the Department of 
Education, for the fiscal year 2024.


                    education investments over time


    As we know, education is the key to success, and a vital 
part of maintaining strong communities, which is why I have 
long been committed to making sure that all Americans have the 
opportunity to receive high quality education, preschool 
through college.
    In fact, my professional career began as a college 
counselor and advisor in West Virginia, where I had the 
opportunity to work closely with first-generation college 
students, and see first-hand how education provided them with 
life-changing opportunities. So, I am excited to take on the 
new role as the Ranking Member, along with my friend, Chair 
Baldwin, in charge of funding, and the oversight of the 
Department of Education.


                      pandemic related challenges


    It is not lost on me that the last 3 years have been 
exceptionally challenging for our Nation's education system. 
Pandemic-related school closures have disrupted the lives of 
students and families across America, and set our country back 
2 decades both in reading and math achievement, according to 
the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress 
Scores. Just last week the NAEP (National Assessment of 
Educational Progress) reported that knowledge of civics among 
the Nation's eighth graders fell for the first time since the 
Federal Government began testing children under the current 
framework in 1998, along with a five-point decline in average 
test scores, in history; is troubling.
    And these devastating declines in achievement were in spite 
of the $190 billion in COVID Relief Funding provided for 
elementary and secondary education. We can and should do 
better.


                     the president's budget request


    Unfortunately, this budget is almost a carbon copy of the 
fiscal year 2023 budget, which was recently rejected, recycling 
partisan proposals, and unrealistic spending levels. The 2024 
budget request for the Department of Education is $90 billion, 
an increase of more than 13 percent over fiscal year 
2023.Expensive new Federal programs like free community 
college, and universal preschool, both of which my home State 
of West Virginia are already doing without unwanted Federal 
intervention, are ill-advised and unlikely to be considered. 
Meanwhile, commonsense bipartisan programs, like the Rural 
Education Program, were level-funded in this budget. The state 
of the Federal Student Loan Program is also a problem, and I am 
very concerned.


                             student loans


    Your budget request increases, $620 million, for the 
administration of Student Loan--Student Aid, and the majority 
of that increase would go towards servicing student loans. Yet, 
the administration has consistently refused to restart 
collection of student loan payments, delaying return to 
repayment six times since President Biden took office.
    Furthermore, the administration has undertaken an effort to 
provide widespread student loan forgiveness with no legal basis 
for that forgiveness. While I share the administration's desire 
to modernize and improve student loan servicing, as well 
successfully move to a new long-term servicing solution, I have 
no faith in any increase provided for the student-aided 
administration account would be used solely for that purpose.


                  prioritizing formula grant programs


    Our Nation is facing fiscal challenges that will not make 
our jobs easy this year, in order to be successful, we must 
work together to prioritize funding that best supports 
opportunity for all students. This means supporting core 
formula grant programs, like Title I, as were mentioned by the 
Chair, and IDEA, that provide the most flexibility to local 
communities, to best meet the demands or the needs of their 
students, put education decisions as close to the local 
schools, teachers, and families as possible. And I am 
encouraged that the budget prioritizes these crucial programs.


                     career and technical education


    This also means ensuring students have access to multiple 
pathways to a successful career. While traditional higher ED is 
a goal of many students, many others are interested in 
alternative pathways, including career and technical education, 
apprenticeships, and increasingly, short-term certificate and 
licensing programs.
    We should continue to invest in programs like Career and 
Technical State Grants, and explore how our higher ED programs 
can better support students seeking meaningful, work-based 
learning opportunities, including expanding the Pell to short-
term programs.


               examples of career and technical education


    In West Virginia, we have seen numerous examples for how we 
can succeed, and the opportunities it can produce. Marshall 
University, and Mountwest Community and Technical College, who 
just had an excellent graduation speaker, that would be me, 
have joined force to develop workforce training programs to 
support the State's growing aerospace economy.
    Educational programming for aerospace will include both 
work-force training for maintenance technicians, and a new 
flight school to help address pilot shortages and introduce 
that career path to our region. Here, they saw a need, and an 
opportunity for good careers for their students, and they are 
making it a reality.
    Toyota Motor Manufacturing and Bridge Valley Community 
College have a similar partnership, where Toyota provides 
industry expertise on curriculum, and donates equipment to 
ensure students are learning on the latest cutting-edge 
technology. Students in the Advanced Manufacturing Technology 
Program attend school 2 days a week, and work at the plant 3 
days a week. Some students have earned more than $40,000 
through the program.
    I would add that Toyota is also incorporating a program 
with the high school students as well, and just expanded that 
into Putnam County.
    Mr. Secretary, while there are numerous areas where we 
would disagree, we also have many shared priorities in the 
budget request. As we go through the fiscal year 2024 
appropriations, I look forward to working with you, to 
prioritize programs that help provide the opportunity for high 
quality education for all students; and thank you for being 
here today.
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Capito.
    And our witness today is Dr. Miguel Cardona, the Secretary 
of the Department of Education. Secretary Cardona, thank you so 
much for joining us.
    You will have 5 minutes for your opening remarks. You may 
begin.


                summary statement of hon. miguel cardona


    Secretary Cardona. Thank you very much. Good morning, 
Chairwoman Baldwin, and Ranking Member Capito, and 
Distinguished Members of the Committee; and congratulations to 
both of you on your roles. I am really pleased and happy to be 
able to be here today to testify on behalf of President Biden's 
fiscal year 2024 budget request for the Department of 
Education.
    This month and next, students across the country are 
graduating from college, or from high school, and starting the 
next phase of their lives.
    It is a big moment, a moment that is part of a broader 
educational journey, from cradle to career, and beyond. At 
every step of the way the choices we make here in Washington 
might mean the difference between the status quo, or a brighter 
future for them, if we act together.


                         investments over time


    That is why I think of this budget proposal through the 
lens of a child's journey through education. The scenario, a 
child starting her educational journey builds a strong 
foundation for learning right away, because the budget that we 
are presenting today makes it possible to expand high quality 
preschool for more 4-year-olds across America.
    Now, imagine when this student gets to elementary school, 
if she is a student with disabilities, she benefits from the 
additional $2.7 billion in this budget to help include her and 
support her. She also learns the fundamentals of reading, math, 
and other rigorous subjects she will need to succeed in life.
    Her instruction would be strengthened because of the Title 
I critical funding that helps enable schools to tailor 
instruction and use data to provide one-on-one support. Thanks 
to the additional $2.2 billion, this budget delivers for Title 
I schools, her school, and the schools in rural, urban, and 
suburban communities across our country are better prepared to 
succeed.
    Wherever she goes to school, she can always count on having 
a well-prepared and talented teacher to help her learn and 
grow, because this budget invests $3 billion to fully prepare 
develop and retain a strong and diverse educator workforce.
    And as you mentioned, it is Teacher Appreciation Week, and 
in my estimation as an educator--a lifelong educator, this 
budget reflects an appreciation for the dedicated educators we 
have in this country.
    The student and her family would get wraparound supports 
because we have more than doubled the funding for full-service 
community schools. And if she faced some challenges with her 
mental health, as we know many students do, she can go directly 
to a mental health professional right at her school because the 
school benefited from our budget investment of another $0.5 
billion to advance the goal of doubling the number of school 
counselors, school social workers, and mental health providers 
that are available to our kids, at this time when we are living 
in a youth mental health crisis.
    As the student becomes--gets older, and comes closer to 
adulthood, she has pathways to careers, and skills to succeed 
in the world, much like you mentioned, Senator Capito.
    We set her up to compete and succeed in a stronger economy, 
than ever, with well-paying jobs at the ready, because this 
budget delivers a $200 million investment in redesigning our 
high schools, to better prepare our young people for careers of 
today and tomorrow, and $43 million in additional funding, for 
career and technical education, something that our country 
needs to do more of.
    We set her up to compete in a global economy with 
Proficiency in multiple languages because we delivered $1.2 
billion for Title III, and new investments to expand 
multilingual teaching, and instruction in world language, 
investments that are good for all students.
    She also has a jump-start on her path toward earning a 
college degree, or credential, because we work together to make 
post-secondary education inclusive and affordable. We increased 
the Pell Grant, we invested in proven strategies that help 
students like her better afford college, and succeed in earning 
her degree. We supported our HBCUs, our TCUs (Tribal Colleges 
and Universities), and MSIs (Minority Serving Institution), and 
we made universal community college a reality worldwide--
nationwide.
    This vision of our future isn't reality yet, but these are 
just a few of the incredible ways, together, we can raise the 
bar for education, when Congress acts to advance these 
education priorities in President Biden's fiscal year 2024 
budget.
    If we can work together, I know we can and we will raise 
the bar for education in this country. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Miguel Cardona
    Chair Baldwin, Ranking Member Capito and distinguished Members of 
the Committee. I am pleased to join you today, and I am proud to 
testify on behalf of President Biden's fiscal year 2024 Budget Request 
for the Department of Education. As an educator and a father, I know 
that nothing unites America's families more than the hopes we share for 
our children, and that is why the Biden-Harris Administration is 
pushing for bold investments to ensure all students have equitable 
access to schools, colleges, and educators that welcome and support 
them, inspire their love of learning, and prepare them to succeed in 
whichever career they choose.
    President Biden's latest budget proposal calls on Congress to act 
with urgency to provide our schools with the resources needed to raise 
the bar in education by promoting academic excellence and rigorous 
instruction, boldly improving learning conditions, and answering unmet 
challenges like the educator shortage and addressing the mental health 
needs of our students.
    Our Administration is also pushing for dramatic new investments in 
high-quality preschool that provide all our youngest learners with a 
sturdy bridge to elementary school success. The Biden-Harris Budget 
supports the Department of Education's efforts to boost global 
competitiveness by expanding opportunities for multilingual learning, 
redesigning high schools to include multiple pathways to college and 
career, and supercharging state and local efforts to make free 
community college a reality nationwide. To help more students from low-
income backgrounds access the benefits of postsecondary education, this 
Budget further proposes to increase the maximum Pell Grant award and 
provide critical resources to address students' basic needs.
    The President's fiscal year 2024 request calls for critical, 
targeted investments that will promote greater prosperity and economic 
growth for decades to come. The discretionary request is $90.0 billion 
for Department of Education programs, an increase of $10.8 billion over 
the fiscal year 2023 enacted level. The 2024 Budget prioritizes funding 
for several core themes that are at the heart of this Administration's 
vision for education in America: (1) Achieving Academic Excellence; (2) 
Boldly Improving Learning Conditions; (3) Creating Pathways For Global 
Engagement; and (4) Making Postsecondary Education Inclusive and 
Affordable.
                     achieving academic excellence
    This Budget seeks to ensure every student receives a high-quality 
education. Central to that effort is Title I of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, which delivers critical funding to 90 percent 
of school districts across the Nation, helping them to provide students 
in low-income communities the academic opportunities and supports they 
need to succeed.
    Accordingly, our request provides $20.5 billion for Title I, a $2.2 
billion increase above the fiscal year 2023 enacted level. This funding 
will continue the historic progress we've seen over the past 2 years, 
as Congress has enacted a total increase of $1.9 billion for Title I 
since fiscal year 2021.
    The President and I remain committed to ensuring that children and 
youth with disabilities receive the services and support they need to 
thrive in school and graduate ready for college and career. The Budget 
Request reflects that commitment through a $2.7 billion increase over 
FY 2023 enacted levels for special education programs, including a $2.1 
billion increase for Part B grants to states, a $392 million increase 
for Part C grants to support proposed reforms to expand early 
intervention services for underserved infants and toddlers, an $83 
million increase for IDEA Preschool Grants, and a $186 million increase 
for Part D National Activities to provide targeted increases designed 
to support the needs of students, schools, districts, and families.
    These additional funds represent an important down payment on the 
Federal commitment to students with disabilities, but there remains a 
nearly $26 billion annual gap between current funding levels and what 
is widely considered to be full funding of IDEA, and that is why the 
Administration supports legislation that achieves full funding over the 
next 10 years, such as the IDEA Full Funding Act. In addition, our 
request for IDEA National Activities includes $20 million in targeted 
support to help ensure that both military-connected children and other 
highly-mobile populations with disabilities receive the free 
appropriate public education to which they are entitled under the IDEA 
and do not experience unnecessary delays in service delivery as a 
result of changing schools or moving to a new school district.
    The Budget proposes a new $500 million demonstration program to 
incentivize school districts to leverage existing Federal education 
dollars to expand high-quality public preschool in schools and 
community-based settings, including Head Start, for children eligible 
to attend Title I schools. Districts that apply for funds under this 
program must demonstrate a commitment to partnering with their local 
Head Start programs. Preschool is an important research-based strategy 
proven to reduce disparities before kindergarten entry, particularly 
for children from low-income families. Expanding access to high-quality 
preschool for Title I eligible children is critical to the Department's 
mission to promote student achievement and preparation for global 
competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal 
access to high quality educational opportunities. This new investment 
complements the mandatory funding proposal also included in the 
President's Budget (at the Department of Health and Human Services, in 
partnership with the Department of Education), which would provide 
assistance to every state to establish and expand high-quality free 
preschool, through a Federal-state partnership.
    I strongly believe that high-quality public education--from 
prekindergarten through postsecondary learning and beyond--lifts up 
communities, unites people around student success, strengthens our 
democracy, grows our economy, and empowers people everywhere to realize 
their dreams. When the bar is raised in education--when we improve the 
core work of teaching and learning for all students--all of our 
nation's students will build the skills to succeed inside and outside 
of school. To this end, the Budget includes $100 million for a proposed 
new demonstration within State Assessments program to assist local 
educational agencies (LEAs) in developing high-quality formative and 
diagnostic assessments. Assessments funded under this proposal would 
expand access to quick-turn information that teachers can use to 
identify learning gaps and tailor the learning experience to accelerate 
toward outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities 
and English learners. The Budget also includes an increase of $121 
million above 2023 enacted ($405 million in total) for the Education 
Innovation and Research program in order to build on the Department's 
success in using program funds to develop an evidence base for 
strategies and practices that are effective in improving educational 
outcomes for students, including those in foster care.
                  boldly improving learning conditions
    The lingering impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have taken a heavy 
toll on the mental health of many students, educators, and staff. 
Research shows that students who receive social, emotional, mental, and 
behavioral supports perform better academically. Yet, there continues 
to be a critical gap between the number of school-based health service 
providers needed to provide daily supports, and the number of such 
providers currently in our schools. It is time we raise the bar by 
boldly improving learning conditions and rethinking how we invest in 
and provide mental health supports. We must transform from a reactive 
school model to a proactive model that focuses on a student's overall 
well-being.
    Building on the $1 billion Congress provided through the Bipartisan 
Safer Communities Act (BSCA) to address mental health staffing 
shortages, the Budget provides $428 million for new awards under the 
School-Based Mental Services Grants and Mental Health Services 
Professional Demonstration Grants programs to increase the number of 
school-based counselors, psychologists, social workers, and other 
health professionals as well as mental health programming and supports 
in K-12 schools. The Budget also includes $150 million under the Fund 
for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) in the Higher 
Education Account to create a complementary program to hire additional 
staff to implement best practices for addressing the mental health 
needs of college students on their campuses.
    Our request provides $368 million to expand Full-Service Community 
Schools, more than doubling current funding for this program. This 
significant increase in funding recognizes growing evidence that the 
pillars of evidence-based community schools--integrated student 
supports such as student mental and physical health services, expanded 
learning time opportunities, family and community engagement, and 
collaborative leadership--in concert contribute meaningfully to 
improved student outcomes and school performance. The Request would 
help take these evidence-based practices to scale by dramatically 
expanding the Full-Service Community Schools program to create hundreds 
of new community schools serving more than one million additional 
students, family members, and community members.
    To raise the bar in education, we must also continue to elevate and 
respect the teaching profession. While the education sector has faced 
shortages in critical staffing areas for decades, the COVID-19 pandemic 
and tight labor market have made shortages worse, further exacerbating 
the already disproportionate impact on students in underserved 
communities. This Budget invests nearly $3 billion in educators and 
school leaders, including $798 million--an additional $297 million on 
top of current funding levels--in competitive programs that support a 
diverse and well-prepared pipeline of educators and strengthen teacher 
retention. These programs include Teacher Quality Partnerships ($132 
million to effectively prepare aspiring teachers by supporting 
comprehensive pathways into the profession, such as high-quality 
teacher residencies and Grow Your Own programs (partnerships between 
schools, districts, community organizations, and teacher preparation 
programs to recruit and train teachers), that improve educator 
diversity, effectiveness, and retention); Augustus Hawkins Centers of 
Excellence ($30 million to support teacher preparation programs at 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribally 
Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), and Minority-Serving 
Institutions (MSIs)); Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants ($200 
million to support school-based models of distributed leadership); IDEA 
State Personnel Development and Personnel preparation ($303 million to 
address shortages of special education teachers); and School Leader 
Recruitment and Support ($40 million to recruit and train school 
leaders).
                creating pathways for global engagement
    As our labor markets become increasingly global, it is imperative 
to prepare our students to compete on an international stage, and that 
includes providing better opportunities for our students in America to 
be multilingual. Learning another language, or multiple languages, 
should be expected of our students and anchored as a skill that will 
enhance their global engagement and increase opportunities for success. 
This Budget will help us achieve that goal; we are requesting $1.2 
billion for English Language Acquisition grants, a $305 million 
increase over the fiscal year 2023 enacted level, to strengthen State 
and local capacity to meet the needs of English Learners and their 
teachers, provide for professional development on multilingual 
education for existing teachers and staff, and bolster the multilingual 
educator pipeline via post-secondary fellowships.
    Our Budget strengthens the multilingual teaching workforce, by 
providing $90 million to build multilingual teacher pipelines and 
provide professional development in multilingual education, and $10 
million for post-secondary fellowships to improve the quality of 
multilingual educator preparation. The Budget also requests $25 million 
for grants to States and LEAs to improve and expand instruction in 
world languages, offering new pathways to global learning for more 
students in more schools.
    Lastly, in order to better serve English Learners and their 
families, I recently announced my intention to move functions involving 
the administration of State-administered grants under Title III of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) from their current 
placement in the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) to 
the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA), where they were 
originally located. This Budget further proposes to rename the Office 
of English Language Acquisition to the Office of Multilingual and 
English Learners and elevate the director of that office to the 
Assistant Secretary level.
    To further prepare our students for global success, our high 
schools should evolve to meet the career and college demands of today 
and tomorrow. Reimagining traditional educational pathways is a 
critical piece of the President's vision to increase successful 
outcomes for all students and help them compete internationally. To 
improve the high school to college and career pipeline and prepare 
students for the jobs that are coming as a result of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the CHIPS and 
Science Act, the Budget requests $200 million for our Career-Connected 
High Schools initiative. This initiative will provide competitive 
grants to partnerships among school districts, institutions, and 
employers to increase the integration and alignment of the last 2 years 
of high school and the first 2 years of postsecondary education. 
Strategies include dual enrollment, work-based learning, college and 
career advising, and assistance for students obtaining industry-
recognized credentials. In addition, the Budget provides $1.47 billion 
for the Career and Technical Education (CTE) State Grants program, an 
increase of $43 million over the fiscal year 2023 enacted level, to 
support the President's goal to expand and build new models for 
workforce development starting in middle and high school. These 
pipelines are critical to providing more good-paying jobs for all 
Americans--and giving students a clear pathway to compete in an ever-
changing economy.
        making postsecondary education inclusive and affordable
    Postsecondary education continues to play a vital role in 
supporting economic success for our students and for the United States 
as a whole. However, college affordability remains a significant 
barrier for many families--and it puts the dream of a college degree 
out of reach for far too many students. President Biden and I are doing 
all we can to ensure we can deliver on the promise of postsecondary 
education, and we are committed to making postsecondary education more 
inclusive and affordable so all Americans can access its life-changing 
benefits.
    Pell Grants have been the foundation of low- and moderate-income 
students' financial aid for decades; however, the value has diminished 
as college costs continue to rise. To expand equitable and affordable 
access to an education beyond high school, the Budget proposes to 
increase the maximum Pell Grant by $820 to $8,215 for the 2024-2025 
award year, through a combination of discretionary and mandatory 
funding. This increase is one piece of the Budget's comprehensive 
proposal to double the maximum Pell Grant by 2029. The Administration 
continues to support expanding Federal student aid, including Pell 
Grant eligibility, to students who are Deferred Action for Childhood 
recipients--commonly known as DREAMers--and we are committed to working 
with Congress to advance this goal.
    The Budget also expands free community college across the Nation 
through a new Federal-State partnership. This proposed nationwide Free 
Community College program, supported through mandatory funding, would 
further ensure eligible first-time students and workers wanting to 
reskill can enroll in a community college to earn a degree or 
credential for free. To lay the groundwork for this program and scale 
up existing best practices, the Budget includes $500 million for a new 
discretionary grant program that would allow grantees to offer up to 2 
years of free community college to eligible students, including 
DREAMers, enrolled in eligible programs that lead to good-paying jobs, 
or that fully articulate to four-year degrees. Grant dollars could be 
used to quickly scale-up high-quality programs--for example, existing 
programs with demonstrated success that can be expanded immediately--or 
to support new and in-demand programs. In addition, the Budget would 
provide 2 years of subsidized tuition for students from families 
earning less than $125,000 enrolled in a four-year HBCU, TCCU, or MSI.
    It is critical to help students obtain the resources they need to 
persist in and complete a postsecondary education. The Budget supports 
innovative strategies to improve student success and degree completion 
through $119 million in increased funding for Postsecondary Student 
Success Grants in the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary 
Education (FIPSE). The Budget also promotes academic success by 
providing critical resources to support students' basic needs, 
including a $20 million increase to institutions providing affordable 
child care for student parents with low incomes through the Child Care 
Access Means Parents in School Program, or CCAMPIS. The request 
includes increases for Federal TRIO programs and GEAR UP, $107 million 
and $20 million above fiscal year 2023 enacted levels, respectively, to 
expand services that promote access and completion in postsecondary 
education for underserved individuals.
    The Budget enhances institutional capacity at HBCUs, TCCUs, MSIs, 
and low-resourced institutions, including community colleges, by 
providing an increase of $429 million over the 2023 enacted level. This 
increase includes $350 million, a bump of $300 million, for the HBCU, 
TCCU, and MSI Research and Development Infrastructure Grants program, 
funded in FIPSE.
    The Budget will improve the services we provide students and 
families to help them pay for college through an essential investment 
in Student Aid Administration. We are requesting $2.65 billion to 
administer the Federal student aid programs in fiscal year 2024, an 
increase of $620 million over fiscal year 2023 enacted, to support 
students and student loan borrowers as they navigate the financial aid 
application and student loan repayment processes. The increase will 
allow the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) to continue to operate 
the student aid programs, protect against cybersecurity breaches to 
ensure protection of borrowers' personal information, implement 
critical improvements to student loan servicing, continue to modernize 
its digital infrastructure, and ensure successful administration of the 
financial aid programs through a simplified application process for 
students and borrowers. Failing to provide the requested increase to 
FSA for a second year in a row would result in reduced services for 
students, families, and borrowers in addition to putting the systems 
that hold sensitive data for over 40 million Americans at risk.
             education research, assessment, and statistics
    Education research and data are important because high-quality 
information about effective practices and trends in student achievement 
can help improve both student outcomes and the return on the public 
investment in education at the Federal, State, and local levels. Our 
Budget requests $870 million for the Institute of Education Sciences, a 
$63 million increase above the fiscal year 2023 enacted level, to 
conduct, provide and share research and scientific evidence in 
education, including expanding research and development to support the 
use of cutting-edge technology to expand and enhance effective 
practices in teaching and learning, and to collect data on the real-
time impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 education.
                    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 27 percent increase 
for the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to protect students, providing a 
total of $178 million to advance equity in educational opportunity and 
delivery at Pre-K through 12 schools and at institutions of higher 
education. Increased funding will be used to expand staffing capacity 
and address a growing complaint workload, which will in turn enhance 
OCR's ability to resolve cases in a timely manner.
                            closing remarks
    I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to discuss the 
President's FY 2024 Budget for the Department of Education. I have 
often said that a budget is a statement of values. As you review and 
consider our budget request, I hope you see how committed President 
Biden and I are to boldly raising the bar in education--to transform 
our education system to better serve the needs of all students. Our 
Budget is dedicated to achieving that goal. Our children and our 
country deserve it. Thank you, and I will do my best to respond to any 
questions you may have.

                      CUTS FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Secretary Cardona. I have 
several questions that I want to get to. But first, as I noted 
in my opening statement, the House Republicans passed a measure 
2 weeks ago, that would have devastating impacts on our 
educational system, from preschool all the way through college.
    Secretary Cardona. Yes.
    Senator Baldwin. Very briefly, is there anything you would 
like to add about what a $17.5 billion cut might mean for 
education programs in the schools, and educators, and students, 
and families that they support, that I didn't mention, or that 
you want to reemphasize?
    Secretary Cardona. Well, I think it is important to 
remember, you know, as we recover from the pandemic 
academically and, you know, we, I think in a very bipartisan 
fashion, agree that there is a level of urgency that is needed 
to make sure our students not only recover, but achieve higher 
levels.
    The programs that would be impacted the most are Title I, 
which is support for our schools where students are struggling 
in reading, and IDEA, which are for students who need extra 
support because they are students with disabilities. Two groups 
that have been most impacted by the pandemic, we are talking 
thousands of teachers being cut.
    The education budgets are human resources, right. When I 
was a district leader, 80/90 percent of our budget was on 
educators. So this drastic cut would limit the number of 
teachers we have available to support students, at a time when 
our kids need it most, and when we are facing a shortage 
already.
    Senator Baldwin. Secretary Cardona, you and I visited 
Northeast Wisconsin Technical College together, a few years 
ago, and I appreciate your focus on career and technical 
education in this budget. Studies have shown that students who 
take CTE courses in high school are more likely to graduate 
high school, and pursue a post-secondary education, among other 
benefits of those studies.
    At the same time, I want to ensure Perkins funding supports 
State and local communities, and the innovation that is 
happening there.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.

               REQUEST FOR CAREER CONNECTED HIGH SCHOOLS

    Senator Baldwin. So, can you expand on your request for the 
Career-Connected High School Program, and how you see that 
leveraging resources provided through the core Perkins Title I 
State Grants' Program?
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. I do remember that visit, it was a 
great visit. One thing that I find as a common theme when I 
visit, whether it is high schools that have career exploration 
programs, or universities; the level of student engagement is 
through the roof. Students want to be there, they are excited. 
That visit, I remember visiting Florida, maybe a week ago, or 2 
weeks ago, in Miami, there was a program where there were like 
25 different options for students. And earlier, I don't know if 
it was this week, or maybe Thursday or Friday of last week, 
there was a school in Hampton, Virginia, that I visited, where 
students had pathways to careers.
    So, we feel strongly that the additional dollars, $200 
million for competitive grants for LEAs (Local Educational 
Agency), is also intended to, what I call ``evolve our high 
schools''. You know, our high schools are designed in many 
ways, like they were two pandemics ago. We have to do better. I 
call it evolving them to make sure that they are connected to 
our 2-year schools, to our pathways into career.
    I went to a technical high school, and I studied automotive 
technology for 4 years, the engagement was really high. And I 
think we have to really address the stigma in this country 
that, you know, creating pathways is telling students where 
they are going to end up. It is providing options.
    I had options when I graduated. I went to a 4-year school. 
So, what we are trying to do is really take what we know is 
working in our 2-year schools because they are more malleable 
to the industry needs, and the regional workforce needs, and 
saying: Why don't we start earlier and start giving our high 
school students an opportunity to get college credits, so they 
feel like they belong in college? But also do it in a way that 
aligns it to some of the regional workforce needs that they 
might experience in the future.
    And I have to say, Senator, I am excited about the 
potential in this country for the jobs that are going to be 
coming, the careers that are going to be coming with some of 
the Invest in America strategies. And it is really important 
that, it is not only good for students, but it is important for 
our country that we evolve our high schools.
    So, the funding that we are asking for is to really 
accelerate that, and make sure we are lifting up good models in 
high schools as well.
    Senator Baldwin. With the Ranking Member's indulgence, I 
have a follow-on on the same topic. It will be easier----
    Senator Capito. That is fine. Yes.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. States have shown what they can 
do when they have flexibility with additional resources for 
career and technical education.
    Secretary Cardona. Yes.
    Senator Baldwin. Including with American Rescue Plan 
funding, it allows States to expand work-based learning 
opportunities, including registered apprenticeships.
    Secretary Cardona. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Baldwin. It allows States to expand Regional Career 
Pathway programs, which is what Wisconsin is doing with its 
Perkins funding. What are some of the innovative ways that you 
have seen States, and school districts, and communities, and 
technical colleges, you know, using their Perkins funding?
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. So what I am seeing happening in 
our country, and it is a step in the right direction, is we are 
moving from pockets of excellence that are dependent on people 
that really get it, or people that maybe had had experience in 
the industry. And now it is becoming systematized.
    So what they are doing, is they are creating industry 
workforce boards that work with higher education institutions, 
and K-12 institutions, to come together to say: What does good 
programming look like? What are the critical skills that we 
need our students to learn? And there is an engagement at an 
earlier level, behind the scenes, you know, before the students 
get to the schools. So I am seeing an investment there.
    I am seeing curricular development that is focused on the 
skills that are needed to have success in the workforce; I 
visited Columbus State Community College in Ohio, and I was 
able to have a roundtable, and there was the--I think it was 
the Vice President for Intel; the Community College President, 
the Superintendent of the K-12 System, and they were talking to 
me about how they meet regularly. How folks from Intel are 
working with the college and the K-12 system.
    So, for me, systematizing the work is the direction that we 
are going, and I am proud that the dollars would be used for 
that.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Secretary.

                      STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PAUSE

    Let us let us talk about the student loan pause that we are 
currently under. It has been more than 3 years since student 
loan borrowers have been required to repay their loans. At the 
height of the pandemic, it made sense to give borrowers a 
limited relief from repaying student loans, and Congress 
provided that relief through the CARES Act.
    However, eight extensions of the payment paused later, and 
with the official end of the public health emergency today, it 
is time to transition borrowers back to repayment. Will you 
commit to restarting repayment no later than September 1st, as 
you have previously announced that you would, regardless of how 
the Supreme Court may rule on the loan forgiveness?
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. And yes, we are, you 
know, glad today is the day where it ends, and we recognize 
that during the pandemic that it was very difficult for 
borrowers.
    Senator Capito. Right.
    Secretary Cardona. And we are committed to making sure that 
once a decision is made, that we are going to resume payments 
60 days after, but no later than June 30th we are going to 
begin that process.
    Senator Capito. Okay. Are you communicating now, are your 
services communicating with borrowers about the upcoming 
return? I mean, this shouldn't be surprising people, because 
obviously they are going to have to plan.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Capito. And I don't know what kind--we have heard 
that servicers are being encouraged to not talk with borrowers. 
So, what is the status of that?
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. So, we recognize that our 
borrowers need information, and they need a long on-ramp, 
because it has been 3 years of resuming payments. We are 
confident, Senator, that the Supreme Court will rule in favor 
of the targeted debt relief, providing relief for millions of 
borrowers, and we want to make sure that the information that 
borrowers get is accurate.
    We do plan on making sure it is a smooth re-entry to 
repayment, and we are prepared, at FSA (Federal Student Aid), 
to provide the support that our students need.
    Senator Capito. So are you communicating with them now, 
those facts?
    Secretary Cardona. We have communicated with them, and we 
do have our website. We have sent emails in the past about when 
the loan pause repayment will start.
    Senator Capito. So they are aware of the dates and 
everything.
    Secretary Cardona. They are. Yes.

            REQUEST FOR STUDENT AID ADMINISTRATION INCREASE

    Senator Capito. Okay. Let us talk about the increase in 
your budget of 31 percent to the Student Aid Administration. I 
mentioned it in my opening statement, an increase of $620 
million. I mentioned in my statement the concerns that I have.
    Secretary Cardona. Okay.
    Senator Capito. That how this money will be used. I think 
it was used in the past for some loan forgiveness, but that I 
don't think is the intent of the Student Aid Administration 
Funding formula. So, what kind of assurances can you give me 
that you will stick with the core operations if, in fact, you 
get a bump in this budget?
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. FSA, since day one, 
has really been focused on making sure we are fixing a broken 
system. A system that----
    Senator Capito. Well, let us go back here. The system has 
been in place for years now, right?
    Secretary Cardona. The higher education access wasn't 
available for all students. So, what I am suggesting is that 
the FSA has been working on fixing a system which includes 
public service loan forgiveness, it includes making sure we are 
providing Federal loan servicing. So, the work at the budget 
that we are requesting is critical for those services to be 
administered.
    Senator Capito. When you are forgiving a loan, are you 
using the money out of this account to forgive that loan? I 
mean, is that how the accounting of that goes?
    Secretary Cardona. No. No, the funding is being used to 
implement programs, like we are simplifying the FAFSA (Free 
Application for Federal Student Aid) Program, and we are 
rolling out FAFSA in a way that is going to get more students--
--
    Senator Capito. When is that going to be?
    Secretary Cardona. Excuse me?
    Senator Capito. When is that going to be?
    Secretary Cardona. Yes, that is going to be this year. And 
I have to say, Senator, we are expecting upwards of 600,000 
more students being able to access higher education. I am 
really proud of the work that is happening there. FSA has been 
working really hard on that. We are turning to the payment----
    Senator Capito. I hope Senator--former Senator Lamar 
Alexander is listening to this, because he talked about it, as 
you know, all the time. He is going to be happy to know it is 
finally going to get rolled out. But go ahead.
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you. When I say we are fixing a 
broken system, we really want to make sure the higher education 
is accessible to more students. I was a first-generation 
college student, and I navigated that process, and it is not 
the simplest process. I want to make sure students today have 
the ability to attend college, and that it is, in large, part 
to the work that FSA is going to be doing.
    The funding for FSA is critical, and I worry that if not 
funded adequately, we are not going to be able to provide the 
services to our students, which could limit the number of 
students that access college, and limit the benefits to those 
who are eligible and deserve benefits, like our veterans.
    Senator Capito. Okay. Thank you.
    Senator Baldwin. Before I recognize Senator Reed.
    I am going to have to run to another committee, and I will 
return. Ranking Member Capito will continue in my absence.
    Senator Reed.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

                    ADDRESSING SCHOOL FACILITY NEEDS

    Mr. Secretary, thank you. Good to see you. We have 
approximately, in the United States, about an 85 billion annual 
shortfall in school facilities investment that is an estimate 
of the State of Our Schools Report in 2021. And Congressman 
Bobby Scott and I have been working, and are prepared to 
reintroduce legislation that will provide $130 billion in 
Federal investment in needs.
    And one of the things that strikes me is that nowadays to 
have, first of all, the young people, sort of respect 
education, and they don't want to be in a, literally a dump, 
they want to be in something that is Upstate Norton. And also 
there is a big, big push for technical expertise requiring 
laboratories, and a whole range of different subjects. And they 
are not in the 1925 high schools.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Reed. Which you know about. I know about. So what 
steps are you taking to assist the steps--the States rather, in 
addressing these needs, anything?
    Secretary Cardona. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I agree with 
you. It became most evident the importance that we should be 
placing on our facilities. During the pandemic I remember 
visiting some communities that were not able to reopen schools 
because of the deferred maintenance on their heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning systems. Meaning, there was 
no airflow, and it took the pandemic for them to realize that: 
we should have kept up. I have walked into buildings where, you 
know, there is no corporate spaces that would ever function 
that way, but we can put our students in their classrooms of 90 
degrees, or higher, in the summer months.
    You know, so there is a lot of work to do there, to 
modernize some buildings, and make sure that it is conducive to 
learning. This is about learning, right? We know there is an 
impact on learning when we think about the environment.
    We are working on two grant competitions to address 
healthier and more equitable schools. And we agree with you 
that we have to pay close attention to it. I think before the 
pandemic it was an issue that really never got the attention it 
needed. Now, folks are looking at it, thanks to the American 
Rescue Plan, there are dollars that are going to that. But I 
think we need to continue to make sure our schools are 
conducive to learning.

                    ENHANCING LITERACY AND NUMERACY

    Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Many people suggest that 
we are in a literacy crisis.
    Secretary Cardona. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Reed. Not just for young students, but also for 
adults. And this impacts our productivity, and impacts our--
everything we do. As chairman on the Armed Services Committee, 
we are seeing more and more young people disqualify from 
service because they certainly----
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Reed [continuing]. Don't have the skills to pass 
the basic test. And also, there is just a tax on our libraries. 
And Congressman Grijalva and I have introduced legislation, the 
Right to Read Act, which would help provide resources, and 
training for school libraries. I wonder if you could comment on 
that.
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. Thank you for that. I agree that 
despite the importance of ensuring our buildings are reopen, 
and safe, and conducive to learning, the importance of 
providing mental health support to our students, we cannot take 
our eyes off the fact that the United States is ninth in 
reading amongst other countries; 31st in the world in math.
    We have to make sure we are focusing on academics, getting 
our students to read, perform high levels of math, and increase 
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), 
especially because of the STEM jobs coming. Clearly, the Civics 
Data that just came out is appalling, we must do better. And we 
have a plan for that. We have a plan for that.
    Our Raise the Bar Strategy is focusing on literacy, and 
numeracy, and making sure our students are getting access to 
quality curriculum. You know, we have a bunch of folks at the 
Department of Education that have spent their careers as school 
superintendents, State chiefs, school principals. We have done 
this work, and we are eager to make sure that we are pushing 
for higher achievement in reading, in math. And happy to share 
our plan, it is on our website. We want everyone to take a look 
at it.
    Senator Reed. Now, all of these necessary initiatives, 
rebuilding schools, enhancing literacy, and numeracy, also 
encouraging more individuals to go into teaching, and then 
have----
    Secretary Cardona. Right.

                         EFFECT OF FUNDING CUTS

    Senator Reed [continuing]. A plan for professional 
development throughout their careers. How would this all be 
affected if we imposed, roughly, 20 percent cut on the 
Department of Education?
    Secretary Cardona. Well, I mentioned earlier that I have 
serious concerns, as a father, if even the schools in my 
community, were to receive cuts equivalent to 22 percent of the 
Federal share, we are talking teachers for students that 
struggle with reading. We are talking cuts to teachers for 
students with disabilities, those who I would argue, were most 
impacted by the pandemic. We are talking about cuts in mental 
health supports for schools which, as you know, we are in a 
youth mental health crisis.
    So, what I would like to share is, while I am very 
concerned with those cuts, what I am hearing from parents, what 
I am hearing from students, and educators, is that the dollars 
that were provided in the American Rescue Plan were able to 
help with some of that recovery. Cutting not only-- we know 
that the American Rescue Plan dollars come to an end next year. 
Cutting funding, ongoing funding for education is taking us 
backwards. And I think it would have a devastating effect on 
students.
    Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Capito [presiding]. Chair Murray. Welcome.
    Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much. And I want to 
thank Chair Baldwin, and Ranking Member Capito, because really 
as we continue to push towards regular order for the first time 
in years, these hearings are really crucial to keeping us on 
track, and a smooth appropriations process is critical, if we 
want to make sure that our Nation remains competitive on the 
world stage.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Murray. We have a responsibility here to work on a 
timely bipartisan way to pass these funding bills and make the 
investments that our Nation needs to avoid falling behind. And 
that is especially important when it comes to education. As a 
former preschool teacher, I can tell you we have to get this 
right, for our kids, for our families, because actually when it 
comes to competing to other countries, winning the future isn't 
just about how much we spend on the military, it is also about 
how we invest in our kids.
    Are we making sure kids get a strong start in life so they 
can grow up and thrive? High quality public schools, enriching 
after-school summer programs, the opportunity to pursue higher 
education goals? Are we giving teachers and educators the 
support they need to take on one of our Nation's most important 
jobs? Are we giving parents the support they need to both be 
involved in their kids' education, and do their jobs and 
support their families? Are we supporting our students and 
closing achievement gaps?
    We can't afford to shortchange these issues, especially if 
we want to stay ahead of our competitors, like the Chinese 
Government. If we want to keep on the cutting edge of 
discovery, we have to support the next generation of 
researchers, we have to light that spark of curiosity, and we 
have to invest in higher education institutions that help it 
burn bright.
    If we want a strong workforce, we have to make sure 
everyone can pursue a high-quality education and career 
training opportunities.
    So, the bottom line is, if we want our country to grow and 
thrive, like it has for past generations, we have to invest in 
the next generation, and that is why this committee and this 
appropriations is so critical. So, I am committed to making 
sure we move forward in a strong way.
    So, Secretary Cardona, good to see you again here.
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
    Senator Murray. You know, thanks to the American Rescue 
Plan and the earlier bipartisan COVID Relief Plans, we actually 
provided States and school districts significant funding to 
support students' academic and overall well-being.
    The American Rescue Plan, specifically, required States and 
districts to set aside funding to address learning loss, and 
across the country they have implemented supports I have heard 
about, like high intensity----
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Murray [continuing]. Tutoring, summer learning 
programs, things like that. And I really want to build on those 
Investments and make sure we use evidence-based programs, 
address barriers to implementation, and get States the 
technical assistance they need.

                           ACADEMIC RECOVERY

    So can you talk with us today about how the Department is 
going to continue to prioritize how disproportionately harmed 
students, will be helped through this budget, and else wise?
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. Thank you very much, Chair Murray. 
Agree wholeheartedly that we have an obligation to make sure we 
are lifting up those practices that are really targeting those 
students who were impacted the most. The set aside for learning 
loss I believe was 20 percent. We have seen upwards of 60 
percent, because we know that right now academic recovery, and 
making sure our students are reading on grade level, is a key 
priority. We can't talk about pathways; we can't talk about 
higher education access if our children are not reading. And we 
are really focusing on that.
    I have seen, in my visits, and also in working with my team 
at the Department, we probably had more students in summer 
school this past year, engaged in summer school programs paid 
for by these dollars, than ever in our history. Targeted 
tutoring programs with, as you mentioned evidence-based, right, 
it is not enough to say we are going to bring a student, have a 
volunteer come in and just help the student with their 
homework.
    I am talking about high-dosage tutoring on curricular-
connected topics where their child is struggling that is 
informed by the student performance in the classroom. We have 
seen an increase of those programs, and we are supporting it 
through technical assistance, through lifting up which 
districts are doing it well, creating a repository of ideas, 
and best practices.
    We have had five summits on academic recovery through the 
pandemic at the Department of Education, where we lifted up 
practices across the country on what is working for students. 
We are proud to elevate the work of educators across the 
country in how they are using the American Rescue Plan dollars.

                       STUDENTS WHO ARE HOMELESS

    Senator Murray. I appreciate that. And I want to ask you 
about homelessness.
    Secretary Cardona. Sure.
    Senator Murray. Because there is a 15 percent increase from 
the previous year, of young students who are homeless, and I am 
just really concerned about that learning loss.
    Secretary Cardona. Yes.
    Senator Murray. How we deal with that. Talk to us a little 
bit about how you deal with the homelessness issue with our 
kids.
    Secretary Cardona. Definitely. You know, housing insecurity 
and homelessness has increased during the pandemic. Many 
students had to move from one State to another, because of 
issues with COVID, or a loss in the family. And it was really 
difficult for many of our students.
    Thanks to the American Rescue Plan dollars, $800 million 
toward homelessness, we have seen those dollars being used to 
provide wraparound supports, we have seen liaisons out in the 
community, working with community partners to make sure that 
the students have, if it is food insecurity, that that is 
addressed. If they need a place to stay, that is addressed; 
tutoring and transportation. So those dollars have been used to 
provide some of those basic needs that our children need in 
order to be ready to learn when they get into the building.
    Definitely, have seen those dollars being used well, to 
make sure that our needier students are getting the supports 
that they need.
    Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much.
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
    Senator Murray. And thank.
    Senator Capito. Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Chairwoman Baldwin, and 
Ranking Member Capito, for convening today. And I certainly 
appreciate the Secretary being here and taking time to speak 
with us.

                         WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

    Mr. Secretary, with workforce shortages felt in just about 
every sector, workforce development is obviously more important 
than ever. I just had a lot of the maritime industries in my 
office this morning, with shipbuilding, well its barge 
companies, and towing companies, that it is just very critical 
right now. And they came to D.C. to ask me for help with this.
    But it just emphasizes the need to strengthen and increase 
the number of career and technical education programs across 
our country, especially in rural areas where I come from, that 
lack certain trained professionals.
    In what ways can the Department and Congress assist in 
promoting and broadening the reach of career and technical 
education programs, in both K-12 schools, and community 
colleges?
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you for that. And I share the 
interest that you express around making sure we are leveling up 
our career and technical education programs, making sure that 
our schools are attuned to the careers that are available to 
our students, and making sure that, in this case, maritime 
industry partners are connected with our universities, but also 
our K-12 systems. To give our students exposure earlier to the 
careers that exist for them.

                           RURAL COMMUNITIES

    That is even more important in rural communities where, 
oftentimes, I have spoken to folks from the rural community, 
kind of felt like they are not being listened to as much. And 
we are taking that very seriously, through our rural education 
program, we are asking for $215 million. In Title I there is a 
share for rural communities.
    At the Department, we are proud we have brought on Julia 
Cunningham, who is now the new Director of Rural Engagement. 
And we want to make sure that we are targeting our support, 
technical assistance, and guidance to rural communities, in 
addition to what we are doing generally, but we are creating a 
rural community of practice on career pathways and I would 
welcome an opportunity, I would really welcome an opportunity 
for my team to engage with some of the folks that visited you 
this morning to see how we can--what we can hear from them, how 
we can make sure our services are providing the support that 
they are looking for, and that our schools need in our rural 
communities.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. So what are these programs doing? Give 
me some examples.
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. So what they are doing. And I 
visited a rural community in Kentucky recently where, I saw the 
students in the CTE Program there, engaging in jobs that could 
be done from Kentucky where they don't have to leave Kentucky. 
So it could be, for example, cybersecurity pathway, where the 
students are able to work remotely, but work on issues of 
cybersecurity, or get careers in cybersecurity.
    We saw them working in different programs that connect them 
to jobs in the region as well. And I think we also have to make 
sure we are taking into account the specific challenges. In 
rural communities oftentimes broadband is an issue, oftentimes 
there are no large plants next to them. So we have to think 
about--creatively about what we are going to do in rural 
communities to make sure that those students have the same 
access.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. And how do we incentivize the industry 
groups to increase their investment in workforce training 
initiatives to train students for these high-skilled, in-demand 
technical jobs; because a lot of these jobs are really good 
jobs, six digit.
    Secretary Cardona. Exactly.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. So how do we get industry to address 
this?
    Secretary Cardona. We created recently a Rural Strategy and 
Action Team, whose job it is to do just that. And I would be 
happy to have more engagement with that team that we just 
created, with you and your team, to share specifics. But as I 
said earlier, we are trying to focus on rural needs, and making 
sure that those students have the same opportunities as other 
students in the country.

                         CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM

    Senator Hyde-Smith. Well, thank you for that. And I have 
got one more. The Charter School Program has not received an 
increase in funding since fiscal year 2019, despite the 
increase in demand and growing student waiting lists across the 
country. In addition, Charter schools lack sufficient resources 
for their facilities. What will your Department do to support 
Charter schools that have had level funding for 5 years, but 
would like to welcome more students, because they do have 
waiting lists, and access the needed resources so they can keep 
their doors open.
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. We do believe that 
Charter schools do provide an option for families. Public 
Charter schools are an option for families. We have not reduced 
funding, we have kept the same level of funding, and we 
recognize that Charter schools do provide support. We are 
available for technical support and guidance as well, and we 
will continue to do that.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. So, you will continue to keep it level 
with no increases?
    Secretary Cardona. We will continue to support Charter 
schools, and the budget this year does not ask for an increase. 
We are focusing our increases on areas where we are noticing 
students are underperforming woefully, to help level up in 
those situations.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Yes, because with inflation, if you 
hadn't had an increase in 5 years, there are definitely cuts 
having to be made. Thank you so much.
    Senator Baldwin [presiding]. Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And Secretary Cardona, thank you for being here this 
morning, and for your good work.
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you.

      COMPLETING PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS

    Senator Shaheen. I enjoyed the exchange with Senator Murray 
about the funds that Congress allocated through the CARES Act, 
and the American Rescue Plan that have gone to schools.
    Secretary Cardona. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Shaheen. And I know that while we designated, 
specifically, some of the uses, some schools have been using 
those funds for needed renovations to make facility upgrades.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Shaheen. To improve schools' ventilation, that sort 
of thing. And I am beginning to hear some concern from 
districts in New Hampshire, who, because of the challenges they 
have encountered from contractor----
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Capacity issues, from supply 
chain problems; they are concerned about whether they are going 
to be able to complete their projects by the deadline for 
obligation of the American Rescue Plan funds.
    So can you talk about what the Department is doing to 
provide clarity to school districts? And to ensure that we have 
got enough flexibility so that we can complete projects that 
have been started.
    Secretary Cardona. Right. Yes, we recognize, and we have 
been engaging with districts, district leaders, State leaders, 
around this issue of making sure that they are able to get the 
projects that they need done. We recognize, you know, for a 
period of time there was a challenge getting materials.
    Senator Shaheen. Right.
    Secretary Cardona. Or you know some of the supply chain 
issues were delaying some of the materials from getting into 
districts. And I appreciate the conversations that I am having 
with superintendents and chiefs around: Well, we want to make 
sure we are able to use ARP (American Rescue Plan) dollars to 
do this. We are continuing to work with them and monitor them. 
We want to make sure that the projects are completed. And we 
remain in communication with them to make sure that they can 
continue using those dollars to those projects that they know 
are best for students.
    Senator Shaheen. Has guidance been issued to States and 
school districts about what is allowable? And if they are going 
to States, are we sure that that information is getting passed 
down to the districts?
    Secretary Cardona. Well, yes, the Office of Elementary and 
Secondary Education is in communication regularly with State 
chiefs, superintendents, but what we can do is make sure that 
information continues to go to the representative groups. So, 
for example, AASA (American Association of School 
Administrators) represents the superintendents. The school 
chiefs, officers' group, we get information to them. We will 
make sure that the information continues to go out, and we will 
be happy to take----
    Senator Shaheen. Do we not have a list at the Department of 
Education of all of the school districts in the country?
    Secretary Cardona. We do. And we will continue to 
communicate with that, but as you know, that there is a lot of 
transiency in superintendency, so we want to make sure that 
through the State Superintendent's Group, they are the ones 
that really are having the regular meetings, and communicating 
with them, although we will use various formats of 
communication.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, again, I think whatever clarity can 
be provided----
    Secretary Cardona. Yes.
    Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Is really important, because 
as I said, we are hearing from districts in New Hampshire who 
are not clear about what they need to do in order to ensure 
that they can complete their projects.
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator. And if it is okay, I 
would like to have my team reach out to you.
    Senator Shaheen. That would be great.
    Secretary Cardona. To reach out to those specific 
districts. Thank you.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Secretary Cardona. Sure.

                   MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE

    Senator Shaheen. On Monday, I was at a school in--a high 
school in New Hampshire, and I was there to talk to them about 
the Mental Health, Substance Use, Suicide Prevention Program, 
that they have in place. And it is a very impressive program, 
but one of the issues that came up was fentanyl.
    Secretary Cardona. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Shaheen. And we had a hearing yesterday with the 
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency. They have a whole 
campaign trying to make sure people understand how deadly this 
fentanyl challenge is, and how potentially, harmful it is for 
anybody who may get access to fentanyl.
    And I raised this concern with the school, and I was told 
that they hadn't really engaged on that issue. When I asked the 
Administrator whether she was working with the Department of 
Education to do any kind of campaign around awareness for 
schools and students, it sounded to me like that is not 
happening.
    And I appreciate, having been a teacher, I understand that 
we ask a lot of our educators, and I appreciate all that they 
do, but I also believe that this is a crisis.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Shaheen. When we have lost over 70,000 people from 
fentanyl, in 1 year, it is a threat to our students that is 
every bit as bad as suicide, or any other threat that they are 
facing.
    So, can you talk to me about what you all are doing? We 
also provided $2 billion for mental health in the Safer 
Communities Act to the Department. Can you talk about 
addressing mental health? Can you talk about how you are 
utilizing that, and how you incorporate substance misuse as 
part of that?
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. So, I agree with you that, these 
issues that come up in our communities also come up in our 
schools, and we have to make sure that our schools, just like 
we talk about CTE being connected with the changing workforce 
needs, we too, have to be responding to what our students are 
facing, or what they are seeing in the community.
    Senator Shaheen. Right.
    Secretary Cardona. Through the BSCA (Bipartisan Safer 
Communities Act), as you mentioned, there are dollars intended 
to make sure that school safety plans are up to par, and part 
of that includes professional development. I think there is 
$500 million in BSCA for professional development and 
activities intended to make sure that our schools have the 
professional learning opportunities for teachers, for 
administrators, and that includes addressing whether it is 
mental health needs, substance abuse needs, or other issues 
that our students are facing.
    We do recognize that it is a significant issue, and we 
stand ready to support districts and States; if they are 
looking for support on this, or some direction, happy to reach 
out.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, I would encourage you to also reach 
out to the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), about what 
they are doing, because I think there are some opportunities 
there to coordinate in ways that would be impactful.
    Secretary Cardona. Yes.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Why don't you jump over to Brian, and let 
him go ahead.
    Senator Baldwin. All right, Senator Schatz.
    Senator Boozman. It looks like he has got some place to be.
    Senator Schatz. No, only, only if you insist.
    Senator Boozman. No. Go ahead.

                       NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION

    Senator Schatz. Thank you very much. I have never seen 
anything like this.
    Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for being here. I 
want to start with Native Hawaiian education.
    Secretary Cardona. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Schatz. Do I have your commitment to continue to 
support robust funding for the Native Hawaiian Education 
Program?
    Secretary Cardona. Yes.
    Senator Schatz. I have heard from providers in the State of 
Hawaii that there are officials at the Department that suggest 
that the Federal Trust Responsibility that the Federal 
Government has to Native Hawaiian communities, does not extend 
to their work. Do you believe that the entirety of your 
Department has an obligation to carry out this trust 
responsibility?
    Secretary Cardona. Absolutely, Senator.
    Senator Schatz. Do I have your commitment to make sure that 
all of the good people in your Department administering 
programs, pushing out grants, overseeing this program and 
others, get the message with precision and clarity from you?
    Secretary Cardona. It will be very clear, and our actions 
have shown that we must support all Native students, and it is 
not limited to one office, it is our entire Department of 
Education. Thank you.
    Senator Schatz. Yes. I think your actions have shown that, 
but I am just telling you that at the line level -- and I 
understand this, because as the Chairman of Indian Affairs, a 
lot of times what we do is extend obligations into other 
departments and into other programs where people have been 
running the program in a certain way for a long time.
    Secretary Cardona. Yes.
    Senator Schatz. So, I do think it is really important that 
you have your people drill down, and just make sure that all 
the good people doing all the good work, understand that they 
have an----
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
    Senator Schatz [continuing]. Obligation, under Federal law. 
To do it this way.
    Secretary Cardona. Yes, definitely, yes.
    Senator Schatz. Thank you. My office has heard concerns 
with the--from current prison education providers about 
difficulties working with the Department on the implementation 
of Pell eligibility. Can you just tell me how the Department is 
working with existing education providers on Pell restoration, 
to make sure that we ensure a smooth transition?
    Secretary Cardona. Well, look, we were looking forward to 
continuing the support, with regard to Pell for incarcerated 
students, and expanding that, providing opportunities. We look 
at this as an opportunity to help those who are really trying 
to get back on their feet and gain skills to be successful. We 
look at that as an opportunity for us. And we have expanded 
programming. As you know, we had the pilot program, we expanded 
it, and we are looking forward to continuing it, and we welcome 
opportunities to engage with folks, to make sure that the 
program works.It is fairly new for many, so there may be a lot 
of questions, but we want to make sure that we are supporting 
it, and our team is available and ready to have conversations, 
or meet with folks if there is work that needs to be done, to 
make it smoother.

                    COST OF ARMED GUARDS IN SCHOOLS

    Senator Schatz. Thank you. You know, over the last couple 
of days and weeks, some have suggested that armed guards in 
schools might be a solution to school shootings. I want to set 
aside the practical question of whether or not an armed guard, 
or two, at a school would actually prevent anything, and I 
think there is some, at least anecdotal evidence, that it 
wouldn't.
    But I want to talk, because this is the Appropriations 
Committee, about cost. Recent estimates put the cost of placing 
two armed guards in each school between $21 and $36 billion per 
year. Assuming flat funding how--in other words, assuming you 
had to absorb that new cost, because I don't think there is 
going to be a $36 billion annual additional appropriation for 
this purpose. Tell me about what kinds of cuts you would have 
to sustain within the Department?
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. Well, first of all Senator let me 
just share how, as a former school principal, the safety of our 
students was my number one priority; and that there were 
multiple strategies to ensure the safest learning environment 
possible.
    With regard to the question about the $36 billion, that 
translates into teachers. There is no other way to answer that 
than to say that it would take from what we are currently 
trying to do, which is help our students learn how to read, 
achieve in math, and have college and career pathways, if you 
are taken from the same pot it is going to result in education 
staff being reduced.

                               BOOK BANS

    Senator Schatz. Thank you. A final question: I know these 
are local decisions, but you are the Secretary of the 
Department, federally. Just tell me your thoughts on book bans?
    Secretary Cardona. Yes. It is a local decision, but as a 
father and as an educator, I am just--it is alarming the degree 
to which we have State leaders taking books out of the hands of 
kids, and decimating libraries, and politicizing what should be 
something that unifies us, making sure that our students are 
literate, providing them diverse text so they can learn about 
different cultures. And even explicit bans on history that 
teaches the experience of Black Americans. That, to me, is 
extremely alarming.
    Senator Schatz. I think, one final thought on that, I think 
all--everything you said about book bans is correct, I also 
think that the way that some of these specific statutes work is 
unusual, in that it empowers an individual crank to basically 
remove something from a library. This isn't the Board of 
Education deciding what curriculum, or curricula are allowed, 
what books are in the library.
    This is like, basically, a private right of action to come 
in and say: I don't like that book. I think it is offensive in 
the following ways. And it presumptively gets removed from the 
library. I think it is a very, very dangerous thing to do, in 
the education context. Thank you.
    Senator Baldwin. Senator Boozman.
    Senator Boozman. Thank you Madam Chair, and Ranking Member, 
for this important hearing.

                           TEACHER SHORTAGES

    Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. One of the things 
that I am very, very concerned about is the widespread shortage 
of teachers across the country, certainly, they are the 
underpinning of the United States in so many different ways. 
According to a recent GAO (Government Accountability Office) 
Report public education lost about 7 percent of its total 
teaching population, 233,000 instructors between 2019 and 2021.
    Furthermore, in Arkansas, data from the State's Education 
Department indicates the worst shortages are in our rural 
districts.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Boozman. To address teacher shortages in Arkansas, 
the Arkansas Teacher Corps recently shifted from recruiting 
newer college grads, to helping teachers already working but 
who aren't licensed. The fiscal year 2024 budget requests $3 
billion for educator development, including funding 
specifically to bolster the teacher workforce.
    How exactly is the administration planning on spending this 
money to address the teacher shortage? And specifically, how 
will the administration ensure that rural areas are not left 
behind when addressing these shortages? I think almost all of 
the teachers that were hired in Arkansas actually didn't have 
teacher--in the rural areas didn't have teaching certificates.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Boozman. I mean this is just a very, very serious 
problem.
    Secretary Cardona. Yes, it is. Thank you, Senator. I share 
that concern with you. That is a major focus for us at the 
Department of Education, especially in areas like rural 
communities where it is even more difficult. So I appreciate 
that sentiment. I share with you that we are on it. We 
recognize that rural communities have a greater need.
    We are asking for dollars to make sure that we are lifting 
the profession, that we are providing dollars for professional 
development, pathways for teachers, recruitment programs. Our 
budget, unlike budgets in the past, is really focusing on 
trying to have recruitment programs.
    I will give you an example of one that I think will benefit 
communities, rural communities. We have apprenticeship programs 
that we are trying to expand. As you know, student teachers 
don't get paid during the 4 months of student teaching. It is 
hard to welcome someone into a profession and ask them to work 
for free for 4 months, especially if teachers, on average, are 
making 20 percent less than people with similar degrees.
    So, we have to change how we are thinking about it. We went 
from two apprenticeships--two States with apprenticeships to 
16. It is my goal to get to all 50. So, we are looking at 
Pathway Programs through these dollars to expand on. In rural 
communities, the Rural Education Program, we are asking for 
$215 million to be very specific around rural education.
    And then again, Title I, and IDEA, we are looking at 
additional dollars for rural communities to make sure that they 
can bring teachers into those communities to support the 
students. We recognize that as an issue, and we look forward to 
working with you to support rural education.

                MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF STUDENT ATHLETES

    Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 
As a former student athlete, I am particularly concerned about 
recent data related to the mental health challenges faced by 
student athletes. Over the last few months I have heard from 
student athletes across sports and institutions highlighting 
the pressure they feel to perform both in the classroom and on 
the field.
    According to an NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic 
Association) Student Athlete Well-Being Study released last 
year, the number of student athletes reporting mental health 
concerns is roughly twice, two times higher than before the 
pandemic.
    Can you elaborate on, any ideas, if you all are working to 
address the unique mental health needs of the student athlete 
population on college campuses? And does the Department have 
specialized programs to serve the student-athlete population?
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you for that. You know, one thing 
we know is high school and college can be pretty stressful.
    Senator Boozman. Right.
    Secretary Cardona. Period. You throw a pandemic on it, 
basic needs being--need to be met, and then the demands of 
athletics which--you know, I have a godson who is graduating in 
two days, and he was on the basketball team, and just the 
demands of travel and----
    Senator Boozman. Right.
    Secretary Cardona [continuing]. In addition to the classes, 
he is studying engineering. So, I recognize, firsthand, what it 
feels like. We want to make sure that our students are able to 
take advantage of those co-curricular activities. In our budget 
we are asking for $150 million to support mental health in our 
institutions of higher education, which is an area that I felt, 
sir, over the last 3 years, our institutions are doing a better 
job recognizing that some of these needs have to be addressed 
pervasively, that they cannot be left to the--after the trauma.
    So, we are investing in mental health supports in higher 
education, and we do believe that supporting our athletes is a 
big part of that, because many of those students have a lot on 
their plate as well.
    Senator Boozman. Good. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. We are anticipating at least 
one additional Senator who is, I think, making her way over for 
questions. So, I am going to start a second round for--as we 
expect her to come shortly. And I want to continue on this 
topic of mental health.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.

             ACCESS TO SCHOOL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

    Senator Baldwin. I know we are all aware how hard this 
pandemic has been on students. And I shared some of the 
alarming statistics from the State of Wisconsin in my opening 
remarks. I have certainly heard from parents who are frustrated 
with how difficult it is to find mental health services for 
their children.
    So, I want to hear from you, not only how the Department is 
using available funds and authorities, but how your Department 
is coordinating with the Department of Health and Human 
Services, which also has authorities----
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Baldwin [continuing]. And funding to increase 
student access to school-based mental health services?
    Secretary Cardona. Absolutely. Thank you. I think that is 
the way we are moving in the future, that it is not limited to 
the school personnel. When I was a school principal we had a 
school-based health center from the community that we gave a 
classroom and an office to. I had students, on a regular basis, 
visiting the school-based health--we also had a dental health, 
because the students teeth hurt, they are not learning as well.
    And we recognized that that model worked. So, when we talk 
about mental health, it is really important that I 
contextualize it, mental health support is also providing 
proactive positive activities for students, after school 
programming, connections with the local Boys and Girls Clubs 
for them to have a safe place to go after school.
    But with regard to the more tier two, tier three mental 
health support, which is engaging with a school social worker, 
or a community social worker, we have seen an expansion of 
programs, and we are funding, and supporting, and lifting up 
programs that are connected to the community.
    I visited a--I believe it was in Nevada--a high school that 
was connected to a 4-year university, and connected to a 
hospital. It was just the most expansive program that I have 
seen, parents are able to come in and get support as well.
    We really need to lift up those models, the collaboration 
with HHS is critical. Xavier and I have talked a lot--Secretary 
Becerra and I have talked a lot about this. And the President 
charged us with ensuring that Medicaid is able to support some 
of the mental health and behavioral health needs of our 
students.
    So, we are pleased to be working more closely together in 
modeling what we expect in our States, between the State 
Department of Education and Health Services. I do believe that 
a shared model is critical. I think the Full Service Community 
School dollars that we are asking for, will promote that as 
well.
    Senator Baldwin. Okay. Senator Britt, do I need to give you 
a couple more seconds. Or are you prepared for-- okay. Senator 
Britt, you are recognized.
    Senator Britt. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman, I 
appreciate it. And thank you for allowing me to have a few 
minutes to ask some questions.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being here today. 
Before moving on to a number of topics, and I know several 
things have already been covered that I had wanted to kind of 
dig into, I do want to be just honest and direct about my 
concerns with the Department of Education, and their role in 
American Education today.
    The issue of education policy, I believe, should fall 
within the domain of the States and localities, rather than the 
Federal Government. When the Department of Education was 
established as a Cabinet level department in 1980, it was hoped 
that, among other things, the Department would supplement and 
complement the efforts of States and localities to really 
improve the quality of education across the country.

                         IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION

    When I look at my great State of Alabama, obviously, there 
are pockets of underserved areas that I believe need 
educational opportunities in order to truly move forward. I am 
of the belief that education is the foundation; it is the 
pathway to the American dream. And I am frustrated that there 
are still so many pockets that lack the ability to really give 
a child an opportunity to move forward. And so, when the 
Federal Government is involving . . . moved, if you kind of 
sort of look back, back then the data showed in reading, that 
the average score among a 17-year-old student wasn't . . . it 
is not statistically significantly different than it is today.
    And so, I look at those metrics that we use to create the 
Department, and they look just about the same today. And so, I 
am frustrated with the lack of movement, with your lack of 
progress that I believe is hindering our children. So, getting 
that aside, I want to jump into some questions.

                         STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT

    Mr. Secretary, on Monday when discussed, the current debate 
surrounding the debt ceiling, the White House Press Secretary 
said, ``If you buy a car you are expected to pay the monthly 
payments. If you buy a home, you are expected to pay the 
mortgage every month. That is the expectation'', end quote. Do 
you agree with that statement?
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you, Senator, for first of all, 
your comments earlier. I share with you that passion and that 
urgency to make sure that all kids in this country can succeed, 
and that place or race are not determinants or predictors of 
outcomes. So, I truly share that belief and that I appreciate 
your passion on that.
    Senator Britt. Thank you.
    Secretary Cardona. So, with regard to your question?
    Senator Britt. So, when the White House Press Secretary, 
this week stated, ``If you buy a car, you are expected to pay 
the monthly payment. If you buy a home, you are expected to pay 
the monthly mortgage every month. That is the expectation'', 
end quote. And I am saying, do you agree with that statement?
    Secretary Cardona. I agree with that, yes.
    Senator Britt. Okay. So I am of the belief, and this is 
where I have some frustration.
    Secretary Cardona. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Britt. Is I also believe that same logic must apply 
to student loans.
    Secretary Cardona. Yes.
    Senator Britt. And so, I would like your perspective on 
that as well?
    Secretary Cardona. Sure. I appreciate that, Senator. And 
you know, we agree, and we are preparing to restart repayment 
because the emergency is--period is over, and we are preparing 
our borrowers to restart. But as you know, the HEROES Act 
provides me the opportunity to create a waiver for those who 
were impacted significantly by the pandemic, very similar to 
small businesses the year before, where Congress provided a 
little bit of support.
    Senator Britt. So, it has been reported that the Biden 
administration is considering a number of steps to ensure a 
more gradual return to repayment once payments are formally 
scheduled to resume 60 days about--after the pause expires. So, 
some of the steps apparently include: one, student loan 
servicers not charging interest on Federal student loans again 
until September; the second one that is out there, is delaying 
until October as the first of the month, in which any borrower 
will be required to make a payment; and the third one that is 
out there, is the implementation of a certain safety net period 
in which borrowers aren't penalized for missing payments once 
repayments begin.
    So, Mr. Secretary, can you confirm if the Department is 
considering these measures, or any similar measures that might 
be put into place, after that pause expires?
    Secretary Cardona. Yes. Thank you, Senator. We recognize, 
after 3 years of pause payments through two administrations; 
that the repayment restart is going to be a very important 
step. And we want to make sure it is done right.
    We are confident that the targeted debt relief will address 
some of the concerns of some of our borrowers who are 
struggling right now. But as they re-enter repayment it is 
really important that we provide support for them. With regard 
to specific strategies, I would be happy to have my team follow 
up, to respond to those specific questions, yes.
    Senator Britt. I would greatly appreciate that. My time is 
expiring. I just want to say, I agree that if you buy a car you 
are expected to make your monthly payments, if you buy a home 
you are expected to pay your mortgage, and if you take out a 
loan you are expected to repay it, and that comes obviously 
with student loans as well. So, I think we have to teach our 
children that if you assume a responsibility you have to figure 
out and have a path forward to fulfill that responsibility.
    So, thank you so much. And I look forward to working with 
you.
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Senator Britt.
    Senator Capito.

            COMMUNICATING THE STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROCESS

    Senator Capito. Yes. Thank you, and thank you for being 
here. And echoing Senator Britt's frustration, I noticed in 
response to my question, similar type of question as Senator 
Britt, we are not getting a real specific answer here. And I 
think one thing that I have known through the pandemic, and I 
think we have all learned, is clear communication is absolutely 
critical, whether it is about a loan, or whether it is about to 
wear a mask, or if your school is going to close.
    So, I would hope that the administration would be more 
specific, and you would be more specific, and in future 
communications, with the folks that are either going to have to 
restart, that should be restarting the payment of their loan, 
because it is coming, and I think the clearer communication 
would be much appreciated.

                         IMPROVING NAEP RESULTS

    And the second thing I would say, in terms of a comment, is 
I mentioned about the NAEP scores in my opening statement. It 
is deeply troubling to me. I mean, I am a mother of three, I 
have got eight grandchildren I know those doggone tests when 
they come in, and the kids have to sit there, and the parents 
get all nervous because you have got to make sure you get them 
up, and feed them, and they are all ready for their tests, more 
like it is the biggest day in their life. But it does show 
trends if nothing else.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Capito. And the trend is not good.
    Secretary Cardona. Mm-hmm.
    Senator Capito. So, my concern here is we cannot reset the 
bar here. In other words, the baseline can't go down to where 
we are, we have to keep remembering that we are in a trough 
right now, and still have all these aspirational goals. I am 
sure you as an educator----
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Capito [continuing]. We are always looking at that. 
And so, I would encourage you, rather, as an administration, or 
as a country, as the leader of our education, to say to the 
parents and the students out there: You know, we have had a 
rough time, we have got all these support services we are 
talking about to try to help you, but we are not going to let 
you stay where you are. That is not satisfactory. You need to 
move up. And so, my quick question is, on the short-term Pell.
    Secretary Cardona. Sure.
    Senator Capito. We have heard a lot about workforce, and a 
lot of what we are doing in our State is short-term training, 
and there is nothing in this budget, as far as I understand, 
that would help us with those folks and certificate programs, 
and short-term programs.
    Secretary Cardona. Right.
    Senator Capito. What is your reason?

                            RAISING THE BAR

    Secretary Cardona. Yes, definitely happy to share that. And 
let me just tell you, Senator, I couldn't agree more. When I 
became a fourth grade teacher, I wanted to make sure all my 
kids had access. I wanted to make sure they were reading. And 
now I have a wider scope, but that passion is still there, and 
I appreciated, even your hand gestures, because we are raising 
the bar, that is our strategy, it is called, raising the bar, 
for literacy, numeracy.
    We shouldn't just aim to recover, because the data before, 
2019 wasn't great. So, moving to Pell and short-term Pell; you 
know, in my conversations and my travel with community college 
presidents, 4-year college presidents, industry partners who 
are saying: We want to work with our 2-year schools, to make 
sure that our employees have the skills, but they don't need a 
2-year program.
    We recognize that we need to be malleable, and we need to 
be conducive. If I am asking universities and K-12 institutions 
to think outside the box and evolve, we too, need to do that. 
So, I am in favor of exploring short-term Pell, with making 
sure that there is accountability and there is high quality 
programming.
    And I think that is something we both agree on. So, I am 
excited to see how that develops, but we recognize that if we 
are really going to meet the demand of the tsunami of jobs that 
are coming, we need to be flexible as well.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.Senator 
Baldwin: Thank you, Senator Capito.
    That will end our hearing today. I want to thank my fellow 
committee members who participated in a thoughtful 
conversation, a back and forth.
    And thank you to you----
    Secretary Cardona. Thank you.
    Senator Baldwin [continuing]. Secretary Cardona.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    For any Senators who wish to ask additional questions, 
questions for the record will be due on May 19, at 5 p.m. The 
hearing record will also remain open for members who wish to 
submit additional materials for the record.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
                 Questions Submitted to Miguel Cardona
              Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
    Question. Congress took decisive action, including through the 
American Rescue Plan Act that passed without a Republican vote, in 
providing unprecedented levels of resources to help schools safely 
provide in-person learning for all students and help students recover 
from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department rejected portions of State 
plans that failed to comply with requirements of the law, including 
Wisconsin's plan as modified by Wisconsin's legislature. Unfortunately, 
delayed approval may have complicated the timely and effective use of 
these funds as intended. All students need support, particularly those 
disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and a portion of these 
funds are required to assist these students using evidence-based 
interventions.
    With the final school year ESSER funds are available for new 
obligations fast approaching, what steps will you take to provide 
States and school districts with the assistance they need to timely and 
effectively use these funds to meet student needs as required by law?
    Answer. All States received access to two thirds of their ARP ESSER 
funds on March 24, 2021, within two weeks of the President signing the 
American Rescue Plan. The Department was in regular communication with 
States, urging them to make funds available to their school districts 
in order to address the needs of students resulting from the pandemic 
and helping them problem solve, as needed.
    The Department has consistently worked with States and school 
districts to provide them with personalized technical assistance so 
that they are able to address the unique needs of their communities. 
The Department uses the results from annual performance reporting, 
monitoring, inquiries from grantees and other stakeholders to inform a 
broad array of technical assistance (TA) activities that promote the 
urgent and wise use of ARP and other recovery funds. Given that 
recovery funds are State-administered formula grants, TA is primarily 
focused on the 52 State educational agencies (SEAs) that, in turn, 
support more than 10,000 school districts implementing locally approved 
spending plans.
    TA is structured as follows:
    Helping all States understand recovery fund requirements: Since 
January 2021, the Department has issued more than 30 pieces of formal, 
written guidance (Dear Colleague Letters, fact sheets, and frequently 
asked questions) and dozens of webinars and ``Office Hours'' \1\ to 
support Governors, SEAs, school districts, and other entities in 
implementing recovery funds. Formal guidance is a priority as it 
promotes consistent application of the ARP Act and other recovery act 
requirements across variously situated grantees and subgrantees and 
provides a clear basis for monitoring by the Department as well as 
other entities with oversight responsibilities (e.g., State and local 
inspectors general, State fiscal officers, private auditors). The 
Department has also responded to hundreds of unique questions from 
individual grantees by convening five different agency-wide workgroups 
to ensure fidelity to the statute and regulations. Monthly calls with 
each State are also an opportunity for grantees to ask questions and 
clarify any understanding of the requirements. Finally, the Department 
understands the massive undertaking by States to implement COVID-relief 
programs; accordingly, we provide ongoing TA to stakeholder groups that 
also support States including membership associations, State auditors, 
and the Office of the Inspector General, to ensure broad and consistent 
understanding of program requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Department has provided additional support to all States to 
help them comply with the annual performance reporting requirements. 
This support has included multiple webinars, frequently asked questions 
documents, and a dedicated Help Desk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Example: The Department's ESSER and GEER Use of Funds FAQs 
(December 2022) outlines how recovery funds can be used to support 
mental health services for students and educators, expand summer and 
after school programs, reduce rates of chronic absenteeism, and promote 
workforce stability--among other priorities. This non-regulatory 
guidance includes approximately 115 questions and answers drawn from 
States, school districts, and stakeholders.
    Supporting all States in practical application of these 
requirements: Within the broad allowability of the ARP Act and other 
recovery funds, the Department has an obligation to support recipients 
in making the wisest, possible use of funds. Through regular webinars, 
the five-part Raise the Bar: Literacy and Math Series, and multi-State 
communities of practice organized by the Department's National 
Comprehensive Center (NCC) and other TA centers, the Department can 
rapidly deploy content to address emerging needs, elevate promising 
practices, and leverage the expertise of practitioners successfully 
implementing an evidence-based approach at scale. The Department's 
Office of the Chief Data Officer (OCDO) develops and delivers resources 
(webinars, guidance documents, tools to support reporting) designed to 
assist grantees with the reporting requirements. Access to these 
resources may be found on the Grantee Help page of the ESF Transparency 
Portal.
    Example: Through the Department's Student Engagement and Attendance 
Center, more than 200 State and local participants from 34 States are 
working together to explore student attendance trends, analyze State 
and local data sets, and identify strategies to find and re-engage 
missing students and improve student attendance.
    Developing all States' awareness of the impact of ARP and other 
recovery funds: Maximizing the impact of ARP and other recovery funds 
requires data and evidence to assess how recovery initiatives are 
working, for which students, and under what conditions. Regional 
Educational Laboratories (RELs), administered by the Department's 
Institute of Education Sciences, work in partnership with SEA leaders 
and practitioners to design, develop, and carry out activities and 
studies to help achieve meaningful improvements in student outcomes. 
Specific activities include delivering customized training, coaching, 
and technical support to build capacity for applying evidence to 
practice; developing toolkits to help educators use recommendations 
from What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guides in the classroom; and 
conducting rigorous applied research in response to local priorities. 
Earlier this year, IES and the Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education partnered to issue a Dear Colleague Letter to new State 
chiefs, urging them to take full advantage of REL services.
    Examples:
  --Student outcome data, when disaggregated by student group, school 
        characteristics, or other relevant features, can support 
        decision-makers in focusing resources, monitoring improvement, 
        and adjusting implementation efforts. RELs Midwest and Mid-
        Atlantic recently provided similar services for their State and 
        district-level partners.
  --A recent REL Northwest study examined the implementation and impact 
        of full-day kindergarten in Oregon in light of a funding 
        structure shift that incentivized districts to offer the 
        programming.
    Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs), administered by the 
Department's Institute of Education Sciences, work in partnership with 
SEA leaders and practitioners to design, develop, and carry out 
activities and studies to help achieve meaningful improvements in 
student outcomes. Specific activities include delivering customized 
training, coaching, and technical support to build capacity for 
applying evidence to practice; developing toolkits to help educators 
use recommendations from What Works Clearinghouse Practice Guides in 
the classroom; and conducting rigorous applied research in response to 
local priorities. Earlier this year, IES and the Office of Elementary 
and Secondary Education partnered to issue a Dear Colleague Letter to 
new State chiefs, urging them to take full advantage of REL services.
    Additionally, the Department has provided ongoing support to states 
through Communities of Practice (CoPs), including the Evidence-Based 
Interventions: Using ARP Resources to Accelerate Learning CoP and the 
Strategic Use of Summer and Afterschool Set Asides CoP. Resources from 
the CoPs can be found here. In FY 2024, the Department is investing in 
focused technical assistance and capacity-building support to States to 
spend remaining recovery funds in ways that are most likely to 
accelerate student learning and achieve equitable outcomes, building 
capacity to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and plan for fiscal 
sustainability of their investments. Through a series of virtual and 
in-person events, the Department will support states to develop 
sustainability plans that identify existing or new funding sources to 
support effective and equitable investments, to integrate the 
sustainability plans into ongoing and future spending decisions, and to 
establish processes for ongoing evaluation of effectiveness of programs 
and continued impact of ARP funds that lead to equitable opportunities 
for lasting improvements in all student outcomes.
    Question. Last year's joint explanatory statement directed 
Education to ``increase transparency on the amount reserved by each 
State for the ESEA Title I-A school improvement set aside, method of 
distribution to eligible LEAs, uses of such funds...''
    Please provide available information responsive to the request and 
describe actions taken in fiscal year 2023 and plans for future years 
to provide transparency of this information and support for 
implementation of related requirements.
    Answer. While we appreciate the interest in encouraging States to 
be more transparent with the use of ESEA section 1003 funds, there is 
no statutory requirement for a State to do this. ESEA section 1003(i) 
requires each State to make publicly available on its State and local 
report cards a list of all LEAs and schools that received section 1003 
funds, including the amount of funds each school received and the types 
of strategies implemented in each school with these funds. As part of 
OESE's consolidated monitoring, we review to see that this information 
is included on State and local report cards consistent with this 
requirement. Of the States monitored in the past 3 years, the 
Department has found that one State did not meet this report card 
requirement. Specifically, Tennessee provided some information 
regarding school improvement funds but did not provide a list of LEAs 
and schools that receive section 1003 school improvement funds.
    As part of consolidated monitoring, OESE also reviews how States 
are implementing the requirements of ESEA section 1003. This includes 
reviewing each State's 1003 application template, 1003 guidance to 
LEAs, processes for reviewing, approving, and monitoring implementation 
of 1003 applications to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. 
Much of this information is generally available on each State's 
website.
    In addition, this summer, the Department is conducting an in-depth 
review of all State and local report card requirements for nine States 
to gather information about commonly missing items, identify exemplar 
report cards, and to help guide our future oversight and technical 
assistance activities. This review will include the requirement in ESEA 
section 1003(i). We expect to complete this work in fall 2023.
    Question. Please identify the specific steps and timeline for 
providing more information to state and local educational agencies 
about the late liquidation process for American Rescue Plan Act ESSER 
funds.
    How will you ensure LEAs and SEAs have early knowledge that 
eligible liquidation requests are approvable as early as possible for 
the contracts they are signing today for authorized activities that 
cannot be completed without an extension of the liquidation requirement 
under 2 CFR Sec. 200.344(b)?
    Answer. The Department is currently administering liquidation 
extensions for CARES Act funds that had an obligation deadline of 
September 2022 and CRRSA Act funds that must be obligated by September 
2023. The Department has been clear that States and local educational 
agencies should be spending ARP funds with great urgency so they can 
make maximum use for students, educators, and communities--and complete 
obligations by September 2024. The Department strongly encourages 
States and districts to obligate and liquidate ARP Act funds for 
activities that support students' academic recovery, mental health, and 
physical health and safety.
    Question. Over the last 2 years, Congress has increased investments 
in Statewide Family Engagement Centers and Parent Training and 
Information Centers, as well as the Title I-A grant program and its 1 
percent reservation of funds and requirements related to parent and 
family engagement activities.
    How are those funds being used to support strong and effective 
parent and community relationships with schools that serve the best 
interest of students?
    Answer. The Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) currently 
have twenty centers operating in 21 states. The purpose of the SFEC 
program is to provide financial support to organizations that provide 
technical assistance and training to State educational agencies (SEAs) 
and local educational agencies (LEAs) in the implementation and 
enhancement of systemic and effective family engagement policies, 
programs, and activities. This programming is intended to lead to 
improvements in student development and academic achievement.
    The Secretary is authorized to award grants to statewide 
organizations (or consortia of such organizations) to establish 
statewide family engagement centers that:
  --Carry out parent education and family engagement in education, 
        programs, and
  --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.
    Connecticut's SFEC implements the CT Welcoming Schools Initiative 
which was born out of a desire to improve family involvement in schools 
and after school programs. The key to engaging parents is to make their 
schools ``feel like family. `` Schools that extend a genuine welcome 
and are inviting to families have strong partners in education. The 
Initiative aims to make parents feel welcomed, to celebrate the 
diversity of the school community, and set unique goals to improve how 
inviting the school appears to its community, which ultimately have a 
positive impact on student achievement.
    Hawaii's SFEC provides an online, asynchronous course for school 
staff to learn strategies for promoting students' learning and 
development with an emphasis on the role of families in supporting 
their children's learning at home. Kentucky's SFEC is implementing the 
Family Friendly Schools Certification Program which includes the 
Kentucky Family and School Partnership Guide. The program has certified 
over 35 schools in Kentucky.
    Minnesota's SFEC created an educator toolkit for family engagement. 
The toolkit includes multiple resources and is designed for anyone who 
engages in educating children or promoting family engagement.
    The Ohio SFEC hosts an annual Family Engagement Leadership Summit 
which is a free day of professional learning and connecting virtually 
with those dedicated to advancing effective family-school-community 
partnerships across Ohio and beyond.
    Question. What are the Department's plans for supporting further 
strengthening of parent and family engagement in our schools and 
sharing and supporting implementation of evidence-based practices in 
this area?
    Answer. The SFEC program plans to fund down the slate in 2023 and 
award grants to more than ten organizations. In addition, the 2022 
grantees will begin implementing interventions in LEAs in the fall of 
2023. IES is currently conducting an implementation evaluation of the 
SFEC program with plans for its release in 2024. ED will continue to 
fund a technical assistance contract to assist grantees with 
implementing their grants.
    Question. How would decreased funding as proposed in House 
Republican debt ceiling legislation (H.R. 2811) affect Federal support 
for such engagement efforts?
    Answer. The proposed funding cuts in H.R. 2811 would significantly 
reduce the number and scope of activities to promote parent engagement 
in schools conducted by Department grantees, including grantees in 
approximately 20 States served under the Statewide Family Engagement 
Centers program.
    Question. Please describe your monitoring and technical assistance 
plans in fiscal year 2024 and future years related to resource equity 
requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including a 
timeline for the release of a Dear Colleague letter related to 
effective implementation of these requirements and further support for 
conducting resource allocation reviews and identifying and addressing 
resource inequities.
    Answer. As of June 2023, the Department is finalizing the Dear 
Colleague letter related to effective implementation of the resource 
equity requirements in the ESEA and hopes to release it soon.
    Regarding further monitoring and technical assistance plans in 
fiscal year 2024, all resource equity requirements are included in 
OESE's consolidated monitoring. Similar to FY2023, OESE intends to 
monitor four States in FY 2024. The Department will continue to provide 
technical assistance to all States, including those States that were 
part of the pilot targeted monitoring in FY2022 and are still working 
to address the required actions from that effort. OESE has not yet 
determined the schedule or topic for any targeted monitoring efforts in 
FY 2024.
    In addition, the Department's Comprehensive Centers will continue 
to provide support and assistance to States on the topics they raise, 
including resource equity requirements. In the past 2 years, several 
States have requested assistance with these requirements and are 
receiving support from regional comprehensive centers. Existing State 
projects include a collaborative effort between three comprehensive 
center regions serving nine States and the Bureau of Indian Education 
to develop the required periodic resource allocation review, a pilot 
with Utah to conduct and share the results from periodic resource 
allocation, and an effort to plan for the resource allocation review 
with Oklahoma. Additionally, the National Comprehensive Center has 
hosted a multi-year Community of Practice on Driving Equity Through 
School Improvement Community of Practice (CoP) to support States and 
districts to identify and address disparities in student outcomes and 
opportunities to learn. Materials from the CoP can be found here. These 
efforts will result in technical assistance materials that can be 
shared with all States. The National Comprehensive Center, in 
partnership with Edunomics Lab, launched a tool that is available for 
all States that is useful for the two Title I resource equity 
provisions: School Spending & Outcomes Snapshot (SSOS): Supporting 
Conversations on Equity and School Improvement (https://
compcenternetwork.org/ssos). This tool includes data visualizations and 
questions for States, LEAs, schools, and education stakeholders to 
explore spending and outcomes data. This information can be used to 
advance thoughtful conversations among LEA and school communities about 
the equitable distribution of resources and how spending patterns may 
be related to student outcomes or school performance.
    Question. Subpart 1 of Title I Part D received just more than $49 
million in FY2023 for grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), 
which in turn must make subgrants to State agencies which provide free 
public education to neglected and delinquent (N and D) children and 
youth who are in State-run institutions, attending community day 
programs, and in correctional facilities. Just more than one-third of 
youth served by the program during the 2019-20 school year were 
students with disabilities.
    Please describe the Department's plans to provide technical 
assistance to improve services to such students while in such 
institutions and during transition and re-entry to schools and 
communities.
    Answer. The Department engages in a number of technical assistance 
activities to improve services to students with disabilities who are 
served by the Title I, Part D program, primarily through technical 
assistance provided by the Department's contracted technical assistance 
provider, the Neglected and Delinquent Technical Assistance Center 
(NDTAC). NDTAC provides assistance to States, schools, communities, and 
parents seeking information on the education of children and youth who 
are considered neglected, delinquent, or at-risk (see https://
neglected-delinquent.ed.gov/). Improving the education of youth 
involved in the juvenile justice system, and supporting their re-entry 
into local schools and communities, is a primary focus of the Center. 
NDTAC supports for Title I, Part D state coordinators include webinars, 
quarterly newsletters, local program spotlights, data collection and 
evaluation tools, as well as monthly office hours and an annual 
conference. These services include collaboration with stakeholders who 
support the needs of students with disabilities. For example, the 
Department's Office of Elementary and Secondary Education recently 
partnered with the Office of Special Education and the U.S. Department 
of Justice on a joint presentation entitled ``Correctional Education: 
Collaboration, Equity, Special Education and Technical Assistance 
Support.'' At the Title I, Part D Annual State Coordinators Meeting 
held in May 2023, we held a session on the needs of students with 
disabilities in the juvenile justice system, focusing on secondary 
transition (re-entry to home and community environments). Other 
sessions at this year's meeting also addressed needs of students with 
disabilities. The Department is also a member of an interagency work 
group to address the comprehensive health, welfare and educational 
needs of students in the juvenile justice system. Finally, over the 
next year, the Department has brought in a fellow who will focus on 
increasing collaboration and technical assistance activities for 
neglected and delinquent students, students experiencing homelessness, 
and students in foster care. This work will include identifying how to 
improve resource-sharing across programs.
    Question. Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and 
Education's Inspector General have raised concerns about the risks to 
Federal funds posed by certain types of charter schools from virtual 
schools to those with contracts with for-profit management 
organizations, and the need for effective oversight of the Charter 
School Program.
    Please provide an update on actions taken and planned to address 
recommendations made by the GAO in GAO-22-10444 and recommendations 1.2 
and 1.3 of IG ED-OIG/A21IL0034. Will Education take all necessary 
actions to fully and timely implement corrective actions and 
recommendations?
    Answer. The Charter Schools Program (CSP) works with its data 
collection contractor, WestED, to support EDFacts' staff with data 
quality reviews (DQRs) of all charter school related data collected via 
EDFacts, including data on charter management organizations (CMOs) and 
charter contracts. The most recent DQR was conducted in May 2022. The 
DQRs reveal issues with the quality and completeness of the charter 
data submitted by state educational agencies (SEAs). The May 2022 DQR 
found the following:
  --18 states identified as having at least one charter school but did 
        not report a charter school authorizer;
  --in some states, the number of schools without authorizer data was 
        small (e.g., 11 states had fewer than 10 charter schools with 
        this missing data), but five states had 100 or more charter 
        schools with missing charter authorizer data;
  --13 states did not submit a crosswalk of charter schools to CMOs and 
        five states identified CMOs in their crosswalk, but not all 
        identified CMOs were reported in the charter roster data file; 
        and
  --other EDFacts data that appear to be incomplete include the charter 
        contract data. For example, 35 states with charter schools did 
        not report charter contract data in EDFacts for all charter 
        schools.
    Factors associated with the under- and misreporting of this data by 
SEAs appear to be lack of understanding regarding what to report, and 
limited capacity at the SEA level to gather and report the data. For 
the Department's CSP grantees, programmatic funds are authorized by 
statute for the Department to provide targeted technical assistance to 
CSP grantees to ensure the successful implementation of their grants. 
In July 2022, the Department issued a final rule to ensure that CSP 
grantees manage their school operations with accountability and 
transparency. The Department's rulemaking requires that all CSP-funded 
charter schools annually: provide detailed information on proposed 
school governance; report whether they have entered, or plan to enter 
into, a contract with a for-profit management organization and if so, 
provide detailed information regarding such contract; report on 
individuals who have a financial interest in the for- profit management 
organization, including any affiliations or conflicts of interest 
involving charter school staff or board members; and, assure that any 
for-profit management contract is subject to important controls.
    Though the utilization of the CSP national activities' funds, the 
CSP offers contractual support and technical assistance to all CSP 
grantees to ensure compliance with these requirements. Since CSP 
national activities' funds can only be utilized to support CSP 
grantees, SEAs that are not CSP grantees cannot receive data collection 
support, to include assistance with the charter related EDFacts data. 
The Department relies on its oversight responsibilities and authority 
under the Charter Schools discretionary grant program to ensure that 
this data is properly collected via the program's Annual Performance 
Report (APR).
    We have modified the CSP data collection contract with WestED to 
ensure the collection of CSP-funded charter school closure data after 
CSP grant funding ends. We anticipate releasing this data no later than 
September 2024. We have also drafted new, program specific APRs to 
collect this and other information concerning grantee relationships 
with for-profit entities. We anticipate launching the new APRs in the 
program's new online performance management platform entitled, COMPS 
(Charter Online Management Performance System) by September 2024. The 
COMPS platform is designed to ensure the timely submission and review 
of all CSP APRs.
    The GAO study also provided a recommendation that the Department 
examine the assessment participation rates in virtual charter schools. 
As State educational agencies (SEAs) are responsible for ensuring their 
local educational agencies and schools meet their requirements in the 
ESEA, including to assess all students, in November 2022, the 
Department sent a letter to each SEA with a list of any virtual charter 
school in the State with an assessment participation rate below 95 
percent in the 2018-2019 school year. (This was the most recent year 
with complete data, due to the impact of the pandemic in the 2019-2020 
and 2020-2021 school years and because States had not yet submitted 
their data for the 2021-2022 school year.) We reminded States that as 
they plan for the 2022-2023 school year assessment administrations, 
they should closely monitor virtual charter schools' participation 
rates; consider, if you have not already, creating a remote 
administration opportunity for virtual charter school students; and 
work with the charter authorizing entity or entities in your State to 
provide joint information, including forwarding this communication, and 
support to virtual charter schools with low participation rates. We 
also included some assistance to the SEA, including a report from the 
National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO), The 95 Percent State 
Assessment Participation Requirement: Current Landscape, State 
Challenges, and Recommended Strategies.
    Question. How would the appropriations language change proposed in 
the fiscal year 2024 budget further assist Education in the effective 
use and oversight of CSP funds?
    Answer. The President's FY24 Budget Request includes language 
prohibiting the Department from making new Charter Schools Program 
awards that support charter schools that are operated or managed by 
for-profit entities, including through contractual relationships. The 
Administration strongly believes that for-profit management 
organizations pose a significant risk to students and taxpayers and 
that Charter Schools Program funds should not support schools operated 
or managed by entities with a profit motive.
    Additionally, the President's FY24 Budget Request includes language 
that would provide the Department greater flexibility by eliminating 
specific funding levels for State Entity, Developer and CMO grants and 
instead setting a floor of $330 million in funding for all three 
programs. The requested flexibility would enable the Department to 
allocate funds more efficiently in response to varying demand for 
component program funding and prevent circumstances such as occurred in 
fiscal year 2019, when limited demand for State Entity and Developer 
grants (that could not be used for other CSP purposes) resulted in the 
Department reprogramming funds to other programs in the Innovation and 
Improvement account.
    Question. On April 21, 2020, GAO reported on the underreporting and 
misreporting of the use of restraint and seclusion in schools and made 
a recommendation to address the significant quality issues with such 
reporting. Education has developed a plan for listening sessions with 
school districts to help determine the causes for such under and 
misreporting.
    Please describe other actions and plans for improving the quality 
of reporting for each of the current 2020-21 collection, the 2021-22 
collection and the 2023-24 collection.
    Answer. As background, CRDC data submitters reported data to OCR's 
Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for the 2020-21 school year from 
December 2021 through April 2022. During that submission process, data 
submitters had access to several technical assistance resources to 
assist them with reporting restraint or seclusion data accurately. 
These resources include Zeroes, Nulls, and NS, Restraint and Seclusion, 
and a video demonstrating how to submit a quick plan. OCR is in the 
process of reviewing and preparing for public release the 2020-21 CRDC 
data. OCR anticipates releasing the data this year and will have more 
to report about the restraint and seclusion data at that time.
    As to the 2021-22 and 2023-24 CRDCs, on April 18, 2023, the U.S. 
Office of Management and Budget approved OCR's proposed CRDCs for those 
school years. To improve the quality of the restraint and seclusion 
data reported, OCR revised the definitions of restraint and seclusion 
to clarify the types of actions data submitters must report. The 
definitions were informed by diverse stakeholders, including school 
administrators, during listening sessions and the public comment 
process for the 2021-22/2023-24 CRDCs.
    As OCR prepares for the 2021-22 CRDC collection, we will consider 
lessons learned from the 2020-21 CRDC and make any necessary changes to 
instructions or technical assistance documents. Furthermore, as in 
previous collections, data submitters can contact OCR's technical 
assistance team, the Partner Support Center (PSC), with any questions 
they may have about specific data modules, including the restraint and 
seclusion module. The PSC is open year-round to assist data submitters 
by telephone, email, or by visiting the CRDC Resource Center, at 
https://crdc.communities.ed.gov/#program.
    Finally, OCR addresses CRDC reporting errors in the course of 
enforcement investigations. For example, in two recently resolved 
restraint and seclusion compliance reviews--one with Saco Public 
Schools [1] in Maine (November 2021) and the other with Horry County 
Schools [2] in South Carolina (May 2022), school districts committed to 
take steps necessary to ensure that they provide accurate data to the 
CRDC following concerns OCR identified regarding data errors during the 
course of the investigations.
    Question. How could OCR expedite planned listening sessions, so it 
can more quickly understand potential causes for under and misreporting 
and implement solutions as soon as possible?
    Answer. OCR has fully implemented five of six GAO recommendations. 
See https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-345. OCR will endeavor to meet 
the final recommendation \2\ by October of this year This will be 
accomplished by holding listening sessions with data submitters, 
focused on the underreporting and misreporting of restraint and 
seclusion data. OCR will use the information from the listening 
sessions to inform any changes to CRDC's technical assistance resources 
provided to data submitters for reporting these data.
    [1] See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/
investigations/more/01195001-a.pdf, and https://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/01195001-b.pdf.
    [2] See https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/
investigations/more/11195022-a.pdf, and https://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/11195022-b.pdf.
    [3] The Assistant Secretary for the Office for Civil Rights should 
identify the factors that cause underreporting and misreporting of 
restraint and seclusion and take steps to help school districts 
overcome these issues. (Recommendation 5).
    Question. Research has found consistently that students of color 
and students growing up in poverty are disproportionately more likely 
to be taught by teachers who are inexperienced, less effective or 
teaching out-of-field. Recent research from the Education Trust on 
access to experienced teachers found Black and Latinx students are more 
likely to attend schools that have higher percentages of novice 
teachers. In 2015, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, with a new requirement for States to submit plans to the 
Federal Government describing how low- income and minority children 
enrolled in Title I schools are not served at disproportionate rates by 
ineffective, out-of- field, or inexperienced teachers, and what States 
will do to report on this data to the public.
    Since then, new research from the National Council on Teacher 
Quality has found that many States are at least partially out of 
compliance with the letter of the law. Their analysis found that only 
18 states report data on all three measures named in the law: 
experience, out-of-field, effectiveness.
    The Department is monitoring a selective sample of States this year 
on requirements for State report cards in ESEA section 1111(h)(1), a 
sample of LEA report cards for the requirements in ESEA section 
1111(h)(2), and the requirement to publicly report the progress in 
addressing any disproportionate rates of access to educators in ESEA 
section 1111(g)(1)(B).
    How will the Department use the results of this monitoring to 
improve States' compliance with each of these requirements? What other 
actions will the Department take to improve States' compliance with 
each of these requirements?
    Answer. Based on the information we receive from this review, the 
Department will determine what actions to take. Last year, the results 
of the targeted monitoring on resource allocation resulted in several 
presentations at national conferences that highlighted commonly found 
issues across the nine states as well as highlighting interesting or 
promising practices. We anticipate similar activities to come from this 
year's targeted monitoring.
    Question. The Support and Academic Enrichment [SSAE] Grants program 
provides formula grants to States based on each State's share of title 
I--A grants, which then sub-grant to LEAs, to help support activities 
that provide students with a well-rounded education, ensure safe and 
supportive learning environments, and use technology to improve 
instruction.
    Please describe the Department's plans and timeline for reporting 
on State and local expenditures, outlined by specific authorized 
activities, and provide detailed information about the most common uses 
of funds, as well as information about how LEAs plan to evaluate the 
effectiveness of their activities.
    Answer. The Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Title 
IV-A) program gathers data on the amount of funds spent and the number 
of LEAs spending funds for a given academic year as part of the 
Department's Consolidated State Performance Report. The first indicator 
focuses on the amount of funds spent by LEAs in the three content areas 
authorized--Well-Rounded Education, Safe and Healthy Students, and 
Effective Use of Technology. The second indicator seeks data on the 
number of LEAs who spent funds by the content areas. In 2020, the 
Department released a report on the early implementation of Title IV-A 
grants, including an initial overview of how states and school 
districts prioritized the use of FY 2018 Title IV-A funds during the 
2018--19 school year.
    The most frequently reported activity under the Well-Rounded 
content area was science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 
(STEM) education, including computer science. Under the Safe and 
Healthy Students content area, a large number of states reported 
school-based mental health services and partnership programs as their 
most frequently reported activity. And under the Effective Use of 
Technology content area, states most reported that professional 
development and capacity building to improve the use of educational 
technology, building technological capacity and infrastructure as their 
most frequent activity.This report is available at https://www2.ed.gov/
rschstat/eval/esea/title-iv-first-look-2020.pdf. The Department is also 
conducting a deeper implementation study to examine the specific 
services and activities that states and districts are implementing 
using Title IV-A funds and how these decisions are made. The estimated 
timeframe for the release of this report is spring 2024.
    Question. The Biden administration has proposed investments in a 
range of programs that are dedicated to developing a highly qualified, 
diverse teacher workforce, including Supporting Effective Instruction 
State Grants (Title II-A), Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants 
(TSLIP), Supporting Effective Educator Development Grants (SEED), 
Teacher Quality Partnerships (TQP), School Leader Recruitment and 
Support Program (SLRSP), and the Augustus Hawkins Centers of 
Excellence.
    Research has shown the importance of powerful leaders in turning 
around troubled schools, and these programs address inequities in 
access to effective teachers and school leaders, and allow for 
evidence-based, innovative strategies designed to improve educator 
effectiveness and increase educator diversity. We also know that 
students assigned to strong teachers in primary school are more likely 
to attend college and earn more money as adults.
    Can you elaborate on the importance of these programs in 
strengthening and diversifying America's educator workforce?
    Answer. The Administration is committed to strengthening the 
educator pipeline and addressing teacher shortages through the 
expansion of high-quality teacher preparation programs that prepare and 
support pre-service teachers. Strengthening the pipeline of diverse, 
highly qualified teachers into high-need schools begins with high-
quality teacher preparation programs across the nation. To that end, on 
July 9, 2021, the Department released a notice of final priorities 
(NFP) for the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants, Supporting 
Effective Educator Development Grants, and Teacher Quality Partnership 
programs that would allow the Department to require applicants to these 
programs to develop projects that are designed to improve the 
recruitment, outreach, preparation, support, development, and retention 
of a diverse educator workforce.
    In addition, the Administration's FY 2024 Budget requested 
significant increases for competitive programs that will strengthen and 
diversify the teacher pipeline by helping states and districts build 
high-quality pathways into the profession to recruit and prepare 
educators. The budget includes:
  --$2.19 billion for Supporting Effective Instruction State grants to 
        support State and local efforts to improve teacher and school 
        leader effectiveness and help ensure that all students have 
        equitable access to well-prepared, qualified, experienced, and 
        effective teachers and principals.
  --Increase of $62 million for Teacher Quality Partnerships, an 88% 
        increase, to prepare educators through effective programs 
        including teacher residencies and grow-your-own programs.
  --$10 million for Graduate Fellowships, to support the training of 
        more higher education faculty with the knowledge and skills to 
        train the next generation of teachers.
  --$93 million for the Supporting Effective Educator Development to 
        prepare, develop, and retain an effective and diverse teacher 
        and school leader workforce, that can meet the social, 
        emotional, mental health and academic needs of their students.
  --$40 million for the School Leader Recruitment and Support Program 
        for competitive grants to improve the recruitment, preparation, 
        placement, support, and retention of effective principals or 
        other school leaders in high-need schools.
  --Increase of $15 million for the Hawkins Centers of Excellence 
        program, doubling funding for the program, to support educator 
        preparation programs at HBCUs, TCCUs, and MSIs.
  --Increase of $27 million for Teacher and School Leader Incentive 
        grants, to support school-based models of distributed 
        leadership that give teachers the opportunity to lead beyond 
        the classroom, and be compensated for this work, improving 
        teacher retention.
    Question. The Statewide Data System program supports competitive 
grants to State Educational Agencies to enable such agencies to 
develop, expand or improve Statewide, longitudinal data systems; 
improve data access and use for research and evidence-based policy- and 
decisionmaking; and build capacity in States to secure and protect 
data.
    Please describe actions and plans, including in coordination with 
the Departments of Health and Human Services of Labor, to support 
integration of data source systems across all levels of education, 
workforce and related areas, including implementation and enhancements 
data governance policies and security measures that protect the rights 
of individuals.
    Answer. Both workforce and early childhood data have figured 
prominently in the Department's Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 
(SLDS) program. While the first two cohorts of SLDS grants focused on 
supporting States' efforts to transform elementary and secondary 
education administrative records into more useable longitudinal data 
systems, all subsequent grant rounds (2009, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2019, and 
2023) have supported efforts to link and use data beyond grades 
kindergarten through 12 (K-12), including early childhood, 
postsecondary education, and workforce data. Of the 114 grants awarded 
since 2009, 72 (63 percent) have included workforce-related projects. 
More than 30 states have used SLDS funds to build out early childhood-
related data capacity.
    The Department recently published a notice inviting applications 
for fiscal year (FY) 2023 grant awards under the SLDS program. Funds 
awarded through this competition will provide support for States to 
integrate data across all levels of education, including linking data 
from early childhood or workforce data sources to education data. Of 
the four priorities included under this competition, two could be used 
to integrate early childhood data and three could be used to answer 
questions pertaining to students' transitions between education and the 
workforce. Applicants must ``describe how activities supported by a 
grant funded by this competition will be coordinated with activities 
supported by an existing grant, including a state [WDQI] or other grant 
administered by the US Department of Labor, if applicable.'' 
Applications for this competition are due on June 29, 2023.
SLDS and Workforce Activities
    The Department's SLDS program team meets regularly with staff in 
the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) 
to discuss connected efforts involving the SLDS and WDQI grants. We 
also meet regularly with the Coleridge Initiative, a nonprofit 
organization working with government agencies to ensure that data are 
more effectively used for public decisionmaking, to identify ways to 
help States use its Administrative Data Research Facility (ADRF) to 
support their efforts to link workforce data to K-12 and postsecondary 
data within and across States. Through conversations with the 
Department of Defense's Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), the SLDS 
program is also helping States explore opportunities to connect data on 
military enlistment outcomes for career and technical education, 
postsecondary, and other education and training programs.
SLDS and Early Childhood activities
    The SLDS program has been working closely with the early childhood 
education community since the 2009 and 2010 (ARRA) grants. Much of the 
early childhood work done within SLDS grants centered on development of 
an early childhood integrated data system (ECIDS). The broad purpose of 
an ECIDS is to provide integrated, cross-program data that inform 
decisions about early childhood policies, services, and education. 
While supporting state development of an ECIDS has been a focus for 
both the Department and the Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS), we have also collaborated with HHS's Preschool Development 
Grants Birth through Five (PDG B-5) team to provide technical 
assistance related to SLDS.
    As one example of our efforts to support States, the SLDS State 
Support Team developed an Early Childhood Integrated Data System 
Toolkit (https://slds.ed.gov/services/PDCService.svc/
GetPDCDocumentFile?fileId=41566) because we recognized that early 
childhood education programs receive funding from a variety of Federal 
and State agencies, which has implications for their ECIDS. The toolkit 
recommends that States first consider what should be centralized for 
early childhood education providers, users, and evaluators, and then 
determine which of those data should be available to the State and 
linked with longitudinal data records for policy and evaluation 
purposes. The toolkit and our other technical assistance to States is 
informed by early childhood working groups as well as our annual SLDS 
Effective Practices Conference (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/
edci.asp).
Data Governance and Security Activities to Protect the Rights and 
        Privacy of Individuals
    The Department provides technical assistance to States to support 
their efforts to build, improve, and use SLDS, including both technical 
work (for example, data standards and structures) and more process-
oriented needs (for example, data governance, stakeholder engagement, 
and sustainability planning). The Department has created a large array 
of support materials, many of which are available on the SLDS program 
website (https://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/) and the website for SLDS 
technical assistance to States (https://slds.ed.gov/#program) The 
Department also provides technical assistance on protecting the rights 
and privacy of individuals, drawing from best practices recommended by 
the Privacy Technical Assistance Center. We would be happy to provide 
specific examples of technical assistance activities resources for any 
of these topics.
    Question. The National Center for Education Statistics has taken 
steps to develop pk-12 educational equity indicators and a data 
dashboard.
    Please describe major actions taken to date and plans for the 
remainder of fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024.
    Answer. A distinguished committee of the National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), funded by the National 
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), developed an equity framework 
in 2019, identifying key indicators for measuring and monitoring the 
extent of equity in the nation's K--12 education system (see 
``Monitoring Educational Equity''). Following this framework, NCES is 
building a publicly facing Equity in Education dashboard that will be 
populated with metrics recommended by NASEM. The dashboard is meant to:
  --provide the public accurate information on indicators of equity in 
        the nation's education system,
  --provide the Department and other stakeholders a ``single source of 
        truth'' accompanied by statistically appropriate, plain 
        language interpretations, and
  --assist the Department and other stakeholders in identifying gaps in 
        our collective capacity to understand equity in education.
    NCES is developing the initial version of the dashboard, which 
curates relevant, national-level data, and expects to complete it in 
fiscal year 2024. The initial dashboard will contain indicators from 
seven domains--kindergarten readiness, K-12 learning and engagement, 
educational attainment, access to high-quality early learning programs, 
access to supportive school and classroom environments, access to high-
quality curricula, and the extent of racial, ethnic, and economic 
segregation. Within each of the seven domains are indicators that 
highlight disparities in access to opportunities and resources and 
student outcomes among equity dimensions such as race/ethnicity, sex, 
English learner status, disability status, rural/urban status (i.e., 
locale), and various socioeconomic status metrics such as parental 
education and school poverty level.
    Contingent on the availability of funding, NCES could develop 
subsequent versions of the dashboard in FY 2024. Subsequent versions of 
the dashboard could incorporate graphical renderings of key data 
elements, include data on additional indicators and equity dimensions, 
and present data at lower geographic level, including State and local 
levels, pending resource availability.
    Question. An estimate of chronic absenteeism indicates that the 
number of students missing 10 percent or more of the school year 
doubled from 8 million students before the pandemic to an estimated 16 
million students in 2021-2022.
    How would the budget help States and school districts reverse this 
dramatic and unfortunate expansion?
    Answer. The President's FY 2024 Budget Request recognizes that 
chronic absenteeism remains a persistent educational challenge and 
includes a variety of resources to combat its effects, including Title 
IV-A Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, which States and 
school districts can use flexibly for activities to promote student 
attendance and engagement. In addition, the Department may use funds 
from the request for Title IV-A Student Support and Academic Enrichment 
Grants to continue to support the Student Engagement and Attendance 
Center, a national center that identifies and disseminates evidence-
based practices and provides technical assistance in understanding and 
addressing the causes of chronic absenteeism.
    Question. What steps have been taken to understand the extent to 
which chronic absence data reported through EDFacts is aligned to state 
and local definitions and whether a common definition would assist an 
understanding of the extent of and solutions to chronic absences?
    Answer. According to data reported to the Department by State 
educational agencies (SEAs) via EDFacts file FS195, 8.3 million 
students were reported as chronically absent in school year 2018-2019, 
prior to the pandemic. As of school year 2021-2022, 14.8 million 
students were reported as chronically absent.
    The Department requires SEAs to report in accordance with the 
reporting instructions within EDFacts file specification 195. States 
are instructed to report students at each school in which they enroll 
for at least 10 days and are absent 10% of the school year. As a 
result, when aggregated to the district, state, and national levels the 
student counts are duplicative. Additionally, a student absence is 
defined as a student who is not physically on school grounds and not 
participating in instruction or instruction-related activities at an 
approved off-grounds location for at least half the school day. While 
the Department expects SEAs to align their data collections to the 
reporting requirements in FS195, it is important to note that chronic 
absenteeism is not defined in statute or regulations. Thus, the 
Department has limited authority to enforce the common definition set 
within FS195. During the pandemic, States were given flexibility to 
report chronic absenteeism data using different definitions than in 
prior years due to the impact of remote learning on taking attendance. 
Therefore, data during the years impacted by the pandemic are not 
comparable across years and are not expected to fully align with the 
reporting requirements in FS195. For more information on how states 
were advised to report Chronic Absenteeism and other data, please 
review the Department's fact sheet on reporting data (https://
oese.ed.gov/files/2020/12/SY-19-20-COVID-Fact-Sheet-Final-
11.19.20.doc). While more comparable to pre-pandemic school years than 
SY2019-2020 and SY2020-2021, the Department believes the SY2021-2022 
are still impacted by the pandemic.
    During the Department's routine data verification process, States 
continued to cite COVID-19 as part of the reason for the increase in 
students reported as chronically absent. For example, one State 
indicated that LEAs continued to provide remote instruction throughout 
SY2021-2022 and another State indicated that there were periods of 
remote instruction resulting from peaks in COVID-19 infection rates. 
During these periods of remote instruction, an absence was reported 
differently than it was for in-person instruction resulting in 
variability within the data.
    Question. Education's Office for Civil Rights is charged with 
ensuring education programs that receive Federal assistance comply with 
Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of 
race color, national origin, sex (including gender identity and sexual 
orientation), age and disability. Recent appropriations bills have 
provided significantly less than the President's request.
    Please describe the impact of those unfortunate decisions on timely 
and thorough resolution of complaints filed with OCR and its ability to 
vigorously enforce civil rights laws under its jurisdiction.
    Answer. Reducing the resources available to OCR would mean a 
significant reduction in OCR's capacity to promptly resolve complaints 
regarding alleged discrimination that may be denying students access to 
federally funded education programs and activities. OCR received 18,804 
complaints in FY2022, the highest number in OCR's history, with 24 
fewer full time equivalent staff than OCR had in FY2013 when OCR 
received 9,950 complaints (and also needed more staff at that time to 
efficiently and effectively process those complaints). OCR processes 
these new incoming cases against an enormous backlog of cases already 
on our docket: on the first day of this Administration, OCR had 1,058 
cases pending that were more than 4 years old. Reducing resources would 
impede the resolution of many complaints based on disability, race, and 
sex that are brought to OCR by students and by parents on their 
children's behalf. Investigating discrimination allegations often 
involves detailed witness interviews, document review, and onsite 
visits. In one recently resolved case, OCR interviewed 136 school 
district employees, students, parents, and others and conducted a week-
long site visit at six schools, in addition to reviewing documents and 
information provided by the school district. To be able to fulfill 
OCR's charge to assess whether the law is violated with the volume of 
complaints OCR is receiving and to provide families and school 
communities timely and effective responses to their concerns, OCR needs 
additional staffing. For more detailed information about OCR's 
enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the Age Discrimination 
Act of 1975, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(Title II), and the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001, 
please see OCR's most recent annual report to Congress for FY2022.
    Question. Please describe current activities and enhancements 
enabled by the fiscal year 2024 budget to ensure the right of every 
child to attend school free from discrimination including based on 
their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
    Answer. To date in FY2023, OCR has brought on approximately 50 new 
investigators in OCR regional enforcement offices based on OCR's FY 
2023 budget, which in turn has strengthened OCR's capacity to 
vigorously enforce Congress's commitments to federally funded 
educational opportunities free from unlawful discrimination. The new 
staff are responsible for investigating all forms of discrimination 
under the Federal civil rights laws enforced by OCR. OCR resolved the 
second highest number of complaints in OCR history during FY 2023, 
which was nearly double the number of complaints resolved in FY 2019. 
These resolutions include, for example, ensuring that K-12 schools 
provide equal access to athletic opportunity for girls, that limited 
English proficient parents received information about their children's 
education in the languages they understand, that schools are physically 
accessible to students with disabilities and that students with 
disabilities receive the supports to which they are entitled for equal 
access to education, and that antisemitic harassment in K-12 schools 
and colleges and universities is effectively addressed and ended.
    In addition, OCR has issued new policy resources to assist 
students, parents and educators better understand how we enforce the 
laws under our jurisdiction. Recent materials include fact sheets and 
other resources on Title VI Diversity & Inclusion Activities, 
Protecting Students from Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or 
Ethnic Characteristics, a joint Dear Colleague Letter on Postsecondary 
Online Accessibility with the Department of Justice, a Title VI Dear 
Colleague Letter on Addressing Discrimination Against Jewish Students, 
a Title VI Resource on Confronting Racial Discrimination in Student 
Discipline, and three resources on Title IX & Athletic Opportunities.
    Question. The Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers 
program provides critical support to communities for the establishment 
or expansion of before- and after-school programs and summer school 
programs that enable students to access additional learning and 
engagement opportunities. States are required to subgrant at least 93 
percent of their share of funds for such centers, including by 
prioritizing certain types of proposals.
    Please provide the number and descriptions of subgrant priorities 
established by States for each of the past 5 years.
    Answer. The Department does not currently collect data on the 
number or descriptions of subgrantee priorities established by State 
educational agencies (SEAs). This information is typically located on 
the SEA's request for application (RFA). The Department does 
periodically request State RFAs, which include this information through 
monitoring and other communications with the State. In our monitoring 
protocol, for example, we request a copy of the most recent State RFA; 
however, monitoring reviews for 21st CCLC are conducted for only four 
to 10 States annually. In addition, note that a State is not required 
to conduct a competition annually. An SEA's competition in which they 
publish their RFA may be in three to five-year cycles. Additionally, 
recently the Department released draft non-regulatory guidance for the 
21st Century Community Learning Centers, which encourages certain best 
practices for districts' and states' consideration based on decades of 
program implementation.
    Question. In A Pragmatic Future for NAEP: Containing Costs and 
Updating Technologies released last year, the National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering and Medicine made recommendations related to 
innovations for meeting the cost- effectiveness of the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress while maintaining or improving its 
technical quality and the information it provides. The IES fiscal year 
2023 operating plan identified actions planned to address 
recommendations of the report.
    Please provide a copy of the independent expert study of NAEP cost 
structures and contracting which NCES commissioned.
    Answer. The contract for the independent expert study of NAEP cost 
structures and contracting was awarded in March and the work is 
progressing well. More information on the scope of the contract is 
available in the Request for Quote that the Department released on 
January 6, 2023 (https://sam.gov/opp/da139fc59d1c 4957adbdf21a5fa03d28/
view#::text=has%20issued%20a-,Request%20for%20Quote,-
for%20The%20Review). The contractor's final report is scheduled for 
completion by the end of calendar year 2023. NCES is looking forward to 
sharing the study when it is complete.
    Question. Please provide a copy of the independent audit of NAGB 
financials for fiscal years 2017 through 2021.
    Answer. In September 2022, the Governing Board commissioned an 
independent audit of its financials for the period of FY2017 through 
FY2021. Auditors completed the first stage of the audit (review of 
contracts and expenditures) in January 2023. Attached is the final 
report from this first stage, which found NAGB to be ``a prudent 
steward of public financial resources over the budget execution 
process''.
    Because the Board relies upon ED for administrative support and 
entity level controls for contracting, purchasing, financial management 
system, and key business processes, the auditors did not have access to 
sufficient information to conduct the second stage of the audit (review 
of NAGB's internal controls and compliance). Therefore, NAGB requested 
to be included in OFO's annual auditing conducted for each office 
within ED. For each area of financial auditing, we have provided OFO 
with documentation to review for compliance.
    Initial communications from OFO indicate that the Governing Board 
is fully compliant with each risk assessment area for internal 
controls.
    1. Control Environment
    2. Risk Assessment
    3. Control Activities
    4. Information and Communications
    5. Monitoring
    OFO plans to issue a report for all ED offices, including the 
Governing Board, in July 2023. A link to the IBS audit report is 
available here. Follow up actions on the recommendations are underway.


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Question. Please identify the stakeholder groups engaged and 
summary feedback in developing a better understanding of risks and 
benefits of reduced contact administration of NAEP.
    Answer. NCES has met with a range of key stakeholder groups, 
including the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Council of 
the Great City Schools, State and district leadership, the NCES 
Principals Panel, as well as the NAEP field staff who administered a 
field test of the first phase of NAEP's reduced contact administration 
plan. Please see the table below for a list of meetings.
    Feedback so far has been similar across stakeholder groups. 
Stakeholders have provided feedback on both NAEP's plans for device-
agnostic administration, which includes using schools' Internet access 
and eventually their computers and a reduced reliance on NAEP-provided 
devices, as well as NAEP's plans for reduced contact administration, 
which involves sending fewer NAEP field staff to schools and asking 
school staff to help more with the administration of NAEP.
    Stakeholders recognize the cost benefits for the NAEP program in 
reducing the number of testing devices the program will need to obtain 
and maintain, as well as in reducing the number of NAEP field staff 
hours needed to administer NAEP. Moreover, they recognized the 
potential improvement for the student experience and validity of the 
assessment by allowing students to use school equipment, which will be 
more familiar to them than NAEP-provided equipment.
    However, stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding the 
difficulty for schools and districts to implement a reduced contact 
NAEP when fewer NAEP field staff are sent to schools. NAEP's relative 
convenience to administer is a selling point for district and school 
buy-in, which some of the planned changes would reduce by shifting some 
labor burden onto schools. They are concerned that schools and 
districts are facing staffing shortages that will make it challenging 
to provide more staff support for administration of NAEP. They are also 
concerned about potential conflicts between the needs of State 
assessments and NAEP, both for staff time and device configuration.
    NCES will continue to reach out to stakeholders affected by the 
planned changes and adjust our plans to obtain cost reductions without 
risking the administration of NAEP or our relationships with our key 
partners in States, districts, and schools. We would be pleased to 
continue to discuss our plans with you as we move forward. The next 
major step in these efforts is the 2024 operational administration of 
NAEP. The 2024 administration will include the following features 
related to device-agnostic and reduced contact administration:
  --Administration on a combination of NAEP-provided Surface Pros and 
        NAEP-provided Chromebooks (no school-based testing devices in 
        2024)
  --Use of schools' Internet access where possible
  --A first phase of reduced contact administration that relies mainly 
        on improved software and processes to reduce the number of 
        field staff required, but also includes the use of school 
        staff, where available, to support proctoring of some sessions 
        for students requiring administration separate from the main 
        school group administration
    Plans for the 2024 administration will incorporate lessons learned 
from the 2023 field test as well as our outreach to stakeholders.
    Table. Meetings with Stakeholder Groups on NAEP Reduced Contact 
Administration: 
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Question. The calculation of current expenditures used under the 
ESEA excludes ESEA Title I-A funding. The amount of funding provided 
for COVID education relief, particularly through the Elementary and 
Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER), is significantly more 
funding than is provided annually through Title I-A.
    Has the Department analyzed current expenditure data submitted by 
States to assess how state shares of formula grants shift from previous 
years as a result of the inclusion of COVID relief funds? What are the 
findings of such assessment?
    Answer. The Department has not conducted an analysis on how state 
shares of formula grants have shifted from previous years as result of 
the inclusion of COVID-19 relief funds.
    By the end of September 2023, the Department expects to have 
received from States preliminary current expenditure data for fiscal 
year 2022 that will include COVID-19 education relief expenditures as 
part of the current expenditures reported and the COVID-19 education 
relief expenditures also reported separately by seven specific sources 
of funds including ESSER I, ESSER II, ARP ESSER, GEER I, GEER II, CRF, 
and ARP Act SLFRF.
    The majority of states will be able to report on the new variables. 
However, some states are only able to collect data from LEAs on grants 
that are allocated and awarded through the state department of 
education. These states may not be able to report on grants that flow 
through to LEAs from other agencies, such as the State and Local Fiscal 
Recovery Funds. In these cases, states may report on only that data 
which is available and should provide appropriate explanations in their 
state notes. Some states also expressed concerns about the additional 
burden of the new survey codes. In some cases, states lack the 
resources required to make programming changes to their collection and 
reporting systems.
    Once the Department has received these data, we will be in a 
position to immediately deduct data for COVID-19 relief funds from 
Current Expenditures, to reach Net Current Expenditures. This will 
allow for an analysis of the impacts of these funds on allocations.
    Question. Average daily attendance (ADA) is a factor that is 
included in several Federal elementary and secondary education program 
formulas. Education extended flexibility to states with respect to 
reporting ADA during the pandemic.
    Did this flexibility result in reliable ADA counts or could an 
entity be advantaged or disadvantaged in the determination of formula 
grants based on the counting method that it used?
    What did the Department's analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on ADA 
reporting and grant allocations reveal?
    Answer. The Department uses average daily attendance (ADA) counts 
reported by States to calculate State Per Pupil Expenditures (SPPE) by 
dividing net current expenditures for each State by its ADA. The 
Department then uses SPPE data to allocate funds appropriated for 
several formula grant programs. In addition to using the SPPE data as 
general information on the financing of elementary and secondary 
education, the Secretary uses these data directly in calculating 
allocations for certain formula grant programs, including, but not 
limited to, title I, part A, of the ESEA, Impact Aid, and Indian 
Education. Other programs, such as the Education for Homeless Children 
and Youth program under title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
Assistance Act, and the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants 
under title IV, part A of the ESEA, make use of SPPE data indirectly 
because their formulas are based, in whole or in part, on State title 
I, part A, allocations.
    Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, 
States are permitted to report ADA using either their State's 
definition or the Federal statutory definition used by NCES:

    (i) the aggregate number of days of attendance of all students 
        during a school year; divided by
    (ii) the number of days school is in session during that year. [20 
        U.S.C.Sec. 7801(1)].
    As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, virtually all LEAs closed 
schools for some period to ensure the safety of students and teachers, 
which complicated the collection and reporting of ADA data. On January 
27, 2021, the NCES Commissioner and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Elementary and Secondary Education sent a letter to Chief State School 
Officers that addressed the Department's plans to collect ADA data from 
States for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years (https://
oese.ed.gov/files/2021/05/20-0127-ADA-Letter.pdf) For fiscal year 2020, 
States were given two possible options for reporting ADA:

  --Option 1 allowed States to report attendance for all students until 
        the date that school facilities closed for in-person learning 
        due to COVID-19, which effectively meant that they ended the 
        school year early for reporting purposes. Anything after the 
        closure of in-person learning was excluded from both the 
        numerator and the denominator.
  --Option 2 allowed States to report attendance for all days that 
        school was in session and for which attendance was collected, 
        including remote learning days which occurred due to COVID-19. 
        States could report under this option even if they were unable 
        to report for all schools or local educational agencies (LEAs) 
        or if some schools or LEAs had a temporary inability to report 
        attendance.

    NCES and the Census Bureau examined the impact of COVID-19 on ADA 
        and SPPE and presented their findings at the American Education 
        Finance and Policy Association conference in March of 2022. 
        They addressed the following research questions:

  1. Did the method for reporting ADA have an impact on the rate of 
        change in ADA?
  2. Do states that included attendance for remote learning days which 
        occurred due to COVID-19 have a higher increase in ADA than 
        states that did not?
    In FY 2020, almost half of all States, DC and Puerto Rico collected 
and reported ADA for the entire school year, which included attendance 
for remote learning days which occurred as a result of COVID-19. Just 
over one third of States ended the school year early for reporting 
purposes and excluded attendance for COVID-19. NCES/Census found that:

  --In States that excluded COVID-19 attendance, 3 States had a 
        decrease in ADA (averaging 0.5 percent) and 16 States had an 
        increase (averaging 1 percent). In States that included COVID-
        19 attendance and reported for the full school year, 6 States 
        had a decrease (averaging 1.2 percent) and 19 States had an 
        increase (averaging 1.4 percent).
  --In States that reported ADA consistently with the previous year, 
        three States had a decrease (averaging 0.4 percent) and three 
        States had an increase (averaging 0.3 percent).
  --In conclusion, even though States that included COVID-19 attendance 
        have larger increases and decreases than those that excluded 
        COVID-19 attendance, the average change in ADA is about the 
        same (0.8 percent).
        
        
    NCES/Census also examined the percentage change in State Per Pupil 
Expenditure (SPPE) by direction of change in ADA and the ADA reporting 
method and found that:
  --Among States that did not include COVID-19 attendance, the 3 States 
        with decreases in ADA had an average increase in SPPE of 2.9 
        percent. The 16 States with increases in ADA had an average 
        increase in SPPE of 1.9 percent.
  --Among States that included attendance for the full school year, the 
        six States with decreases in ADA had an average increase in 
        SPPE of 5.3 percent. The 19 States with increases in ADA had an 
        average increase in SPPE of 1 percent.
  --Among States that reported ADA consistent with the previous year, 
        the three States with decreases in ADA had an average increase 
        in SPPE of 0.5 percent and the three States with increases in 
        ADA had an average increase in SPPE of 2.2 percent.
    In conclusion, if ADA decreases (as shown in red bars below), then 
increases to SPPE are mostly larger than increases to SPPE when ADA is 
increasing (as shown in blue bars below). However, these differences 
tend to average out across each reporting method (as shown in yellow 
bars below), so there does not appear to be a difference in the rate of 
change in SPPE according to how ADA is reported. Instead, the change in 
SPPE is more closely dependent upon the change in net current 
expenditures.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Based on these findings, we have determined that the ADA reporting 
method appears to have no impact on changes to FY 2020 ADA. SEAs were 
not advantaged nor disadvantaged in the determination of formula grants 
based on the counting method that they utilized. There is no evidence 
that the increase in FY 2020 ADA is related to whether ADA includes 
attendance for remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. ADA 
reports could have been affected by the way in which remote learning 
attendance is counted, as well as transmission rates of COVID-19 in 
school districts, and the ability of students to access remote 
learning, which may explain why large increases and decreases in ADA 
were reported by some States. ADA has a minimal impact on SPPE in FY 
2020, resulting in a smaller average increase in SPPE than previous 
years, but the rate of change in SPPE is more closely dependent upon 
the change in net current expenditures.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    ADA increased from FY 2012 to FY 2017; slightly declined in FY 2018 
and FY 2019; and slightly increased in FY 2020. ADA dropped by 3.28 
percent in FY 2021 (from 47.7 million students in FY 20 to 46.1 million 
students in FY 21). This drop in ADA is matched by a 2.71 percent drop 
in membership (from 50.9 million students in FY 20 to 49.5 million 
students in FY 21).
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    SPPE has been increasing every year since FY 2012, but in FY 2020, 
the rate of increase is slightly smaller than it was in previous years. 
In FY 2021, SPPE increased by 7.2 percent.
    Question. Alarming rates of mental health issues in our youth 
indicated more must be done by our schools and communities to help 
address the significant mental and emotional toll the pandemic has had 
on our nation's students. Programs designed to address a student's 
social, emotional, and academic development can have a transformational 
impact in helping to address these challenges facing students. 
Furthermore, these programs can help to equip educators with the skills 
and resources necessary to better address the complex and evolving 
needs of their students. That is why Congress continued to robustly 
support social emotional learning initiatives and other whole child 
approaches in recent appropriations bills, including the Education 
Innovation and Research program, Supporting Effective Educator 
Development program, Full-Service Community Schools, and more.
    Please describe how increased investments in social emotional 
learning initiatives and other related efforts can help to better equip 
educators with the skills and resources necessary to address student 
needs, and how might the Department help support these programs and 
other efforts to create a positive and healthy school climate and 
culture for all students?
    Answer. Within the Education Innovation and Research (EIR) grant 
portfolio, 43 grantees currently focus on social emotional learning 
with many educator development project activities. Rock Island School 
District's ``How Are the Children'' project provides monthly 
professional development to principals as well as training for teachers 
on the SEL curriculum. Center for Supportive Schools provided training 
(11 in-person sessions) as well as coaching to faculty advisors who 
support student peer leaders in a project that helps sixth grade 
students successfully transition to middle school. The New Teacher 
Center is focused on regionally scaling their project (``Advancing 
Social and Emotional Learning Integrated with Rigorous Content through 
a Whole-School Professional Learning Model'') and includes efforts to 
prepare coaches to provide SEL-anchored support. There are numerous 
examples of other innovation projects that equip educators to create 
positive school climate; for example, San Diego Unified School 
District's Coding Our Future project includes training for computer 
science teachers to serve as lead learners who model growth mindsets 
and foster student relationship building. Additionally, technical 
assistance from the EIR program office includes an ongoing SEL 
community of practice for grantees (for example, discussions about SEL 
resource mapping as a pre-implementation task so educators can connect 
and leverage disparate resources), multiple project directors' meeting 
sessions focused on SEL (as well as a session on Ensuring Effective 
Implementation of Innovations with tips on how to effectively leverage 
professional learning and coaching), and various public-facing 
products; examples include ``Covid-19: A Look at How EIR-Funded 
Projects Are Supporting SEL Needs of Students and Teachers and 
Mediating Learning Gaps'' (recording), Connecting Theory to SEL 
Practice (recording), and Designing and Implementing Social Emotional 
Learning Programs to Promote Equity (paper).
    The Full-Service Community Schools (FSCS) program requires grantees 
to implement the four pillars of community schools (integrated student 
supports, expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities, active 
family and community engagement, and collaborative leadership) at each 
school. The four pillars are supported by the Science of Learning and 
Development Alliance \3\ and are used to address the needs of the whole 
child, including those children and youth whom school and community 
partners determine to be the most underserved. Implementation of 
coordinated activities, programs, and strategies aligned with the four 
pillars allows applicants to develop projects with greater fidelity to 
evidence-based practices \4\ that have been shown to be associated with 
improvements in teaching, learning and student outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Science of Learning and Development Alliance. (2020). Science 
of Learning and Development: Initial Findings. https://
soldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/SoLD-Science-
Translation_May-2020_FNL.pdf.
    \4\ Learning Policy Institute & Turnaround for Children. (2021). 
Design principles for schools: Putting the science of learning and 
development into action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Specific to mental and behavioral health, integrated student 
supports at a community school provide in- and out-of-school support 
for students, address well-being, and address out-of-school barriers to 
learning through partnerships with social and health service agencies, 
including mental and behavioral health agencies and providers, and 
coordinated by a community school coordinator. Services may include (i) 
Medical, dental, vision care, and mental and behavioral health 
services, including mental health literacy for students and staff, 
trauma-informed services to prevent, intervene, and mitigate adverse 
childhood experiences; and (ii) Individuals to assist with housing, 
transportation, nutrition, citizenship preparation, or criminal justice 
issues and other services.
    Addressing student barriers to learning, such as mental and 
emotional health challenges, makes learning possible. It provides both 
students and teachers with support, which allows teachers to focus on 
instruction. Through a competitive preference priority--Meeting Student 
Social, Emotional, and Academic Needs--the FSCS program also encourages 
grantees to develop and implement projects that build trusting 
relationships between students, educators, families, and community 
partners; provide multi-tiered systems of support; and comprehensive 
school frameworks that support strong and consistent student and 
educator relationships.
    The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) provides the Department 
with additional funding to support student social, emotional and mental 
health needs. A total of $1 billion in formula grant funding was 
provided under the Stronger Connections Grant Program to help schools 
establish safe and healthy learning environments for all students. 
Additionally, the Department received $1 billion over 5 years for 
competitive grants to expand the number of qualified mental health 
service providers in schools, and recently awarded $286 million to 264 
grantees to increase the training, hiring, and diversification of 
mental health professionals through two grants--the School-Based Mental 
Health grant program and the Mental Health Service Professional 
Demonstration grant program. Consistent with the requirements of the 
BSCA, the Department is working to support states and districts in 
directing these resources to the schools and communities with the 
greatest need and where funds may have the most impact.
    Question. Students in foster care face enormous obstacles to 
accessing and succeeding in school, including frequent home and school 
changes, missing credits, unreliable access to appropriate support 
services, confusion over education decisionmaking authority, and 
inconsistent access to special education services. These students have 
higher rates of absenteeism than their peers; lower test scores on 
standardized tests; and are three times more likely to drop out of 
school. New requirements included in The Every Student Succeeds Act 
require state education agencies to ensure students in foster care 
remain in their school of origin unless it is not in their best 
interest and to collaborate with child welfare agencies on plans for 
providing cost-effective transportation for students to remain so 
enrolled, among other requirements.
    What steps is the Department alone and in coordination with the 
Department of Health and Human Services to strengthen partnerships 
between State and local education and child welfare agencies necessary 
to support educational stability and improve education outcomes of 
children in foster care?
    Specifically, how will this coordination support implementation of 
requirements related to remaining in school of origin; making best 
interest determinations; and planning for transportation needed to 
remain in school of origin, among other requirements intended to 
improve education for children in foster care?
    Answer. The Department continues to support the implementation of 
the ESEA requirements to ensure the educational stability of students 
in foster care. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
remains a key partner in the implementation of these requirements. 
Staff from the Department's Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education regularly collaborate with staff from HHS' Administration for 
Children and Families. We have jointly facilitated national webinars 
and conference sessions, jointly released information about the unique 
educational needs of students in foster care (including, for example, a 
write-up posted to each agency's official blog), and shared information 
from each agency's stakeholders and grantees. Staff from the two 
agencies are in active discussions about opportunities for 
collaboration throughout the final quarter of fiscal year 2023 and 
fiscal year 2024.
    In its direct engagements with grantees, the Department continues 
to emphasize the importance of thoughtful, sustained collaboration 
between child welfare agencies and educational agencies to effectively 
support students in foster care. For example, during subrecipient 
monitoring activities, the Department assesses whether each State 
educational agency has established routines for collaboration with its 
partners in child welfare, as required under the ESEA. Where there is 
no evidence of such collaboration, the Department issues findings and 
requires grantees take affirmative steps to establish such 
collaborative routines. Through these subrecipient monitoring 
activities the Department also assesses the extent to which State 
educational agencies support the development and maintenance of 
collaborative relationships between school districts and local child 
welfare agencies. For example, during monitoring we examine whether 
there is collaboration and joint decisionmaking in school placement 
determinations and providing school of origin transportation for 
students in foster care.
    Interagency collaboration also remains a cornerstone of the 
Department's technical assistance provided to grantees and other 
stakeholders. For example, the Department continues to support 
educational agencies in the development, implementation, and 
enhancement of interagency data-sharing agreements and routines with 
child welfare. In early 2023, the Department published a suite of 
documents profiling data-sharing routines from eight States across the 
country, and the Department will continue to focus on the importance of 
interagency data-sharing through upcoming technical assistance. Planned 
technical assistance includes a community of practice involving foster 
care points of contact from State educational agencies and State child 
welfare agencies, as well as data stewards from these State agencies. 
The Department's technical assistance plan for the coming year also 
includes various activities that will be available to foster care 
points of contact from both educational agencies and State child 
welfare agencies, including a webinar series and a national convening; 
interagency collaboration will be a key focus of each of these 
activities. To model the importance of interagency collaboration, the 
Department has committed to involve partners from HHS, as appropriate 
and feasible, in each of these technical assistance projects. Over the 
summer, the Department will release a Dear Colleague letter to chief 
State school officers underscoring the need for a continued focus on 
interagency collaboration to address the unique needs of students in 
foster care. The Department will also continue to fund the Foster Care 
Exchange, a virtual platform launched in 2021 in partnership with the 
Department's National Comprehensive Center, to allow foster care points 
of contact to collaborate with one another in between more formal 
technical assistance touch points with one another.
    Question. Please describe the Department's plan for ensuring states 
and school districts comply with ESSA's policy requiring the reporting 
of actual personnel and non- personnel 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 is taking several steps to ensure that SEAs 
and LEAS meet the report card requirements in ESEA section 1111(h), 
including the requirement to post per pupil expenditures that include 
actual personnel and non-personnel 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. 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).
    To help ensure SEAs and LEAs comply with applicable requirements, 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, for the past 4 years, the Department has conducted a 
review of each State's website to determine if SEAs and LEAs were in 
compliance with report card requirements, looking at a subset of the 
requirements each year. This work begins in January to review the 
report cards for the prior school year. This year, the Department 
reviewed State and local report cards for:
  --Per-pupil expenditure information (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(x) and 
        1111(h)(2)(C)).
  --The State's list of schools identified for comprehensive support 
        and improvement, targeted support and improvement due to 
        consistently underperforming subgroups, and additional targeted 
        support and improvement (CSI, TSI, and ATSI, respectively) 
        (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(V)).
  --Educator data, including information regarding inexperienced 
        teachers, principals, and other school leaders, information 
        about teachers teaching with emergency or provisional 
        credentials, and information about out-of-field teachers (ESEA 
        section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ix).
  --Performance on the other academic indicator for public elementary 
        and secondary schools that are not high schools (ESEA section 
        1111(h)(1)(C)(iii)(I)).
  --Performance on the school quality or student success (SQSS) 
        indicator for all students and disaggregated by each student 
        subgroup (ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(v).
    We have been following up with each State that is missing any of 
the information reviewed. Similar to prior years, the Department will 
send letters to all States that have not posted the items above 
following our report card review this summer.
    The Department also continues to provide on-going technical 
assistance to States to help them improve the collection, reporting, 
and use of these data. We have established communities of practice with 
States, districts, and other stakeholders to discuss these 
requirements. We ran a competition for interested individuals to 
partner with States to design interactive report card websites and to 
report per-pupil expenditure data. Through the Department's National 
Comprehensive Center, we have funded external experts to provide tools 
and resources for States and districts to support the reporting and use 
of expenditure data.
    Question. How many competitive grant programs will include an 
evidence priority in fiscal years 2023 and 2024?
    Answer. The Department uses evidence in many of its grant 
competitions, either as ``entry evidence,'' which involves elements in 
the application to align projects with a particular threshold, or 
``exit evidence,'' which is defined as elements to develop lessons 
learned from the review of the program interventions.
    For FY23, the Department is running 66 discretionary grant 
competitions. 37 Competitions include entry evidence requirements or 
priorities, and 7 competitions involve exit evidence. For a more 
detailed breakdown of these requirements, please see the table, below. 
We will have data for FY24 during the FY24 fiscal year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Entry     Exit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................       37        7
Demonstrates a Rationale..............................       33        -
Promising Evidence....................................        2        3
Moderate Evidence.....................................        1        2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. For programs in which the evidence requirement of 
demonstrates a rationale, how is the Department supporting ongoing 
efforts of grantees to evaluate the effects of such activities, 
interventions or strategies? Please also describe the ways in which the 
Department is supporting or plans to support evidence building and use 
in ESEA formula grant programs.
    Answer. The Department continues to support grantees in building 
and using evidence in its grant programs, including ESEA formula grant 
programs, in multiple ways.
    One key component of this support is the Comprehensive Centers 
program, which operates a National Center and 19 Regional Centers. The 
Comprehensive Centers program offers high-quality universal and 
targeted capacity-building services, including in the area of 
implementing and scaling evidence-based practices, to State educational 
agencies (SEAs), regional educational agencies (REAs), local 
educational agencies (LEAs), and schools to improve educational 
outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the 
quality of instruction. The Comprehensive Centers Network and other 
technical assistance providers also identify evidence-based 
interventions that support states and school districts in using 
evidence in the work supported by their ESEA formula grants. Recently, 
the Comprehensive Centers have led several communities of practice 
related to evidence-building and use, including the Evidence-Based 
Interventions: Using ARP Resources to Accelerate Learning Community of 
Practice (CoP), to identify and collectively address problems of 
practice related to ensuring effective and sustainable use of ARP 
funding to support learning recovery/learning acceleration. Through the 
use of improvement science and peer exchanges, SEA teams deepen their 
capacity to support LEAs in identifying and selecting evidence-based 
interventions to accelerate learning. Participants in the CoP also 
piloted tools to help SEAs and LEAs consider levels of evidence to 
support their interventions using logic models, including a tool on 
using Logic Models to Chart a Path to Success. This tool is designed to 
help SEAs and LEAs to evaluate the impact of education policies, 
programs, and practices. It includes examples of high-dosage tutoring 
and summer learning and enrichment programs to show users how to build 
and use logic models that can be used to monitor implementation, guide 
evaluation activities, and inform communications around the results of 
educational investments.
    In addition, the Department builds evidence through its grant 
competitions. Notably, the Education Innovation and Research (EIR) 
program generates evidence that the Department can share with grantees 
who receive formula funds.
    The Department also provides support through the Regional 
Educational Laboratories (RELs) program, which the Institute of 
Education Sciences (IES) administers. The RELs program supports ten 
Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) that collaborate with school 
districts, state departments of education, and other education 
stakeholders to help these stakeholders translate and apply evidence, 
with the goal of improving learner outcomes. RELs can help analyze data 
to support state and local decisionmakers, identify existing evidence, 
make plans to build evidence, assist with designing and piloting 
research-based innovations, and support rigorous evaluations.
    The Department provides non-regulatory guidance and tools to assist 
in building and using evidence. Recently, the Office of Education 
Technology developed an EdTech Evidence Toolkit to support educational 
leaders in using evidence to inform decisions about educational 
technology adoption based on the four tiers of evidence identified in 
the ESEA. The Department also plans to offer updated guidance as a 
resource that is applicable across programs for building and using 
evidence.
    Next steps that build on programs using a ``demonstrates a 
rationale'' level of evidence are often specific to individual programs 
and grantees. Grantee reporting on performance measures can be one step 
in the process of further evidence building. In addition, program teams 
and IES support grantees in providing information to the Education 
Resources Information Center (ERIC). In planning new competitions, the 
Department considers emerging evidence, including from recent cohorts 
of grantees, in identifying appropriate levels of evidence.
    Question. Please describe how proposals to increase the amount 
available for and expand the scope of the National Clearinghouse for 
English Language Acquisition would better meet state-identified 
challenges in meeting the needs of English Learners.
    Answer. The Department's intent with the requested increase in 
funding and expanded scope for the National Clearinghouse for English 
Language Acquisition is to provide technical assistance to SEA's and 
LEA's to amplify programs such as dual language and seal of biliteracy. 
Currently, the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) does not 
provide technical assistance on these areas. The Department aims to 
support the Secretary's Raise the Bar initiative to promote 
multilingualism.
    Question. The Department recently closed the comment period on a 
Request for Information (RFI) that seeks examples of successful 
approaches to the Innovation Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA), 
which is granted under Title 1, Part B of The Every Student Succeeds 
Act (ESEA). The program allows the Secretary to grant State educational 
agencies the authority to establish innovative state assessment systems 
that better align with the needs of all students.
    What is the Department's plan to implement the feedback given on 
IADA, and how will the FY24 budget support these activities?
    Please provide an update on how the Department is using the funding 
Congress provided for assessment development in fiscal year 2021, 2022 
and 2023 to encourage states to improve their statewide assessments to 
provide more timely and relevant data to educators and stakeholders.
    Answer. The Department received over 8,800 comments in response to 
the RFI and is currently reviewing and evaluating these comments. No 
definite actions for the IADA have been planned as of yet.
    With respect to the funding provided by Congress, the Department 
has focused the Competitive Grants for State Assessments (CGSA) program 
on supporting innovation in assessments. In 2020, the Department 
established priorities to support States in both planning for and 
implementing IADA. In the most recent CGSA competition in 2022, the 
Department focused on applications that (a) propose measuring student 
achievement using multiple measures and (b) evaluate student 
achievement through assessments that emphasize the mastery of standards 
and aligned competencies in a competency-based education model. Across 
these two competitions (in 2020 and 2022), the Department funded 13 
projects focused on new assessment designs and 3 States received 
funding directly related to IADA planning or implementation. In 2022 
alone, the Department awarded approximately $28 million in CGSA grants 
from FY2021 and FY2022 funding to fund 11 SEA applications. You can see 
here a description of the grants funded in the past two competitions: 
https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-
and-accountability/competitive-grants-for-state-assessments/awards/.
    With the FY2023 funds ($20 million), the Department anticipates 
continuing to use CGSA to support State innovation in student 
assessment. The next CGSA grant competition (using FY23 funds) is 
planned for the 2023-2024 school year with funds awarded before 
September 2024.
    In addition, States may use their formula grants under Title I, 
Part B of the ESEA ($369.1 million annually under the ESEA) to support 
the improvement of State assessments for these purposes.
    With respect to the Department's FY2024 budget, we proposed 
additional funding under CGSA for a new $100 million for a proposed new 
demonstration program to assist school districts in developing high-
quality formative and diagnostic assessments.
                                 ______
                                 
              Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
    Question. What are the Department's plans for evaluating and 
strengthening its monitoring and support for the use of funds provided 
by the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) in 
the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) for evidence-based strategies to 
tackle learning loss and help students get back on track, particularly 
students disproportionately impacted by the pandemic?
    Answer. The Department implements a robust system of monitoring and 
oversight of the Emergency and Secondary School Emergency Relief 
(ESSER) Fund consisting of routine monitoring activities, both formal 
and informal, and annual performance reporting to ensure that pandemic 
relief funds are used lawfully and appropriately, and in compliance 
with all applicable requirements. Each type of monitoring corresponds 
to specific protocols and evaluation goals. Over the course of the last 
year, the Department conducted an analysis of its monitoring processes 
and protocols and implemented new routines and protocols for providing 
oversight and support in fiscal year 2023, outlined below.
    The Department's revised approach to oversight begins with all 
grantees participating in monthly calls that cover timely programmatic 
and fiscal topics. These engagements are important opportunities to 
provide timely technical assistance to grantees, as well as identify 
issues related to program compliance that may result in determining 
that a grantee requires more formal, intensive monitoring. 
Additionally, all States undergo monitoring through Biennial Reviews, 
topic-specific reviews conducted with all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Reviews focus on high-priority aspects of 
program implementation, such as monitoring LEA uses of funds, 
stakeholder engagement, and SEA reservations. (The Department, in 
revising its oversight plan for this fiscal year, identified that 
monthly touch points coupled with reviews that happen on a biennial, 
rather than quarterly basis, was a more strategic approach to 
proactively identifying potential compliance issues and addressing 
grantee technical support needs.)
    To date, the Department has conducted two biannual reviews of all 
grantees. The first review, conducted in the spring and summer of 2022, 
focused on American Rescue Plan (ARP) ESSER awards to LEAs and the 
required 20 percent set-aside to address the academic impact of lost 
instructional time. The second review, conducted in the winter of 2023, 
focused on the awarding of funds under the Governor's Emergency 
Education Relief (GEER) Fund and subrecipient grantee oversight. The 
next review will occur in the fall of 2023. A focus area has not yet 
been identified for this review.
    Further, the Department conducts Targeted Monitoring occurs when 
the program office determines there is a risk of noncompliance in a 
specific area of implementation based on a grantee's course of action 
during the grant performance period. For example, Targeted Monitoring 
was conducted in 2021 for three grantees after each drew down ninety 
percent of their available Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security Act balances from the Department's grants management system. 
Currently, the Department does not have any Target Monitoring events 
underway or planned for the rest of the fiscal year.
    Last, the Department conducts Comprehensive Monitoring or 
Consolidated Monitoring for select grantees identified based on a risk 
assessment or as the result of a known compliance issue. Comprehensive 
Monitoring consists of a full programmatic and fiscal review focused 
only on a grantee's pandemic-relief programs. This type of monitoring 
evaluates the systems and processes a grantee uses to implement its 
program, in addition to reviewing each grantee's identified pandemic-
relief program for compliance. Similarly, Consolidated Monitoring also 
reviews a grantee's systems and grants management processes to ensure 
compliance with Federal requirements; however, Consolidated Monitoring 
is a cross-program review of a grantee's implementation of its full 
portfolio of K-12 formula grants, for both pandemic-relief funding and 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) formula grant 
programs administered by OESE.
    Thus far, four States have participated in Comprehensive 
Monitoring--California, Indiana, Maine, and Wisconsin. The Department 
will conduct a Comprehensive Monitoring of New Jersey's ESSER and 
Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools programs in the fall of 
2023. Additional States will be identified for Comprehensive Monitoring 
in FY 2024 this summer.
    Thus far, six pandemic-relief program grantees have participated in 
Consolidated Monitoring. Four States--Florida, Kentucky, Nebraska, and 
Tennessee--were required to take corrective actions to address findings 
of noncompliance with Federal requirements. Two States, Washington and 
Maine, have monitoring determinations pending that will be finalized 
soon. Additionally, the Department will conduct Consolidated Monitoring 
of New Mexico in the fall of 2023. Soon additional States will be 
identified for Consolidated Monitoring in FY 2024.
    Pandemic-relief program monitoring events are led by no less than 
two program staff and may result in reports that identify a grantee's 
lack of compliance, and the need for additional program support and 
technical assistance. Given the limited number of staff managing the 
pandemic-relief programs, as well as Department budget limitations, the 
Department must be strategic in selecting grantees that will be 
monitored in a fiscal year and in determining which grantees will 
receive on-site monitoring.
    The Department's monitoring plan and protocols for K-12 pandemic 
relief programs, revised annually, reflect the subsequent awarding of 
the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) 
Act and ARP Act funds. Updates to the plan and protocols assess new 
program requirements, including the uses of funds to address lost 
instructional time and for the purposes of construction and renovation. 
Additionally, these revised protocols help the Department identify 
areas of need for technical assistance. The updated ESSER monitoring 
protocols are available on the Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education's (OESE's) website: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/education-
stabilization-fund/elementary-secondary-school-emergency-relief-fund/
esser-comprehensive-monitoring-protocols/.
    In FY 2024, the Department, as planned support for ARP grantees, is 
investing in focused technical assistance and capacity-building support 
to States, to spend remaining recovery funds in ways that are most 
likely to accelerate student learning and achieve equitable outcomes, 
build capacity to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of programs 
and plan for fiscal sustainability of their investments. Through a 
series of virtual and in-person events, that incorporate what has been 
learned through monitoring, the Department will support States to 
develop sustainability plans that identify existing or new funding 
sources to support effective and equitable investments, to integrate 
the sustainability plans into ongoing and future spending decisions, 
and to establish processes for ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness 
of programs and continued impact of ARP funds that lead to equitable 
opportunities for lasting improvements in all student outcomes.
    Question. How will the Department monitor and support improvements 
to the targeting and effectiveness of the evidence-based interventions 
being implemented by State educational agencies and local educational 
agencies, particularly for students disproportionately impacted by the 
pandemic?
    Answer. The Department's monitoring of States, using its revised 
protocols starting in spring 2023, ensures that grantees are monitoring 
local educational agencies (LEAs') implementation of the set-aside, 
including targeting resources to student groups demonstrating the 
greatest need. Additionally, the Department's protocols include a 
heightened focus on States using data to assess the effectiveness of 
their own and their LEAs' chosen evidence-based interventions. In 
instances where an SEA may indicate a need for assistance with 
improving its systems to ensure adequate support and oversight for LEAs 
in the use of the learning loss set-aside, the Department will direct 
the grantee to technical assistance providers with relevant expertise 
and capacity to support the grantee.
    Question. How does the Department plan to support the use of 
Federal funds, including school improvement funds, to sustain effective 
and necessary ESSER-supported investments in future years?
    Answer. Annually, the Department awards grants to states to support 
ongoing and sustainable efforts to help students succeed academically. 
The ESEA authorizes Title I funding to support student success through 
various including tutoring, pre-K and summer and extended-day programs. 
Title I serves 25.6 million students across the country. Since the 
beginning of the administration, the Department has worked to increase 
Title I funding by almost $2 billion.
    In addition, funds under Title II of the ESEA support improvements 
in the quality and effectiveness of teachers and school leaders in K-12 
schools and high-quality teaching to students in need. Title III of the 
ESEA authorizes funds to support English learners in meeting the 
state's challenging academic standards through language instructional 
educational programs. Title III serves 4.9 million students. Title IV 
of the ESEA authorizes funds to improve students' academic achievement 
by increasing the capacity of States, local educational agencies, 
schools, and local communities to (1) provide all students with access 
to a well-rounded education; (2) improve school conditions for student 
learning; and (3) improve the use of technology in order to improve the 
academic achievement and digital literacy of all students. Together, 
Titles I, II, III, and IV provide nearly $23 billion for the country's 
most vulnerable students.
    The Administration has also worked to ensure compliance with two 
key fiscal equity provisions that will sustain education funding. 
Through the statutory Maintenance of Effort provision, the Department 
requires States to maintain their overall commitment to education 
spending. Through the ARP Act's Maintenance of Equity provision, the 
Department requires States to ensure that any reductions that do occur 
protect high- poverty schools and students from disproportionate 
impacts.
    With respect to the question about how we will support the work in 
future years, the Department is compiling information and best 
practices through the Best Practices Clearinghouse and other methods, 
and we will continue to encourage States and districts to look at the 
activities that are proving effective and find ways to blend and braid 
funds from all available sources to continue them. Additionally, the 
Department will provide focused technical assistance in this area 
through the Comprehensive Center program in FY2024.
    Regarding school improvement, in the ``Frequently Asked Questions: 
Impact of COVID-19 on 2021-2022 Accountability Systems Required under 
the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (ESEA),'' the Department 
encouraged SEAs to address the impact of the pandemic and lost 
instructional time as part of the school support and improvement plans, 
which could include leveraging multiple funding sources and aligning 
school improvement efforts with evidence-based interventions to address 
lost instructional time. The Department encouraged States to help LEAs 
and schools to focus on evidence-based approaches that have been 
demonstrated to be effective at improving opportunities and outcomes 
for students (see FAQ D-1).
    Question. The fiscal year 2023 explanatory statement directed the 
Department to provide technical assistance to state and local Title I 
directors on the requirements and uses of funds under section 
1113(c)(3)(A) to assist LEAs in effectively using such funds to support 
students experiencing homelessness and work with SEAs to increase 
transparency on amounts reserved by LEAs under section 1113(c)(3)(A). 
In response, the Department has outlined a number of actions to improve 
compliance with these requirements, including by working with SEAs to 
ensure they provide guidance on coordination between the LEA's Title I 
and McKinney-Vento staff and provide training on methods for 
determining set-asides.
    Please identify the timeline for implementing each of the 
activities planned to improve compliance with related requirements of 
ESEA and respond to this directive.
    Answer. In April 2023, through our TA contractor for the McKinney-
Vento program, the National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE), the 
Department released a pre-recorded webinar on the ``Title I, Part A 
Reservation of Funds for Students Experiencing Homelessness'' at Self-
Paced Online Training--National Center for Homeless Education. This 
will complement existing ED non-regulatory guidance and NCHE technical 
assistance on this topic available at: https://nche.ed.gov/legislation/
title-1-part-a/.
    In FY 2022, the Department released an updated monitoring plan for 
the Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) and the American 
Rescue Plan Homeless Children and Youth (ARP-HCY) programs. (See the 
current version here: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/09/SSA-EHCY-ARP-
HCY-Monitoring-Plan-FY-23.pdf.) This also includes a section on the 
Title I-A set-aside for homeless children and youth. As is often the 
case when we introduce a new section of our monitoring, this new 
monitoring topic has resulted in more ``actions required'' and 
``recommendations'' than other topics. This will help us think about 
future technical assistance ideas. For example, we are finding that 
most Title I-A LEA homeless set-aside amounts vary widely in per-pupil 
amount across districts within a state (i.e., when they are divided by 
the count of students experiencing homelessness identified by the LEA). 
In 2023, our required actions are focusing on ensuring that the SEA is 
providing guidance on systematic coordination between the district's 
Title I and McKinney-Vento staff--providing training to LEAs and 
reviewing these set-asides in the district's Title I or consolidated 
Federal program applications based on homeless enrollment data and 
students' educational needs. In the next year, we expect to include 
this information in our regular meetings with McKinney-Vento State 
Coordinators and Title I State Directors.
    In FY 2024, for the first time, SEAs are submitting to the 
Department a file on Title I set- asides for SY 2022-23 that will 
include, by district, the initially reserved amounts of the homeless 
set-asides. AS is often the case when we introduce new data elements, 
we expect it will take few years of the collection for data quality to 
improve. NCHE is already developing a data collection tool to be 
released in summer 2023 to support SEAs in submitting complete accurate 
data (it will be posted at Data Collection--National Center for 
Homeless Education).
    Also, in FY 2024, NCHE is planning new data analyses comparing the 
district's Title I set- aside and homeless enrollment counts. As we 
have done in the past with prior NCHE data analyses, we will make this 
available to SEAs by August 2024 and NCHE will provide assistance about 
how to understand and use the data.
    Finally, the NCHE contract allows for States to request targeted or 
intensive technical assistance. Often States request TA before or after 
our monitoring events that can address the Title I-A homeless set-aside 
requirement and ways to analyze them for sufficiency. State 
Coordinators also often request additional support in understanding 
their data workbooks.
    Question. The Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants 
program provides resources to improve literacy instruction in high-need 
schools and early childhood education programs, including through 
instruction in evidence-based literacy methods for children from birth 
through 12th grade. In awarding grants, the Secretary is required to 
give priority to State educational agencies that will use the grant 
funds for evidence-based activities.
    What steps are planned to support an in increase in the percentage 
of evidence-based activities implemented by subgrantees that meet the 
requirements of moderate or strong evidence?
    Answer. As a condition of funding, CLSD State Education Agency 
(SEA) applicants were required to explain the extent to which their 
proposed project would use Federal funds for evidence-based activities. 
Consistent with Section 8101(21)(A)(i) of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), evidence-based was defined in 
the notice inviting applications (NIA) as activities, strategies or 
interventions that demonstrate strong evidence, moderate evidence, or 
promising evidence. The program office intends to continue to include 
this as a requirement in future competitions.
    In response to GPRA measure #5 (evidence-based activities) which 
was published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2020, FY 2020 
grantees have reported an overall 11.87% increase from FY 2021 to FY 
2022 in ``the percentage of evidence-based activities implemented by 
subgrantees that meet the requirements of strong or moderate evidence 
in the definition of ``evidence-based'' found in the NIA.
    The CLSD program office staff monitors information submitted by 
CLSD grantees through their annual performance reports and supports the 
implementation of evidence-based activities through technical 
assistance from subject-matter experts via a CLSD Technical Assistance 
Contract.
    Most recently, technical assistance on evidence-based activities 
was provided to CLSD grantees at the on-site CLSD National Convening in 
March 2023. Grantees participated in a session focused on exploring the 
evidence-based recommendations from the Institute of Education 
Sciences' (IES) practice guide titled Providing Reading Interventions 
to Students in Grades 4-9 (https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/
29). A contributor to the guide, Kim St. Martin, Ph.D., who is the 
director of Michigan's Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) Technical 
Assistance Center; gave the presentation on Providing Reading 
Interventions for Students in Grades 4-9. The session covered 
recommendations from the practice guide, as well as gave an overview of 
an intervention infrastructure. Following this presentation, Dr. St. 
Martin facilitated an interactive session with CLSD grantees on ``How 
Practice Guide Recommendations Apply to CLSD Contexts''. Over 100 
attendees participated in the meeting and feedback was very positive. 
One grantee noted that ``This whole meeting was really useful. I 
particularly appreciated learning from other grantees and Dr. St. 
Martin's presentations that did a great job illustrating the how-to of 
adolescent literacy intervention.''
    CLSD SEA grantees report providing technical assistance to 
subgrantees on implementing activities, strategies and interventions 
that demonstrate strong evidence, moderate evidence or promising 
evidence, consistent with the definition in the NIA. However, based on 
feedback from CLSD program staff, according to grantees, their ability 
to provide technical assistance and monitor the extent to which 
subgrantees have implemented evidence-based practices has been hindered 
due to the lack of adequate resources (i.e., CLSD grantees may only use 
up to 5% for state-level activities, including monitoring and 
administrative activities).
    Question. How was grantee performance in and plans for implementing 
evidence-based activities considered in making supplemental awards 
earlier this year?
    Answer. The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education invited 
existing CLSD grantees to submit proposals for supplemental funding 
that was consistent with the overall scope and objectives of their 
approved CLSD grant applications. In the supplemental application, 
emphasis was placed on the use of CLSD funds to advance literacy skills 
through the use of evidence-based practices, activities and 
interventions. CLSD grantees were also encouraged to consider targeted 
subgrants to support evidence-based programs that ensure high-quality 
comprehensive literacy instruction for students most in need, including 
children from low-income families; English learners; and children with 
disabilities.
    Some examples of how grantees are implementing evidence-based 
activities, strategies and interventions are:
  --Building educator and leadership capacity related to the science of 
        reading.
  --Identifying high quality instructional materials (HQIM) for LEAs 
        and focusing on multi-tiered and research-based curriculum 
        reviews to select a list of HQIM that subgrantees could choose 
        to implement.
  --Aligning evidence-based practices to the State's Comprehensive 
        Literacy Plan.
    Question. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act built on prior 
funding for the Mental Health Services Professional Demonstration 
Grants and School-Based Mental Health Services Grants to train and 
recruit mental health professionals to work in schools and expand 
school-based mental health services.
    How does the Department plan to measure and report on the progress 
these grants are making and how does the FY 24 budget build on these 
efforts?
    Answer. The Department will use a variety of strategies to measure 
and review progress for the Mental Health Services Professional 
Demonstration Grants and School-Based Mental Health Services Grants. 
These strategies include regular grantee monitoring, review of 
performance reports that provide data on attainment of program 
performance measures and program implementation, analysis of 
performance measures data, and an evaluation to be conducted by the 
Institute of Education Sciences. In addition, the Department will 
establish a center dedicated to providing technical assistance to 
grantees under the mental health programs to support program 
activities. The fiscal year 2024 budget request would support not just 
new and continuation awards under these mental health programs, but it 
would also technical assistance efforts. In addition, any the 
information gleaned from efforts to measure and review progress and 
provide technical assistance would inform future efforts and 
competitions.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
    Question. Over the last year, the Department has provided 
widespread relief to defrauded students through group borrower defense 
discharge. This relief has totaled nearly $12 billion for 891,000 
borrowers. I applaud the Department for taking steps to offer group 
borrower defense discharge to students, including former students of 
Corinthian Colleges (Corinthian), ITT Technical Institute, Inc. (ITT 
Tech), Westwood College (Westwood), DeVry University (DeVry), and 
Marinello Schools of Beauty. These students were misled by unscrupulous 
for-profit colleges, and they are not the only students who are 
crippled with student loan debt and a worthless degree. Since the 
closure of Corinthian, I have urged the Department to ensure that 
students are not left holding the bag, and I have supported group 
borrower defense discharge early on for students who have been 
defrauded by for-profit colleges. Please provide, disaggregated for 
Charlotte School of Law, Vatterott Colleges (Vatterott), schools owned 
by the Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE), schools owned 
by the Education Corporation of America (ECA), and schools owned by the 
Dream Center Education Holdings (Dream Center), respectively:
    The number of borrower defense applications that have been 
received, approved, denied, ineligible, and closed;
    Answer. The requested data is provided in the below chart.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Approved
                                     Approved      Denied        Under                                  Total
     School/Ownership  Group         under BD   (Ineligible)     Sweet        Closed      Pending      Received
                                   Regulations                 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte School of Law..........            0             0        1,100          <50          900        2,000
ECA..............................            0             0        8,200          200        9,900       18,300
Dream Center.....................            0             0       27,600          600       27,700       56,000
CEHE.............................            0             0        1,300          <50        2,300        3,600
Vatterott........................            0             0        1,600          <50        1,700        3,300
Grand Total......................            0             0       39,800          900       42,500       83,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data as of early June 2023; due to rounding, sums may not equal 
totals.
    School ownership group is based on a list of OPE IDs. Please note 
that the Dream Center numbers reflect cases against schools that were 
operated by Dream Center as well as cases from borrowers who attended 
the schools when they were operated by EDMC (prior to them being 
purchased by Dream Center). Please note, discharges under the Sweet 
settlement are granted as settlement relief, not as approved borrower 
defense claims.
    Question. The total loan amount of borrowers who the Department 
estimates are eligible for group borrower defense discharge;
    Answer. The Department has not made determinations on the number of 
borrowers eligible for group discharge from these schools.
    Question. The number of borrowers and the total loan amount that 
has been discharged through a borrower submitting a borrower defense 
application; and
    Answer. None of the borrowers that attended the listed institutions 
have received borrower defense discharges due to submitting individual 
applications, however, many of them, as indicated in the chart above, 
will or have had their loans discharged because they received 
settlement discharges under the Sweet settlement.
    Question. The number of borrowers and the total loan amount that 
has been discharged through group borrower defense discharge.
    Answer. Zero; the Department has not made group discharge findings 
relating to any of these schools.
    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. As of June 2023, fewer than ten cases have been denied and 
not rescinded. Prior denials issued by the Department and provided in 
earlier reports were rescinded pursuant to the Sweet settlement. The 
remaining denials had allegations made in the applications that did not 
meet the regulatory requirements laid out in 34 C.F.R. 
Sec. 685.206(c)(1). Due to privacy considerations, we are unable to 
provide a breakdown of the denied cases.
    Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total ineligible'' 
borrower defense claims to date by institution.
    Answer. Beginning in May 2021, the term ``total ineligible'' was no 
longer used in the borrower defense reports. This term was replaced by 
``total denied.'' See response to 2b.
    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 late July 
2023 is enclosed.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Question. Please provide the top five reasons that borrower defense 
claims are placed in ``total denied,'' ``total ineligible,'' and 
``total closed.'' Please also provide the number and corresponding 
percentage for borrower defense claims placed in each category.
    Answer. Per our response above, ``total ineligible'' is no longer 
used as a category in borrower defense reporting. Due to privacy 
considerations, we are unable to provide a breakdown of the denied 
cases.
    As of late-July 2023, the top five reasons applications have been 
closed were as follows (numbers have been rounded to the nearest (5):
  --No Loans Pre-Adjudication (e.g., no Federal loans; no loans at the 
        applicable school) (12,395 applications or 67%);
  --No Response from Customer (2135 applications or 12%);
  --Borrower Received an Automatic Closed School Discharge (965 
        applications or 5%);
  --Incomplete Application (685 applications or 4%);
  --Borrower Requested Case Closure (645 applications or 3%).
    Question. According to the most recently published borrower defense 
report (January 2023), the Department currently has nearly 464,724 
pending borrower defense claims. Please provide:
    The average length of time the 464,724 claims have been pending.
    Answer. The average length of time that all applications have been 
pending as of mid-June 2023, is 492 days. This is not specific to the 
464,724 claims referenced, but rather the total number of pending 
applications, as of mid-June 2023.
    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 mid-June 2023, 74% of total pending applications were 
related to for-profit institutions; 11% were related to public 
institutions; 13% were related to private not-for-profit institutions; 
and 1 percent were related to foreign institutions. Applications 
without a school listed were excluded from this calculation as well as 
a small number of schools for which school type was unknown. Schools 
were assigned a school type based on the most recent eligibility data 
available in PEPS.
    Question. A breakdown of the 464,724 pending claims by institution.
    Answer. An Excel file providing the requested data as of mid-June 
2023 is enclosed.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    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, 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.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The table provides a list of all attorneys general submissions 
related to groups of borrowers for which the attorneys general seek a 
borrower defense discharge as of July 28, 2023. These requests all 
predate the 2023 borrower defense regulation and are not third party 
requests as defined by that regulation. To date the Department has not 
received any third party requests under the 2023 regulation. The table 
includes the submission date, the attorneys general, the school, and 
the diploma program, if applicable. If a diploma program is not 
provided for a submission, the submission was not limited to a specific 
program.
    Please note that last year this chart included Premier Education 
Group submissions made by the Massachusetts Attorney General. These 
submissions are not on this chart because these submissions were 
packets of individual applications and not requests for group relief. 
However all of these applications have been approved for relief under 
the terms of the Sweet v. Cardona settlement. Similarly, the Anthem 
submission made by the Minnesota Attorney General consisted of 
affidavits submitted by borrowers. These affidavits were treated as 
applications which were approved for relief under the terms of the 
Sweet settlement.
    Additionally, please note that under the Department's regulations, 
it is within the Secretary's discretion to create a group discharge 
process and define the parameters of the group. The Department cannot 
provide the number of borrowers that are covered by these requests 
because the Department defines its own parameters when forming a group. 
The groups above that are listed as granted all represent Department 
created groups that were as broad or broader than what was requested. 
The Court Reporting Institute is listed as partially granted because 
the Department has approved individual applications that fall within 
the request, but due to the time period of when the school operated, 
Department data cannot identify all students who fall within the 
request. Individual applications submitted by attorneys general have 
been, and will continue to be, considered under the individual 
application review process.
    Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 
2022, and 2023, 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. 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. How many of the applications referenced in (e) are 
pending? How many have been granted? How many have been denied? Please 
provide a list of each.
    Answer. Please see the AG group submission list provided in (d).
    Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 
2022, and 2023, 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, 2021, 
2022, and 2023, how many loans of the borrowers covered by a group 
discharge application have been certified by the Department for 
Treasury offset? 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. 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, 2021, 
2022, and 2023, 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. 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. The current borrower defense form is 25 pages and is 
difficult for student loan borrowers to navigate without an attorney. 
Does the Department intend to initiate a regulatory review process to 
update the borrower defense form? Please elaborate on timing.
    Answer. The Department is currently in the process of updating the 
borrower defense application form and expects to publish an updated 
version that is compliant with the borrower defense regulations 
published on November 1, 2022 (87 FR 65904). This process will be 
completed in July 2023.
    Question. The for-profit college industry drastically increased its 
enrollment during the Great Recession. In many cases, low-value 
colleges preyed on out-of-work adults, promising them an education that 
would lead to well-paying jobs--only to leave those students with a 
mountain of debt and no credential of value. Enrollment peaked in 2011 
at more than three million students in the for-profit sector. The 
Harkin investigation, which was conducted by the Senate Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, showed that students were 
``churned'' through these schools, with more than 50 percent of for-
profit students leaving within 4 months. Schools like Westwood, 
Corinthian, and ITT Tech lied to prospective students about their 
employment outcomes and took their money, only to shutter 
precipitously, leaving those students without good options to complete 
their degrees. The Biden Administration has taken some important steps 
to right those wrongs, discharging student loans for borrowers who were 
not able to graduate. I particularly appreciate that the students from 
Westwood, which closed in 2016, finally have been granted relief; 
however, many other borrowers from many other institutions that 
similarly closed after taking advantage of students have not seen the 
relief they deserve, even when there have been investigations of those 
schools that have found widespread predatory conduct.
    When can borrowers who attended but could not graduate from 
colleges like Charlotte School of Law, Vatterott, schools run by the 
CEHE, schools run by the Dream Center, and schools run by ECA expect to 
receive the same group relief as students from Westwood?
    Answer. The Department is continuing to review evidence available 
to it to determine when a group discharge may or may not be 
appropriate. This includes considering requests for group discharges 
already received. If a group discharge was issued, it would apply 
equally to borrowers who graduated and those who did not.
    Question. The Department granted borrower defense discharges for 
borrowers who attended Westwood in August 2023, more than 7 years after 
Westwood precipitously shuttered its doors.
    Although I applaud the Department's actions to provide this 
deserved relief to former Westwood students, the notices to Westwood 
borrowers were not sent out until the end of March 2023, 7 months after 
the Department initially made its announcement Furthermore, as of March 
29, 2023, no Westwood borrower had seen their loans discharged on their 
account.
    Please provide additional context for the delay in providing 
notices to Westwood borrowers.
    Answer. Over the past year, the U.S. Department of Education has 
announced discharges for over 1.1 million borrowers. As part of that 
process, the Department has had to manage the unprecedented flow of 
discharge requests that are being sent to servicers for processing 
while also appropriately timing the notification to borrowers of their 
discharge.
    All impacted Westwood borrowers have not been required to make 
payments during this time period, have not accrued any additional 
interest, and will receive a full discharge of their applicable loans 
and, if warranted, a full refund of payments previously made to the 
Department. Westwood borrowers will also continue to have their loans 
paused even if their discharges have not been processed by the time 
loans return to repayment.
    Question. Please provide the number of Westwood borrowers whose 
loan balance has been cleared on their account. Please provide the 
number of Westwood borrowers who are still waiting to see their balance 
clear.
    Answer. As of mid-July 2023, approximately 44k Westwood borrowers 
had their discharges processed, and approximately 34K borrowers' 
discharges are pending.
    Question. In a previous response, the Department informed me that 
the time it takes between notification and discharge varies for each 
borrower based on a variety of circumstances, including whether the 
borrower previously consolidated their loans. Please provide the 
average amount of time it takes for a borrower to see their balance 
clear after the receiving a notice from the Department.
    Answer. For those Westwood borrowers with discharges processed, the 
average time between the borrower notification and the discharge being 
processed was 62 days.
    Question. Please provide a list detailing the number of borrowers 
who have seen full discharge, disaggregated by institution where 
borrowers have been granted borrower defense group discharge (e.g. 
Corinthian, ITT Tech, Westwood, DeVry, and Marinello School of Beauty).
    Answer. As of mid-July 2023, group discharges have been fully 
processed for:
  --246k Corinthian borrowers
  --128k ITT borrowers
  --44k Westwood borrowers
  --25k Marinello borrowers
    There is not a group discharge associated with DeVry.
    Question. The Department previously notified me and other Members 
of Congress that former Secretary DeVos had decided not to extend the 
closed school discharge look-back period for students who attended 
schools owned by ECA. As the Department previously has 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. In 
that same notification, the Department noted that former Secretary 
DeVos had not yet reached a decision on the request made by me and 
other Members of Congress, to extend the look back period for Vatterott 
students which also met the exceptional circumstances bar in the law. 
Will the Department reconsider these decisions?
    Answer. The Department is committed to exercising the exceptional 
circumstances authority for closed school discharges when the Secretary 
determines it is warranted. We are continuing to review past closures 
to identify any instances where an exceptional circumstance did occur.
    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 December 
31, 2022, derived from LOC data recorded in the Department's eZ-Audit 
system and Postsecondary Education Participants System, and which was 
provided to an advocacy group in response to a FOIA request. As of 
December 31, 2022, the Department held LOCs and other surety from 308 
distinct institutions, totaling nearly $599 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 December 31, 
2022. The second tab provides the field definitions and descriptions of 
the reasons why a LOC was requested from a listed institution. The 
report does not provide historical context for the LOCs held as of 
December 31, 2022, 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.
    [The Department provided the attachment to the Committee.]
    Question. In recent years, several for-profit colleges have 
attempted to convert to not-for-profit status or have been acquired by 
public universities, such as the University of Arizona's acquisitions 
of Ashford University, Purdue University's acquisition of Kaplan 
University, and the University of Idaho's potential acquisition of the 
University of Phoenix. These for-profit colleges seek nonprofit status 
or acquisition by a public university in an effort to avoid the stigma 
associated with the predatory for-profit college industry and to avoid 
regulations meant to protect students and taxpayers.
    Please provide a list of all for-profit conversions in the last 10 
years, including those pending (with current status), previously 
approved, and denied or withdrawn.
    Answer. An Excel file providing the requested information is 
enclosed. As of Jan. 1, 2013, there were 78 applications for a for-
profit to nonprofit conversion that were pending, previously approved, 
denied, or withdrawn. Since our last report, two more applications were 
received from for-profit institutions requesting recognition as 
nonprofit institutions. None were removed due to aging.
    [The Department provided the attachment to the Committee.]
    Of those 78 applications, the Department has made final decisions 
on 40 conversion requests as of June 8, 2023. Of those 40 decisions, 37 
conversion requests were approved.\*\ The Department denied Argosy 
University's request for nonprofit recognition and denied Argosy's 
continued participation in the Title IV, HEA programs. 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, which allowed those 
institutions to continue to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs 
as proprietary institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \*\ 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. In late July 2021, CEHE made the decision 
to close its remaining campuses effective Aug. 1, 2021. Additionally, 
one approved CIO transaction involving Kaplan University and Purdue 
University resulted in Kaplan University's conversion to a public 
institution status rather than to a nonprofit institution status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regarding the remaining 38 applications that do not have an issued 
agency decision, 20 applications (including pre-acquisition review 
applications) did not require a final agency decision because the 
applicant institutions either closed or voluntarily withdrew their 
applications while the applications were under review. Consequently, 
there are 18 conversion applications pending a decision by the 
Department.
    Your office may notice that the report does not include prospective 
transactions for the University of Phoenix (UoP). While UoP's 
prospective transactions with the University of Arkansas and the 
University of Idaho have been included in recent media coverage, UoP 
did not submit an application for its now-abandoned prospective 
transaction with the University of Arkansas, and UoP has not yet 
submitted an application regarding its prospective transaction 
involving the University of Idaho.
    Question. How does the Department determine whether a school is 
able to move from for-profit status to nonprofit status?
    Answer. The Department performs a rigorous case-specific 
substantive analysis for each for-profit institution that requests 
approval to be recognized as a nonprofit institution. The Department 
refers your office to the attached ``Report to Congress on Proprietary 
Institution Conversions,'' dated May 27, 2021, which describes the 
process the Department uses to evaluate for-profit conversion requests. 
Copies of the report were provided to the Chairs and Ranking Members of 
the Department's authorizing committees and to the appropriations 
committees of the U.S. Senate and of the U.S. House of Representatives.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Starting September 15, 2022, the Department discontinued the 
Comprehensive Pre-Acquisition Review process described in the May 27, 
2021, ``Report to Congress on Proprietary Institution Conversions.'' 
Additional information regarding the change is described in the 
following Electronic Announcement:
    https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-
announcements/2022-09-15/updated-guidance-and-procedures-changes-
ownership.
    The Department has not always approved nonprofit recognition 
requests from institutions that have received a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt 
status from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or have received 
recognition as a nonprofit institution by other entities. The 
Department has so far successfully defended in Federal court its 
authority to issue a nonprofit institution determination that is 
distinct from and may differ from determinations made by other 
entities, including an IRS decision to issue a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt 
designation.
    The Department has a small team that invests a tremendous amount of 
time in analyzing highly complex proprietary conversion transactions.
    For instance, when Grand Canyon University (GCU) requested 
recognition as a nonprofit institution, the Department performed a 
rigorous, case-specific substantive analysis of the transaction which 
supported an 18-page decision letter issued to GCU on November 6, 2019, 
denying its request for recognition as a nonprofit institution.
    When GCU submitted to the Department potential modified terms and 
additional documentation for the transaction with its request for 
reconsideration of the November 2019 decision, the Department completed 
a new, rigorous case-specific analysis to examine the proposals. The 
second analysis led to the production of a 19-page reconsideration 
decision letter issued to GCU on January 12, 2021, indicating that 
GCU's potential modifications would not meet the Department's nonprofit 
institution definition.
    Shortly thereafter, GCU filed suit to overturn the Department's 
decision in U.S. District Court. The U.S. District Court, ruling in the 
Department's favor on December 1, 2022, concluded ``[t]he record and 
law reflect that the [Department] has authority to determine whether an 
institution qualifies as a nonprofit under Title IV.''
    Copies of the Department's November 6, 2019 letter to GCU, the 
Department's January 12, 2021 letter to GCU, and the U.S. District 
Court's December 1, 2022 decision are attached for your office's 
reference.
    Further, last fall, the Department issued final regulations that 
created new accountability rules for colleges and universities 
undergoing changes in ownership.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Question. How will the new gainful employment rule apply to for-
profit colleges that have successfully converted for nonprofit 
institutions or were acquired by public universities?
    Answer. The Department's proposed regulations, published May 19, 
2023, would reinstate the Gainful Employment (GE) requirements for GE 
programs, which include practically all programs at for-profit colleges 
and non-degree programs that lead to a recognized credential at all 
colleges. These requirements would establish a debt-to- earnings metric 
and an earnings premium metric and would end the eligibility of GE 
programs that fail one of those rates for two out of three consecutive 
years.
    The proposed regulations would also establish Financial 
Transparency requirements to calculate the same metrics for non-GE 
programs--generally degree programs at public and non-profit 
institutions--which would then be provided to the public and current 
and prospective students to apprise them of those outcomes along with 
better information about program price. Non-GE programs would not be 
subject to loss of program eligibility if they fail either metric.
    The same proposed regulations would also adjust the treatment of a 
for-profit institution that converts to nonprofit status. We propose 
that such an institution would still be subject to the 90/10 and 
gainful requirements until the Department has received and reviewed two 
audits that cover two complete and consecutive fiscal years under the 
new ownership or until the conversion is approved, whichever is later.
    Question. During the Obama Administration, former Secretary Arne 
Duncan created a Federal interagency task force to coordinate oversight 
and enforcement efforts related to for-profit colleges. The task force 
was based on a bill that I introduced called the Proprietary 
Interagency Education Oversight Coordination Improvement Act (S. 5155, 
117th Congress). 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. The Department has expressed deep interest in strengthening 
oversight and accountability for higher education institutions, 
including for-profit colleges.
    Would the Department consider recreating an interagency task force?
    Answer. Strengthening school oversight and accountability continues 
to be a focus at the Department. This important work is most 
effectively accomplished by working closely with other key parties that 
investigate institutions. The Department has continued to strengthen 
relationships both with other Federal agencies, as well as with state 
attorneys general. For example, we reinvigorated the Principles of 
Excellence work in which the Departments of Education, Defense, and 
Veterans Affairs, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
collaborate on issues affecting veteran and military students. In 
addition, through the work of FSA's reestablished Enforcement Office, 
we have strengthened relationships with other state and Federal 
partners to identify and take action against schools that fail to put 
their students' interests first. We will keep this recommendation in 
mind as we continue to explore opportunities to support more effective 
collaboration across the Federal government on these important issues.
    Question. What resources would the Department need to implement 
this task-force?
    Answer. As noted above, the Department will continue to consider 
such a task force, as well as the resources that may be necessary to 
implement it.
    Question. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 President's Budget Request 
includes $500M for free community college for students enrolled in 
programs that lead to four-year degrees or ``good-paying jobs.'' I have 
been supportive of making higher education more affordable and 
accessible. At the same time, it is important that the Federal 
government uses taxpayer dollars responsibly by investing in high-
quality programs.
    What is the Department's plan to ensure that the institutions of 
higher education are high-quality?
    Answer. There are many dimensions of what constitutes quality in 
postsecondary education. The Department's focus is on ensuring that 
students get a reasonable financial return on their investments from 
the Federal student aid programs. For example, we have proposed new 
regulations that would require career training programs to show that 
they meet a minimum standard of debt relative to earnings and also have 
earnings that exceed those of a with only a high school diploma in the 
same state. We have also proposed requiring students to acknowledge key 
information on program outcomes and costs before receiving aid to 
attend a program with a high debt-to-earnings ratio. Finally, the 
Department has announced it will separately identify the programs that 
provide the least- financial value and ask institutions offering those 
programs to submit a plan to improve their outcomes. The Department 
would seek to incorporate best practices learned from these efforts in 
developing quality measures in the Accelerated Success: Free Community 
College program and we look forward to working with Congress to further 
refine the details of this proposal.
    Question. What metrics will the Department use to determine whether 
a community college leads to a four-year degree or a good-paying job?
    Answer. As noted in the answer to (a), the Department's focus is on 
ensuring reasonable financial returns to postsecondary programs, and we 
will continue to support community college success.
    Question. Over the last five fiscal years, this Subcommittee--with 
the support of Chair Baldwin and Ranking Member Capito--has provided 
$47 million for an Open Textbook Pilot to expand the use of open 
textbooks on college campuses and 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 do not purchase required 
course materials because they are too costly, which affects student 
outcomes. The College Board estimates that the average student budget 
at a four-year public institution of higher education for books and 
supplies was $1,240 during the 2022-2023 academic year. These costs 
disproportionately affect low-income, first-generation, and students of 
color. In 2023, the Department made two new awards with its FY 2022 
appropriation. Using FY 2022 funds, the Department also fully funded 
the nine additional FY 2021 awardees. Research shows that projects 
supported by the grant program are estimated to save students $250 
million.
    Given the initial success of the pilot program, will the Department 
consider requesting funding for the Open Textbook Pilot in the FY 2025 
President's Budget Request?
    Answer. The Open Textbooks Pilot (OTP) program received $12 million 
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, an increase of $1 million 
over the prior year. The Department has already made one new FY 2023 
award from the FY 2022 grant slate and anticipates making five 
additional awards through an FY 2023 competition. From FY 2018 to FY 
2022, the Department has made grant awards to 18 projects that engage 
and support 394 consortium partners at institutions of higher education 
in building and expanding open educational resources and infrastructure 
to address student affordability, equity, and access to education. As 
we build upon these investments and develop the FY 2025 President's 
Budget Request, the Department will continue to support efforts to 
increase affordable and equitable access to quality open educational 
resources for all students.
    Question. What other activities is the Department undertaking to 
promote the use of open textbooks and open educational resources to 
save students money?
    Answer. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that President 
Biden signed into law in November 2021 codified a definition of digital 
equity and digital inclusion. Digital inclusion includes access to 
connectivity and devices, instructional materials, and digital 
literacy. The Department's Office of Educational Technology adopted 
digital inclusion as one of their office priorities with these three 
elements as focal areas in which open educational resources are 
included as part of access to instructional materials. (https://
tech.ed.gov/priorities/).
    The Department believes that high-quality educational opportunities 
should be available to all learners. Creating an open education 
ecosystem involves making learning materials, data, and educational 
opportunities available without restrictions imposed by copyright laws, 
access barriers, or exclusive proprietary systems that lack 
interoperability and limit the free exchange of information. In support 
of promoting the use of open educational resources, the Department's 
Open Licensing Requirement (2 C.F.R. 3474.20) went into effect on May 
27, 2017, and was fully implemented in fiscal year 2018. The 
requirement requires grantees of the Department's competitive grant 
programs, with certain exceptions, to openly license copyrightable 
grant deliverables created with grant funds and to publicly disseminate 
the products developed with grant funds. This requirement significantly 
enhances dissemination of valuable educational resources, including 
online courses and modular digital textbooks, and provides stakeholders 
with greater access to use, reuse, and modify these deliverables, 
making it easier for education stakeholders such as SEAs, LEAs, IHEs, 
teachers, and students, to benefit from Department-funded learning 
materials while reducing out-of-pocket costs for students.
    The Office of Educational Technology is providing technical 
assistance to all Department offices and program officers to build 
their knowledge of open education and open licensing and ensure the 
Open Licensing Requirement is met by all grantees.
    As part of guidance on HEERF use issued in January 2022, the 
Department made clear that colleges could use these emergency funds to 
support OER programs. We offered an example of Chippewa Valley 
Technical College, an Open Textbook Pilot grantee, who used HEERF to 
expand their offerings of free textbooks and supplemental materials for 
nursing students.
    On top of these policies, senior officials have also discussed open 
textbooks in their travels. In 2022, Under Secretary James Kvaal 
visited Rice University's OpenStax, a leading publisher of open 
textbooks and Open Textbook Pilot grantee. In 2023, Secretary Miguel 
Cardona met with the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education's 
Student Advisory Council to discuss student basic needs and their 
advocacy to promote open textbook on their campuses.
    Question. The National Student Legal Defense Network recently 
released an analysis identifying a potential loophole in Federal 
regulations that makes it harder for students to take advantage of 
cost-saving alternatives like used books and open educational 
resources. What is the Department doing to look into this potential 
loophole and ensure that students are protected from being overcharged 
for their textbooks?
    Answer. In April 2023, the Department announced public listening 
sessions and a public comment period on potential issues for future 
rulemaking sessions. One of the topics suggested by the Department for 
consideration was the issue of cash management to address disbursement 
of student funds. We are reviewing the public comments.
    Question. I applaud the Department's recent efforts to provide 
student loan debt relief to borrowers who were defrauded by predatory 
for-profit colleges, including the Department's enforcement action to 
revoke Title IV funds from Florida Career Colleges (FCC), a for-profit 
college with a history of poor student outcomes. The Department's plan 
to impose conditions on FCC through a Provisional Program Participation 
Agreement (PPA), including a prohibition on enrolling new students 
under the Title IV program, are welcome. A critical next step is to 
continue to use the PPA to end this predatory behavior by terminating 
fraudulent schools from Title IV student aid. Colleges that meet Title 
IV standards enter into a PPA. The Department can terminate a school's 
participation in Title IV when it applies for recertification or when a 
school is out of compliance with its PPA. If a school falls short of 
the Department's eligibility requirements, but the Department 
determines the school is capable of coming into compliance within a 
short period, the Department may grant the school a Provisional PPA. 
Provisional PPAs can be revoked by the Department when an institution 
is unwilling or unable to correct deficiencies and fully meet 
requirements. Additionally, Temporary Provisional PPAs allow schools 
that have expired PPAs or are experiencing a change in ownership and 
control and who have submitted recertification applications to receive 
month-to- month access to Title IV funds while the Department considers 
the school's renewal application. Hundreds of schools currently are 
languishing in this limbo status, including schools with a history of 
misconduct. The Department has been reluctant to revoke provisional 
PPAs--and in some cases has even renewed provisional PPAs for schools 
that have failed to show improvements--for troubled schools or to use 
its authority to impose and enforce conditions on schools with 
compliance issues. The Department also has permitted schools to 
continue to receive Title IV funds for months or even years while in 
expired status.
    What actions does the Department plan to take to hold schools that 
are in expired or Temporary Provisional PPA certification status 
accountable and stop them from receiving Title IV Federal student aid?
    Answer. The Department welcomes the opportunity to clarify the 
eligibility and certification status of institutions that continue to 
participate in the Title IV, HEA programs under expired Program 
Participation Agreements (PPAs) or under Temporary Provisional PPAs 
(TPPPAs). Institutions that continue to participate under expired PPAs 
or TPPPAs have been certified to participate in the Title IV, HEA 
programs and timely submitted new applications for renewed 
certification. These new applications may be pending with the 
Department for any number of possible reasons. While the participating 
institution's application for renewal is pending, its prior eligibility 
and certification status remains intact until the Department finalizes 
its review of and determination on the new application. Consequently, 
an institution that continues to participate under an expired PPA or 
TPPPA remains authorized to award and disburse Title IV, HEA program 
funds to its otherwise eligible students in accordance with the 
Department's longstanding regulations (described below). These 
regulations help to ensure that a participating school's students do 
not experience any unnecessary financial hardships or disruptions in 
their educational journeys that would arise if the school could not 
disburse Title IV, HEA program funds to its otherwise eligible students 
while the Department finalizes a review of the institution's pending 
renewal application.
    The Department's regulations at 34 C.F.R. Sec. 668.13(b) provide 
that if an institution has submitted an application for a renewal of 
certification that is materially complete at least 90 days prior to the 
expiration of its current period of participation, its existing 
certification will be extended on a month to month basis following the 
expiration of the institution's period of participation until the end 
of the month in which the Secretary issues a decision on the 
application for recertification.
    In the case of a change in ownership resulting in a change in 
control, the Department's regulations at 34 C.F.R. Sec. 600.20(g) 
provide that an institution may apply for a provisional extension of 
certification following the change in ownership, while 34 C.F.R. 
Sec. 600.20(h) defines the conditions under which such an institution's 
participation may be extended through a TPPPA.
    Once the Department completes its evaluation of the application for 
a school, it may be fully or provisionally certified, or the 
application may be denied. If an institution's application is denied, 
the Department's regulation state that the institution loses 
eligibility to participate in the Title IV programs at the end of the 
month in which the Department issues its decision to the school. A 
school has an opportunity to submit a reconsideration request in 
response to a denial.
    Please also see our response to question (f), which discusses how 
the Department's recently proposed regulations would address many of 
these issues.
    Question. Please provide a list of institutions with PPAs that were 
terminated within the last 5 years, either during the term of the PPAs 
or at recertification:
    Answer. An Excel spreadsheet providing the requested data for 14b-e 
and 14h is enclosed.
    [The Department provided the attachment to the Committee.]
    Question. Please provide a list of institutions with Provisional 
PPAs or Temporary Provisional PPAs that were terminated or revoked 
within the last 5 years.
    Answer. Please see Excel spreadsheet referenced in 14b.
    [The Department provided the attachment to the Committee.]
    Question. Please provide a list of institutions that have received 
Title IV funds while in expired or Temporary Provisional PPA 
certification status within the last 5 years. For each institution, 
please indicate how long the institution received Title IV funds while 
in expired or Temporary Provisional PPA certification status.
    Answer. Please see Excel spreadsheet referenced in 14b.
    [The Department provided the attachment to the Committee.]
    Question. Please provide a list of schools that have had 
Provisional PPAs renewed multiple times within the last 5 years. For 
each institution, please indicate how long the institution has remained 
in provisional certification status and the compliance problem that led 
to its provisional status.
    Answer. Please see Excel spreadsheet referenced in 14b.
    [The Department provided the attachment to the Committee.]
    Question. Please describe the Department's procedures for 
evaluating eligibility for certification and recertification, including 
whether such review involves the following: review of consumer 
complaints or reports from whistleblowers; identification and review of 
adverse actions by regulators, including investigations or enforcement 
actions by state attorney generals' offices, other state agencies, or 
Federal agencies; identification and review of adverse actions by 
accreditors; identification and review of consumer class actions 
alleging violations of consumer protection laws; review of marketing or 
advertising materials, including third-party materials; and training 
for reviewers in what constitutes a misrepresentation.
    Answer. The Department's certification procedures are governed by 
the Department's regulations at 34 C.F.R. Sec. 668.13. The Secretary 
certifies an institution to participate in the Title IV, HEA programs 
if the institution qualifies as an eligible institution under 34 CFR 
Part 600, if it meets the standards of this subpart and 34 CFR Part 
668, Subpart L, and if it satisfies other relevant requirements.
    The Department recently released a packages of proposed regulations 
titled ``Financial Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (GE), 
Financial Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification 
Procedures, Ability to Benefit (ATB).'' See 88 Fed. Reg. 32,300-32,511 
(May 19, 2023). The draft rules propose to expand the Department's 
authority to address many of the issues raised in your question.
    These proposed rules would allow the Department to impose 
additional PPA requirements and conditions on provisional PPAs to 
mitigate many of the risks identified in your question. As an example, 
the Department is proposing to amend the PPA regulations at 34 C.F.R. 
Sec. 668.14 to enable the Department to require a provisionally 
certified institution to hire a monitor and to submit marketing and 
other recruiting materials (e.g., call scripts) for the review and 
approval by the Secretary if an institution is alleged or found to 
have: engaged in misrepresentations to students, engaged in aggressive 
recruiting practices, or violated incentive compensation rules. The 
draft rules also propose to amend the PPA regulations to ensure that a 
school complies with all State consumer protection laws related to 
closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations, including both generally 
applicable State laws and those specific to educational institutions. 
Additionally, the draft rules propose to amend the PPA regulations to 
require that a school authorize the Secretary to share information with 
an expanded set of oversight partners --including additional Federal 
agencies and State attorneys general. This includes information 
pertaining to the institution's eligibility for or participation in the 
Title IV, HEA programs, as well as any information related to fraud, 
abuse, or other violations of law.
    The Department has also proposed rules that would specify that an 
institution will not be considered administratively capable under 34 
C.F.R. Sec. 668.16 if the school engages in misrepresentations or if it 
uses aggressive and deceptive recruitment tactics or conduct. Likewise, 
a school would not be considered administratively capable if it has 
been subject to a significant negative action or a finding by a state 
or Federal agency, a court, or an accrediting agency where the basis of 
the action is repeated or unresolved, such as non- compliance with a 
prior enforcement order or supervisory directive. Similarly, an 
institution that has lost eligibility to participate in another Federal 
educational assistance program due to an administrative action against 
the institution would not be considered administratively capable.
    Additionally, the Department is proposing to amend financial 
responsibility requirements to add new triggering events and link 
triggering events more closely to requirements proposed to be included 
the Department's certification procedures regulations. For instance, 
the Department is proposing rules that would require a school's 
certification to become provisional upon a notification from the 
Secretary if the school experiences a mandatory or discretionary 
financial responsibility triggering event and, as a result, the 
Secretary requires the school to post financial protection. For 
example, the Department has proposed establishing a triggering event 
that would be triggered when a school's accrediting agency or a 
Federal, state, local or tribal authority places a school on probation 
or issues a show-cause order or places the institution in a comparable 
status that poses an equivalent or greater risk to its accreditation, 
authorization, or eligibility. Another proposed triggering event would 
occur when an institution loses eligibility to participate in another 
Federal educational assistance program due to an administrative action 
against the school. In these cases, the school's certification would 
become ``provisional'' if the institution was participating under an 
unrestricted PPA.
    The Department is currently reviewing public comments.
    Question. Please describe the Department's procedures for 
monitoring institutions' compliance with conditions in PPAs and 
Provisional PPAs.
    Answer. By entering into a PPA, an institution agrees that it will 
comply with all statutory provisions of or applicable to Title IV of 
the HEA, all applicable regulatory provisions prescribed under that 
statutory authority, and all applicable special arrangements, 
agreements, and limitations entered into under the authority of 
statutes applicable to Title IV of the HEA, including the requirement 
that the institution will use funds it receives under any Title IV, HEA 
program and any interest or other earnings thereon, solely for the 
purposes specified in and in accordance with that program. See 34 
C.F.R. Sec. 668.14(b)(1). The Department therefore relies upon an 
expansive set of monitoring tools including Title IV compliance audit 
reviews and resolutions, institution financial health ratio analyses, 
Title IV program reviews, periodic financial reporting reviews, and 
policy and procedures reviews to ensure school compliance with the 
expansive set of PPA requirements.
    Question. Please provide a list of institutions that were 
identified as out of compliance with a condition of their PPA or 
Provisional PPA within the last 5 years. For each institution, please 
describe the actions taken by the Department, if any, to address the 
noncompliance issue.
    Answer. Please see Excel spreadsheet referenced in 14b.
    Question. Does the Federal Student Aid Office of Enforcement 
coordinate and share information with the offices at the Department 
that handle Title IV certification and program review?
    Answer. Yes, FSA's Office of Enforcement provides information of 
which it is aware about schools to other offices that handle Title IV 
certification and program reviews, both within FSA and the Department.
    Question. Last October, I and other Members of Congress wrote to 
the Department, urging it use its authority under 20 U.S.C. 1009c(e) to 
hold owners and executives of predatory for-profit colleges personally, 
financially accountable for scamming students. The Department came out 
with guidance in March addressing the Secretary's authority to hold 
owners and executives personally liable, stating that the Secretary 
cannot use the personal liability authority retroactively if the owner 
or executive did not sign the PPA.
    Since the Secretary's authority to invoke personal liability is 
only forward looking, the Department cannot hold FCC's owners and 
executives personally liable per their previous PPA; however, since the 
Department is granting FCC a conditional PPA on a month-to-month basis, 
is the Department asking FCC owners and executives to sign the 
conditional PPA so that they could potentially be held personally 
liable? If not, can the Department please provide the reasoning not to 
ask FCC owners and executives sign the conditional PPA?
    Answer. As noted above, the Department's regulations at 34 C.F.R. 
Sec. 668.13(b) provide that if an institution has submitted an 
application for a renewal of certification that is materially complete 
at least 90 days prior to the expiration of its current period of 
participation, its existing certification will be extended on a month 
to month basis following the expiration of the institution's period of 
participation until the end of the month in which the Secretary issues 
a decision on the application for recertification. Florida Career 
College (FCC) submitted a materially complete application for renewal 
of certification more than 90 days prior to the expiration of its PPA 
on September 30, 2022. FCC therefore continued its participation on a 
month to month basis in accordance with the Department's regulations 
until the Department issued its decision on the recertification 
application.
    On April 11, 2023, the Department denied FCC's recertification 
application. Please be aware that FCC has requested the Department's 
reconsideration of this decision, and submitted a lengthy 
reconsideration request on or about May 25, 2023. The Department is 
currently reviewing that request.
    The Department appreciates the opportunity to clarify for your 
office that FCC was not granted a conditional PPA. On April 19, 2023, 
the Department entered into an ``Agreement for Limited Continuation of 
Program Participation'' negotiated by Federal Student Aid's Office of 
Enforcement on behalf of the Department, which provides that the 
Department will defer the effective date of the denial of 
recertification to a date no later than January 31, 2024. The 
``Agreement for Limited Continuation of Program Participation'' 
contains protections for the Title IV program, including a requirement 
that the school continue on HCM2 so that the Department may review each 
claim for payment, as well as a financial protection in the form of a 
Letter of Credit or cash escrow in the amount of $6,015,824. In 
offering that Agreement, the Department focused on maximizing options 
and choices for FCC's current students. Although the Department did not 
require the owners or executives to personally sign the agreement, the 
Department required authorized representatives of FCC's corporate 
owners, IEC US Holdings, Inc., and IEC Corporation, to co-sign the 
agreement. A copy of the ``Agreement for Limited Continuation of 
Program Participation'' is attached.
    FCC Agreement for Limited Continuation of Program Participation 
2023.4.19 (003).pdf
    Question. Please outline the circumstances or criteria the 
Department will use to determine whether owners and executives should 
sign a PPA that could provide authority in the future to hold them 
personally liable.
    Answer. On March 1, 2023, the Department issued guidance that 
clarified how it will implement Section 498(e) of the Higher Education 
Act, which specifies that the Department may require individuals who 
exert significant control at private institutions to assume personal 
liability. The Department anticipates it is most likely to require an 
individual to assume personal liability on behalf of the institutions 
or groups of affiliated institutions that pose the largest financial 
risk to the United States, including institutions that annually receive 
tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars of Title IV funds and 
institutions with the most serious and significant sets of concerns 
related to their compliance with Federal financial aid rules.
    To help the public understand the Department's decisionmaking 
process, the guidance includes a non-exhaustive list of factors the 
Department may consider when determining whether to pursue personal 
liability. These include:
  --Civil or criminal lawsuits, settlements, or disciplinary or legal 
        actions by the Department or other state or Federal agencies 
        involving Federal student aid or claims of dishonesty, fraud, 
        misrepresentation, consumer harm, or financial malfeasance.
  --Significant compliance issues, such as findings stemming from 
        program reviews or audits, unpaid liabilities from either of 
        those processes, or findings of a lack of administrative 
        capability.
  --An executive compensation or a bonus structure that could 
        significantly affect the financial health of the institution.
    Additional factors and preconditions are delineated in the 
Department's March 1, 2023 Electronic Announcement (GENERAL-23-11) 
``Establishing Personal Liability Requirements for Financial Losses 
Related to the Title IV Programs'' which is accessible at the following 
URL: https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-
announcements/2023-03-01/establishing-personal-liability-requirements-
financial-losses-related-title-iv-programs.
    The Department will consider these factors when assessing 
institutions that have demonstrated certain statutory indicators of 
financial risk, such as significant audit findings, or failing to meet 
financial responsibility requirements.
    Going forward, the Department will generally begin making 
determinations on a case-by- case basis about whether it will require 
individuals to assume personal liability when their institution's 
program participation agreement is up for renewal or if they undergo a 
change in ownership. There also may be instances in which the 
Department accepts other financial protections to minimize the risk of 
financial losses in lieu of the signature.
    Question. Last October, the Department found a major accreditor, 
the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), out of 
compliance with regulations and asked it to respond to concerns about 
SACS' oversight of conflict of interest and tax issues surrounding the 
conversion of Keiser University (Keiser) to nonprofit status. Keiser 
has engaged in troubling conduct with respect to this conversion, which 
has allowed the Keiser family to reap millions in income from the 
school while operating as a nonprofit. Keiser recruiting practices also 
have raised concerns and resulted in law enforcement settlements. This 
year, Keiser sought emergency relief to stop students who say they were 
defrauded, including former Keiser students, from getting debt relief.
    Does the Department plan to hold SACS accountable for lax oversight 
of Keiser University?
    Answer. As noted in your question, on November 7, 2022, the Senior 
Department Official (SDO) sent a letter to the Southern Association of 
Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges (SACS) requiring SACS to 
re-review the for-profit to non-profit conversion of Keiser University. 
The SDO has required that SACS provide information regarding the 
conversion in the compliance report, which must be submitted to the 
Department on or before December 7, 2023, and address all of the 
noncompliant issues noted in the November 7, 2022, SDO decision letter. 
Once the compliance report is submitted, the Accreditation Group will 
conduct its review of the compliance report and the additional 
information regarding the conversion and possible conflicts of 
interest.
    Question. Will the Department hold Keiser University accountable 
directly?
    Answer. In instances where an institution's nonprofit status is 
called into question by credible reports that a nonprofit institution 
may be allowing some part of its net earnings to benefit a private 
shareholder or individual, the Department will review those concerns in 
depth during the institution's next recertification cycle.
    As noted in a response above to a different question, the 
Department recently released a proposed rule package titled ``Financial 
Value Transparency and Gainful Employment (GE), Financial 
Responsibility, Administrative Capability, Certification Procedures, 
Ability to Benefit (ATB).'' See 88 Fed. Reg. 32,300-32,511 (May 19, 
2023). These draft rules would expand the Department's authority to 
consider additional factors, including those that would address the 
issues raised by your question. For example, the draft rules would 
provide for additional oversight of an institution's marketing and 
other recruiting materials in certain circumstances and better ensure 
institutional compliance with all State consumer protection laws 
related to closure, recruitment, and misrepresentations.
    Your question observes that Keiser University sought emergency 
relief in the courts this year. The Department fully respects the right 
of any institution to file a lawsuit, intervene in a lawsuit, and to 
defend itself in lawsuit.
    Question. Investments in early childhood education have received 
bipartisan support for laying the foundation to ensure all children 
have the opportunity for success in school and life, while allowing 
parents to work and pursue greater economic security. Additionally, 
building strong Pre-K to grade three programming can improve school 
readiness and ensure children transition successfully from the early 
education system to elementary school. The FY 2024 President's Budget 
Request includes $500 million for a Preschool Incentive Demonstration 
Program, which would incentivize school districts to establish or 
expand high-quality preschool in school and community-based settings 
for children eligible to attend Title I schools.
    How will the proposed program encourage grantees to leverage 
existing Title I funds, along with other Federal, state, and local 
funds, in support of high- quality preschool, while ensuring 
coordination with existing Federal early learning programs?
    Answer. The Preschool Incentive Demonstration Program would support 
LEAs to provide mixed-delivery preschool services by braiding Title I 
and other Federal, state, and local funds to expand access to preschool 
seats for students eligible to attend participating Title I schools. 
Grantees may use funds for activities needed to expand access to high-
quality preschool for 4-year-olds eligible to attend Title I schools, 
either at Title I schools or by partnering with existing early learning 
programs, including Head Start programs, in the community. As required 
by Title I, grantees would be required to meet, at a minimum, the 
education performance standards of the Head Start Program Performance 
Standards, and students must be served by qualified, high-quality 
educators, with appropriate student-teacher ratios. Grantees would be 
expected to use Title I and other Federal funds such as funds from the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Titles II, and III 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and Head Start (where 
Head Start funds are present in the local community served by the LEA 
and where local Head Start partners are available), as well as state 
and local funds, to support preschool expansion. This braiding of funds 
would help grantees leverage the local infrastructure of early 
childhood education as they seek to expand high-quality preschool and, 
as a result, deepen investments in that infrastructure.
    Question. The Biden Administration announced last August that it 
would cancel up to $20,000 in student loans for borrowers under certain 
income thresholds. While I applaud this targeted debt relief and the 
payment pauses on student loans, I am concerned that many students will 
be unprepared to resume payments on October 1, 2023.
    Please detail what the Department's outreach plan will be to 
communicate to students that Federal student loan repayments will be 
resuming in the fall, including when the Department will start 
dispersing communication.
    Please indicate whether the Department will make communication to 
borrowers accessible via email, mail, or another format.
    Please indicate whether the Department will make the notice 
accessible to individuals who may need special accommodations due to 
disabilities and whether the notice will be available in multiple 
languages.
    Answer. On June 30th, the Supreme Court issued a decision 
invalidating the Biden-Harris Administration's student debt- relief 
plan to provide up to $20,000 in one-time relief to more than 40 
million student loan borrowers. Our administration believes the Supreme 
Court's decision was wrong. But President Biden and his Administration 
won't stop fighting to help borrowers get back on their feet. That's 
why the Biden-Harris Administration announced three actions to support 
students and borrowers:
    First, we are taking action aimed at opening an alternative path to 
debt relief for working and middle-class borrowers. We started the 
process to provide relief to as many people as we can, as fast as we 
can, through the rulemaking process. Under the law, this path will take 
time, but we are determined to keep fighting for borrowers and we will 
keep you updated in the months ahead.
    Second, the Administration is implementing the most affordable 
repayment plan ever created, called the Saving on a Valuable Education 
(SAVE) Plan. Later this summer, borrowers will start saving money under 
the new plan, which will cut monthly payments to $0 for millions of 
borrowers making $32,800 or less individually ($67,500 for a borrower 
in a family of four) and save all other borrowers at least $1,000 per 
year. Additionally, it will stop runaway interest that leaves borrowers 
owing more than their initial loan. Eligible borrowers can enroll in 
the REPAYE plan today and the Department will automatically enroll them 
in the SAVE plan and update their monthly payments as the new terms are 
implemented later this summer.
    Third, under legislation enacted by Congress, the student loan 
payment pause is ending. Interest will begin accruing on September 1, 
and payments will be due in October. To help borrowers successfully 
return to repayment, the Department is creating a temporary on-ramp to 
protect borrowers from the worst consequences of missed, late, or 
partial payments, such as negative credit reporting. However, borrowers 
who can make their payments should do so, as interest will be accruing 
as of September 1.
    We have begun communicating with millions of borrowers about these 
actions. Throughout the summer we also will be regularly communicating 
with borrowers, with a particular focus on their unique situation, to 
help them smoothly return to repayment and access resources, programs, 
and options that are the best for them, including our new SAVE income 
driven repayment program.
    FSA will also work with its contractors and outside partners to 
help borrowers navigate their repayment options, including considering 
applying for loan forgiveness if they are eligible, enrolling in 
affordable repayment plans, and enrolling in auto-debt payments. It 
will comply with its standard practices to make its materials 
accessible to borrowers with disabilities and offer translation 
services through its call centers. In the FY 2024 Budget, the President 
has requested additional resources to further FSA's efforts to support 
borrowers through this critical year.
    Question. As the Department revises the Free Application for 
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) following the passage of the FAFSA 
Simplification Act and Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking 
Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act, the release date of the new FAFSA 
is projected to be December 2023. The FAFSA usually is released on 
October 1 and is open through June 30, with roughly half of all 
students completing the FAFSA between October and January. Students use 
information from financial aid packages to weigh their postsecondary 
decisions, which typically are made by May 1.
    With the Department planning a release up to 2 months after the 
usual timeframe, how will the Department ensure that students have the 
necessary information about financial aid packages to make decisions 
about postsecondary pathways?
    Answer. The FUTURE Act and FAFSA Simplification Act require an 
unprecedented update to how students and families apply for student aid 
and how eligibility is determined, giving students a better and simpler 
experience with the FAFSA. As a result of the changes underway, the 
Department of Education will now be able to obtain Federal tax 
information for each applicant, parent, or spouse who provides consent. 
This will greatly reduce the need for verification of income 
information and be particularly helpful for the lowest-income FAFSA 
applicants (i.e., those who are not required to file Federal taxes) and 
other applicants who are not able to use the IRS Data Retrieval Tool. 
In order to implement these changes, we must transition to a 
fundamentally new financial aid system and need analysis formula, and 
FSA and many colleges will need to develop new software to accommodate 
this transition. Our top priority is ensuring a smooth and successful 
transition and minimize the risk of disruptions to the financial aid 
process.
    Despite the later than usual release of the FAFSA, students will 
have ample time to apply for financial aid. The 2024-25 award year 
begins on July 1, 2024, with financial aid offers generally prepared in 
the first quarter of 2024. Financial aid packages are often tentative 
in the fall and revised after January 1 when appropriations are 
finalized and the maximum Pell Grant award is determined. The 
Department will work with our institutional partners to support them in 
providing students sufficient time to assess their aid packages.
    The Department will also launch an enhanced outreach campaign to 
educate stakeholders about the FAFSA changes, raise awareness about the 
new FAFSA experience, and prepare students and families to complete the 
form when it's launched. This outreach will leverage an interactive 
preview of the new FAFSA experience and the updated Federal Student Aid 
Estimator, and will encourage students to complete early steps, such as 
creating an FSA ID, before the new FAFSA goes live.
    The Department will also provide weekly reports to provide states 
and districts with information on how many of their students have 
completed the FAFSA. This will help states, districts and partners step 
up their FAFSA completion efforts before too much time has passed.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
    Question. Mr. Secretary, it's been more than 3 years now that 
student loan borrowers' obligation to make payments has been 
temporarily suspended as a result of the pandemic. You have told me at 
the past two hearings that the Department was committed to providing 
certainty for borrowers over when they would have to resume their 
payments. However, since we spoke last year, the Department has 
extended this payment pause two more times, including an additional 
time after the Department had announced a ``final'' extension that was 
supposed to end at the end of 2022.
    Creating even more confusion, the Department has now set its 
official deadline for the end of the payment pause as: either 60 days 
after the Supreme Court rules on the President's student debt 
cancellation executive order or 60 days after June 30, 2023, whichever 
date comes first. Now, I understand that the Supreme Court's timeline 
and decision is not under the control of the Department, but I am 
concerned that this is a particularly challenging situation for 
borrowers who need certainty over when their payments will resume.
    How is the Department working to ensure that the country's 
approximately 45 million student loan borrowers are adequately prepared 
for the reinstatement of their payment obligations?
    How is the Department working to provide particularly targeted 
support for the four cohorts of new graduates who have never previously 
had to make their monthly payments, who will be entering repayment for 
the first time?
    Answer. On June 30th, the Supreme Court issued a decision 
invalidating the Biden-Harris Administration's student debt- relief 
plan to provide up to $20,000 in one-time relief to more than 40 
million student loan borrowers. Our Administration believes the Supreme 
Court's decision was wrong. But President Biden and his Administration 
won't Stop fighting to help borrowers get back on their feet. That's 
why the Biden-Harris Administration announced three actions to support 
students and borrowers:
    First, we are taking action aimed at opening an alternative path to 
debt relief for working and middle-class borrowers. We started the 
process to provide relief to as many people as we can, as fast as we 
can, through the rulemaking process. Under the law, this path will take 
time, but we are determined to keep fighting for borrowers and we will 
keep you updated in the months ahead.
    Second, the Administration is implementing the most affordable 
repayment plan ever created, called the Saving on a Valuable Education 
(SAVE) Plan. Later this summer, borrowers will start saving money under 
the new plan, which will cut monthly payments to $0 or millions of 
borrowers making $32,800 or less individually ($67,500 for a borrower 
in a family of four) and save all other borrowers at least $1,000 per 
year. Additionally, it will stop runaway interest that leaves borrowers 
owing more than their initial loan even when they keep up with their 
monthly payments. Eligible borrowers can enroll in the REPAYE plan 
today and the Department will automatically enroll them in the SAVE 
plan and update their monthly payments as the new terms are implemented 
later this summer.
    Third, under legislation enacted by Congress, the student loan 
payment pause is ending. Interest will begin accruing on September 1, 
and payments will be due in October. To help borrowers successfully 
return to repayment, the Department is creating a temporary on- ramp to 
protect borrowers from the worst consequences of missed, late, or 
partial payments, such as negative credit reporting. However, borrowers 
who can make their payments should do so, as interest will be accruing 
as of September.
    We have begun communicating with millions of borrowers about these 
actions. Throughout The summer we also will be regularly communicating 
with borrowers, with a particular focus on their unique situation, to 
help them smoothly return to repayment and access resources, programs, 
and options that are the best for them, including our new SAVE income 
driven repayment program. This includes tailored email campaigns to 
help borrowers who entered also work with its contractors and outside 
partners to help borrowers navigate their repayment options, including 
considering applying for loan forgiveness if they are eligible, 
enrolling in affordable repayment plans and enrolling in auto-debt 
payments. In the FY 2024 Budget, the President has requested additional 
resources to further FSA's efforts to support borrowers through this 
critical year.
    Question. I am concerned about the technical and logistical 
challenges facing the Department and its student loan servicers with a 
task of this scale, as well as the potential for financially 
catastrophic consequences to individuals of any errors made by the 
Department or its servicers.
    How is the Department planning to ensure that all student borrower 
accounts are successfully transitioned back into repayment?
    For borrowers who have continued to make payments during the past 3 
years, how is the Department working to ensure these payments are 
successfully reflected in their accounts?
    Answer. As previously mentioned, FSA will work with its contractors 
and outside partners to ensure that borrowers have the most up-to-date, 
accurate information on the status of their loans. This includes 
recommending the most important steps they need to take to prepare for 
the return to repayment, including considering applying for loan 
forgiveness if they are eligible, enrolling in affordable repayment 
plans, and enrolling in auto-debt payments.
    Over the past 3 years, we have strengthened accountability for 
servicer performance including accurate maintenance of borrower 
records--while modernizing our data infrastructure and embedding 
further enhancements in the newly awarded contracts for student loan 
servicing. The new servicing contracts are designed to provide Federal 
student loan borrowers with a high-quality customer experience and to 
deliver support for at-risk borrowers so that all borrowers can take 
advantage of the most affordable ways to repay their loans, avoid 
default, decrease loan errors, and access loan forgiveness, if they are 
eligible for it. Vendor accountability is a central goal of the new 
servicing contracts, which provide rewards for better customer outcomes 
and impose consequences for failing to meet expectations--including 
errors crediting borrower accounts. For example, servicers that keep 
vulnerable borrowers current on their payments will receive a financial 
performance incentive, and FSA will allocate new accounts to servicers 
that have proven they are able to keep borrowers current. Likewise, 
servicers that provide unsatisfactory or untimely service will face 
financial disincentives.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin III
    Question. Secretary Cardona, Department of Education data shows 
that 47 states have reported teacher shortages this school year. The 
nursing shortage has become so acute that in WV 30% of our licensed 
hospital beds are unstaffed. We are experiencing a skilled workforce 
shortage.
    There are currently over 50 student loan repayment and forgiveness 
programs. These include the Public Service Loan Forgiveness, the 
Nursing Education Loan Repayment Program, the Loan Forgiveness Program 
for Teachers, and many more. These programs serve to help attract 
students to work in these skilled professions, some of these programs 
even attract workers to rural and underserved areas who would be 
otherwise unable to hire these workers.
    Secretary Cardona, are you aware of all these programs and the 
importance they play in attracting people to professions like teaching 
and nursing?
    Answer. The Department is aware of how programs that provide debt 
relief for public service make it possible for borrowers to pursue 
these critical careers. The Department has expended significant effort 
in particular at improving the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, 
which Congress created in 2007 as a promise to borrowers. Prior to the 
start of this administration, only a few thousand borrowers had 
received relief from this program, with more than 90 percent of those 
who applied being denied forgiveness. Now, thanks to the limited PSLF 
waiver, the Department has approved nearly $45 billion in relief for 
653,800 borrowers. We have also issued final regulations that will make 
it easier for these borrowers to make progress toward forgiveness in 
the future. Long term, the Department aims to implement data sharing 
agreements with other agencies to help award credit to eligible 
borrowers automatically. In addition, we have worked to implement 
changes to the TEACH Grant program to ensure the next generation of 
teachers can fully benefit from the program and are not mired in red 
tape that could saddle them with additional loan debts. These are just 
a few examples of the many programs that provide critical support to 
student loan borrowers, including those in rural and underserved areas.
    Question. Does the Department of Education provide information to 
students on the availability of these programs?
    Answer. The Department makes borrowers aware of the various loan 
discharge and forgiveness programs it directly manages, including 
Public Service Loan Forgiveness, the TEACH Grant program, and others.
    Question. The Department of Education manages the Gaining Early 
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP. This 
program provides competitive grants to states to help prepare low-
income and first-generation students for post-secondary education 
starting as early as seventh grade. Grant funds may be used to offer 
services to students at high-poverty middle and high schools, such as 
professional development for counselors and instructors, college and 
career planning, counseling and tutoring services to support college 
enrollment.
    In recent GEAR UP grant Competitions, the Department of Education 
disrupted the equitable distribution of funds between states and 
partnerships by not adhering to the legislative distribution formula 
that provides that States and Partnership applicants can each expect to 
receive at least 33% of the new award dollars made in a given 
competition. Through fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023 legislation, we 
have provided congressional directives to ED related to this.
    Secretary Cardona, Will the department adhere to our directives to 
ensure a fair and equitable competition is administered for GEAR UP 
grants in 2024?
    Answer. The Department awards GEAR UP funds consistent with section 
404B(a) of the HEA, which requires the Department to ensure that, of 
the amounts appropriated for GEAR UP, not less than 33 percent will be 
used to fund State grants and not less than 33 percent will be used to 
fund Partnership grants. The Department will continue to comply with 
the statutory requirements when making GEAR UP awards. The Department 
also intends to comply with the directive to ensure that not less than 
33 percent of the new award dollars are allocated to State awards and 
not less than 33 percent of the new award dollars are allocated to 
Partnership awards, to the extent practicable, while still maintaining 
compliance with the statutory requirements.
    Question. The Upward Bound Program is one of eight Federal TRIO 
Programs managed by the Department of Education. Upward Bound programs 
in West Virginia provide both educational and living options for 
students during the summer, which are invaluable experiences for 
students who are interested in pursuing undergraduate or graduate 
degrees, especially because Federal TRIO Programs are designed to 
support students who are low-income or come from disadvantaged 
backgrounds.
    Despite its importance, the Upward Bound grant awards last year 
were released just one week before previous funding was set to expire. 
This caused great uncertainty for not only the programs, but also the 
students who attend them. It is unacceptable that these programs and 
students were caused uncertainty that they would be funded. At a time 
when youth mental health is at an all-time low, students and families 
do not need more stress and anxiety.
    Secretary Cardona, what actions has the Department taken to ensure 
that the grant awards are announced in a timely manner this year?
    Answer. We agree that it is important to ensure that grantees know 
their funding status as soon as possible and we make every effort to 
complete the large and complex Upward Bound grant program actions in a 
timely manner. The Department continues to work to ensure that both new 
and non-competing continuation awards are processed and issued in a 
timely manner. To that end, the Department obligated the FY 2023 Upward 
Bound non-competing continuation awards on May 12, 2023.
    Question. Currently, the Department of Education does not inform 
borrowers on financial information like interest rates and origination 
fees before they take out a student loan. I have introduced legislation 
to improve transparency by directing the Department to develop a 
consumer-tested, plain language disclosure form with easily 
identifiable information about a borrower's student loans. I have also 
introduced legislation that would require lenders to disclose the total 
amount of interest to be paid over the life of a student loan, based on 
a standard 10-year repayment plan.
    When a student is making important decisions regarding whether or 
not to go to college, or which college to attend. It's important that 
they fully understand what loans they are taking out.
    Secretary, will you work with me to pass these pieces of 
legislation and ensure that we are improving student loan literacy of 
all students and their families?
    Answer. I agree that students should have all the information 
necessary when making the decision of whether, and where, to enroll in 
higher education. When students borrow for their education, they must 
complete and sign a Master Promissory Note (MPN), which is a legal 
document in which students promise to repay their loans. The MPN 
explains the terms and conditions of the loans, including the interest 
rate and information on origination fees, late charges, collection 
costs, and more. The MPN also provides information on repayment and 
when a borrower will be considered in default.
    The Department has also created the College Financing Plan, which 
is a consumer tool that participating institutions use to notify 
students about their financial aid package. It is a standardized form 
that is designed to simplify the information that prospective students 
receive about costs and financial aid so that they can easily compare 
institutions and make informed decisions about where to attend school. 
The ``Loan Options'' box on the College Financing Plan includes fields 
for both the interest rate and origination fee of each loan, along with 
an explanation that, for Federal student loans, origination fees are 
deducted from loan proceeds. Furthermore, in October 2021, the office 
of Federal Student Aid issued GEN-DCL-21-70 outlining what institutions 
should include and avoid when presenting students with their financial 
aid offers. This DCL includes guidance to institutions to always 
present grants and scholarship aid separately from loans so that 
students and families are able to understand what they are borrowing. I 
look forward to working with you to ensure that students have the 
necessary and accurate information to make the best higher education 
decisions for themselves.
    Question. The McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and 
Youth program provides critical assistance for community organizations, 
schools, and state agencies to help address the needs of homeless 
children and youth. The West Virginia Department of Education has 
identified more than 9,500 students who experienced homelessness during 
the 2021 school year.
    Secretary, can you share what the Department is doing to support 
homeless youth in West Virginia and across the country?
    Answer. We are pleased to note that the funding for West Virginia 
under the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth 
(EHCY) program increased by more than $116,000 in the past few years, 
from $616,624 in FY2020 to $732,962 in FY2023.
    The Department has a contract for a National Center for Homeless 
Education (NCHE) to provide comprehensive technical assistance and 
implementation support for the McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless 
Children and Youth (EHCY) program for the past 25 years. In FY 2023, 
NCHE has developed many reports, webinars, presentations, and convened 
ad-hoc topical workgroups on American Rescue Plan Homeless Children and 
Youth (ARP-HCY) implementation topics including increasing the 
identification of and serving children and youth experiencing 
homelessness in historically underserved communities; providing wrap-
around services and coordinated referrals and case management through 
school social workers; hiring systems navigators at the State, 
regional, and local levels; collaborating and contracting with 
community-based organizations to provide these services; and preparing 
for sustainability of programs and services when ARP-HCY funds expire 
for use at the end of FY 2024. State Coordinators and local liaisons in 
every school district are the main audiences for this technical 
assistance, including those in West Virginia.
    Furthermore, the Department has commissioned national studies of 
ARP-HCY to be completed in FY 23 and 24, oversees much information 
collection and data analysis annually of homeless student performance 
at the LEA level, and monitors several States per year and asks about 
EHCY and ARP-HCY implementation and program performance.
    Finally, Department and EHCY program staff are active members of 
the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and have supported the 
development and implementation of the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent 
and End Homelessness issued in December 2022, particularly on pillars 
of the plan that focus on equity, use of data, provision of support 
services and prevention of homelessness.
    Question. Secretary Cardona, you will recall on May 19, 2022 I sent 
a letter to your office expressing my serious concerns regarding the 
delay in announcing the grant slate for TRIO's Upward Bound (UB) 
awards. At that time, we were 12 days away from current funding 
expiring. Federal statute (20 USC Sec. 1070a-11(c)(7)) requires the 
Department of Education to make these awards 8 months prior to the 
funding expiration date.
    The Department sent the first award announcements on May 20, 2022, 
for programs that started on June 1, 2022. These institutions had just 
12 days to recruit and hire staff to run new programs. In cases where 
funding was lost, individuals learned of their unemployment with less 
than two weeks' notice.
    It is my understanding that TRIO administrators have urged the 
Department to use these non-competition years (2023 and 2024) to re-
adjust the grant competition schedule in time for the next wave of TRIO 
grant competitions, which will begin with the largest TRIO program--
Student Support Services--in FY2025. By starting the grant competition 
process earlier, the Department can provide sufficient notice to 
programs and institutions.
    I would like to follow up and ask you about the progress on 
updating the schedule of TRIO grant competitions so that applicants 
receive notice in sufficient time to implement their projects and we 
avoid this problem in future competitions.
    Answer. As one of the largest discretionary grant programs in the 
Department, the TRIO program competitions are administratively complex 
and require considerable Department resources to implement. The 
Department recently initiated planning to ensure that the FY 2025 new 
award competitions under TRIO are conducted and issued in a timely 
manner.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
Written Arrangements
    Question. Community and technical colleges that provide 
apprenticeship programs are producing graduates with the necessary 
hands on training as well as professional workplace development that 
will give them an advantage when they enter the workforce. One of my 
local community colleges approached me with concerns about a Dear 
Colleague Letter on written arrangements (GEN-22-07) that would impact 
the college's ability to work with an outside entity and potentially 
jeopardize their ability to operate an apprenticeship program.
    Does the Department take into account the potential impact of their 
policies on small and rural colleges when they are being developed?
    Answer. The Department considers the effects of its policies on 
institutions, including small and rural institutions, while they are 
being developed, as well as the implications for students. In doing so 
we must make sure that institutions follow the requirements of the 
Higher Education Act. This matters both for protecting taxpayer 
investments and ensuring that students are well served by their 
programs and institutions.
Cybersecurity in Schools
    Question. In February 2023, Berkeley County Schools in West 
Virginia had a ransomware attack that took out the entire school 
district's network, and there have been many other reported incidents 
like this across the country. With the rise of similar ransomware 
attacks on our schools.
    How is the Department working with K-12 schools and higher 
education institutions to help schools improve their cybersecurity and 
better protect students, parents, faculty, and staff's private 
information?
    Answer. The Department has engaged in coordination internally and 
across agencies. Regarding K-12 cybersecurity:
  --In 2022, the Department established an intra-agency cybersecurity 
        working group which meets bi-weekly. In response to ransomware 
        attacks, the working group established a ``Cyberhelp'' website 
        highlighting the resources to support school districts in 
        preparing for and responding to cybersecurity incidents.
  --In January 2023, the Department added one career staff member in 
        the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education who is focused 
        on cybersecurity and will facilitate coordination across the 
        Department and the interagency working group. This includes 
        engagement with SEA, ESA, and LEA partners related to the 
        establishment of a formal coordinating mechanism, such as a 
        Government Coordinating Council (GCC) and exploring ways in 
        which the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools 
        Technical Assistance Center can expand its existing 
        cybersecurity training, resource materials and briefs to 
        support schools, school districts and state officials who 
        manage both physical and cyber emergency operations.
  --In September 2022, the Department's Office of Educational 
        Technology hired a Digital Infrastructure Fellow to increase 
        its capacity for formal Federal, state, and local coordination. 
        Interagency coordination with the Cybersecurity and 
        Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Federal Bureau of 
        Investigation (FBI), the National Security Council (NSC), and 
        the Office of the National Cyber Director (ONCD) has led to 
        meaningful support schools related to P-20 cybersecurity 
        including:
    --Webinars and conference sessions that engaged thousands of K-12 
            technology leaders around cybersecurity best practices.
    --The forthcoming publication of the Defensible and Resilient K-12 
            Digital Infrastructure Brief. The Brief, which is co-
            authored by CISA and ED, provides specific, actionable non-
            binding recommendations related to cybersecurity for 
            superintendents, state agency chiefs, and their technology 
            leaders.
  --The Department's Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO), through the 
        Privacy Technical Assistance Center (PTAC), provides student 
        privacy-related TA. SPPO also provides best practice documents 
        and videos on cybersecurity topics such as cybersecurity 
        basics, responding to a data breach, responding to a ransomware 
        attack, cloud computing, data destruction, identity management 
        and authentication, and vetting education technology. In 
        addition, SPPO provides a series of webinars and both regional 
        and national presentations on a variety of data security 
        related topics, such as incident response, access controls, and 
        even a popular hackathon.
      Federal Student Aid has also undertaken work to bolster the 
        cybersecurity efforts of Institutions of Higher Education 
        (IHEs).
  --In February 2023, the Department released Electronic Announcements 
        on the cybersecurity requirement updates under the Gramm-Leach-
        Bliley Act clarifying that institutions need to comply with the 
        requirements of the new FTC regulation, as well as new 
        cybersecurity resources available for institutions.
    In addition, the IHE Team at FSA is available to answer questions 
and further explain all current guidelines, as well as provide direct 
support to schools who are experiencing a cybersecurity issue. The IHE 
team provides information and resources to the higher ed community on a 
very frequent basis, including fact sheets, critical cyber threat 
notifications, and templates for cybersecurity best practices. The IHE 
Quarterly Cybersecurity Newsletter is sent to over 20,000 recipients. 
It contains plain speak explanations of technical requirements, as well 
as free resources from CISA, FBI, and state agencies. FSA has also 
developed and delivered numerous presentations to higher ed leaders, 
financial aid administrators, IT professionals, and support 
organizations (including NASFAA and EDUCAUSE) explaining highly 
technical concepts and requirements as appropriate for the audience.
    The Department plans to release an Electronic Announcement with 
details for partners on consent and access regarding taxpayer data, 
uses of taxpayer data, and safeguarding taxpayer data. We will continue 
to provide support and clear expectations to institutions on how to 
ensure they are protecting these data.
Online Education
    Question. I have heard concerns from colleges that the Department's 
consideration of changes to the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter on the 
incentive compensation prohibition and bundled services exemption would 
impact their ability to offer high quality online programs to students.
    As you consider changing this guidance, have you conducted an 
analysis of the impact of potentially losing programs in critical 
professions?
    Answer. The Department understands that many institutions of higher 
education have entered into contracts that rely on the bundled services 
exception to create and expand online programs. That is why we 
intentionally conducted public hearings and sought public comment to 
make sure we are hearing from all stakeholders on this issue. 
Commenters expressed a wide range of views on the impact of the bundled 
services loophole on institutions' ability to offer online programs. 
The Department is continuing to review the comments received and we 
anticipate soliciting further public input as we consider potential 
changes.
    Question. If so, can you share that analysis with Congress?
    Answer. Our consideration of this issue, including our work to 
better understand the size and scope of the market of programs affected 
by the bundled services exception, is ongoing. These arrangements are 
not currently required to be reported to the Department and are not 
publicly disclosed by the major online program managers.
    Question. If not, will you commit to conducting an analysis on the 
potential impact of the guidance change on school programs related to 
these industries?
    Answer. We are committed to taking a thorough and detailed look at 
the issues related to the bundled services exception.
    Question. The Department has recently released a number of policy 
positions related to online higher education. Quality online higher 
education degree programs provide access to affordable, quality higher 
education options for working adults which is an important priority.
    Did you or your staff meet with colleges that offer quality online 
education programs as part of the process of developing your new policy 
positions around online higher education?
    Answer. The Department has conducted numerous meetings with 
institutions of higher education that offer online programs, the 
companies that manage online programs, and other stakeholders who are 
engaged on this topic.
Integrated Student Supports
    Question. Integrated student supports (ISS) is an important 
strategy that has worked well in West Virginia. ISS has a strong 
evidence base of increasing student achievement and student wellness, 
and ISS meets ESSA's highest tier of evidence-based standards.
    How can school districts leverage various current Federal funding 
sources, including remaining ESSER funding, Title I-A, Title III, and 
Title IV-A, among others, to implement ISS in schools?
    Answer. ESSER funds have broad allowable uses and we have 
encouraged States and local school districts to use funds for evidence-
based strategies, such as integrated student support services. Our 
Frequently Asked Questions document specifically addresses how funds 
can be used in combination with or ``braided with'' other funds in 
order to meet the goals of a community. This document also provides 
many examples of how grantees might use ESSER funding to support 
evidence-based strategies. In addition, the Department published a 
COVID-19 Handbook (updated in August 2021) that specifically identifies 
integrated student supports as an allowable use of funds and a 
reasonable strategy to address the needs of students impacted by the 
pandemic.
    Similar to ESSER, the Title I, Part A (Title I) program provides 
for a broad authority for districts and schools to determine how to use 
their funds. Title I funds must be used to carry out the purpose of 
Title I to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a 
fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational 
achievement gaps. Any use of funds must be consistent with the school's 
overall Title I program. In particular, the activity must help 
facilitate overall purpose of Title I to improve the achievement of 
students who are failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the 
academic content and achievement standards developed by the State. 
Title I funds in a schoolwide program (SWP) school must address the 
specific educational needs of students, particularly the lowest-
achieving students, in the school identified by the needs assessment 
and articulated in the comprehensive plan. Similarly, Title I funds in 
a targeted assistance program (TAP) school must address supplemental 
educational needs of students who are failing, or most at risk of 
failing, to meet the State's academic achievement standards. To the 
extent that ISS activities focus on improving the academic achievement 
of students served by Title I based on needs identified in a SWP school 
or the needs of low-achieving students in a TAP school, it would 
generally be an allowable use of Title I funds to support those 
activities for students served by the program.
    Further, the ESEA authorizes an LEA to use section 1003 school 
improvement funds for any activity that it determines will help a 
school identified for comprehensive support and improvement (CSI), 
targeted support and improvement due to consistently underperforming 
subgroups (TSI), or additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI) 
improve student outcomes. Each CSI, TSI, and ATSI plan must include 
evidence-based interventions and if an LEA uses section 1003 funds to 
support evidence-based interventions, it must be from one of the 
highest three tiers of evidence-based standards.
    Title III, Part A funds must be used for the purpose of providing 
supplemental services that improve the English language proficiency and 
academic achievement of English learners. Title III, Part A funds can 
be used for Integrated Student Supports if the use of funds is 
consistent with these purposes. However, note that Title III, Part A 
prohibits supplanting of other Federal, State, and local funds. In 
general, it is presumed that supplanting has occurred: (1) if the SEA 
or LEA uses Title III funds to provide services that the State 
educational agency (SEA) or LEA was required to make available under 
other laws; or (2) the SEA or LEA uses Title III funds to provide 
services that the SEA or LEA provided with State, local, or other 
Federal funds in the prior year. Therefore, Title III, Part A funds can 
be used for Integrated Student Supports only if the use of funds is 
consistent with the purpose of Title III, is supplemental to the LEA's 
civil rights obligations to ELs under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), and the LEA 
is also using Title III funds to conduct the activities required by 
Title III.
    Under the Title IV-A program, activities that foster safe, healthy, 
supportive, and drug- free environments that support student academic 
achievement are allowable under section 4108. Funds may be used to 
support programs, activities, and professional development and training 
that are cross-cutting in nature and that can promote safe and 
supportive learning environments, including strategies such as 
integrated student services. Integrated student services can provide a 
comprehensive response to children and youth who are experiencing 
serious mental health or behavioral challenges and are typically 
provided as the most intensive and individualized part of a MTSS and 
involve additional community collaborations.
Charter Schools
    Question. My understanding is that the Department's Charter School 
Program staff will not be allowed to travel to the National Charter 
Schools Conference in Austin, TX this June for a technical assistance 
panel due to budget constraints.
    Has the Department considered using technical assistance funds 
under Sec. 4305, which authorizes the Department to ``disseminate 
technical assistance'' to CSP grant recipients to allow staff to travel 
to the conference?
    Answer. Notwithstanding authority to disseminate technical 
assistance, as with most of the Department's programs, Charter Schools 
Program funds may not be used to support travel expenses of Department 
staff.
                                 ______
                                 
               Questions Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
CCP Influence in American Schools, Colleges, and Universities
    Question. The Chinese Communist Party has gained a foothold in our 
schools. For decades, through initiatives such as the PRC's talent 
programs, China has recruited U.S.- based scientists and researchers to 
steal U.S. IP to benefit China's military and economic goals.
    How concerned are you about Chinese theft of American universities' 
IP?
    Answer. We are coordinating closely with the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy on the implementation of National Security 
Presidential Memorandum 33 and various legislated requirements intended 
to deal with the PRC's attempts to illicitly acquire information from 
both the private sector and from academic institutions. It's important 
that we correctly characterize the threat vectors--much of what the PRC 
is targeting through its foreign talent recruitment programs, such as 
the Thousand Talents Program, is pre-publication information. We are 
also closely coordinating with the National Science Foundation on the 
development of the Research Security and Integrity Information Sharing 
and Analysis Organization, or ``Risk Assessment Center'' established by 
the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act, as well as the National 
Counterintelligence Task Force, which will help us better understand 
and characterize the specific threats faced by American academic 
institutions.
    At the same time, we need to be cognizant that as we address the 
threat posed by the PRC that we do not attempt to replicate the 
behavior of the Chinese Communist Party or handicap our ability to 
attract world-leading talent to our academic institutions. More than 
half (55 percent) of American startup companies valued at a billion 
dollars or more are founded by Immigrants as well as 45 percent of 
Fortune 500 companies, and many of those were started by students who 
chose to attend a U.S. university. As the PRC strategy pivots toward 
supporting indigenous innovation, we need to make sure that our 
university system supports strong collaborations and exchanges with our 
allies and partners. That means that the measures that we implement 
need to not inhibit or discourage, but rather intensify the development 
of relationships with trusted institutions, abroad.
    Question. What programs and/or guardrails to combat the CCP's 
influence in our schools have you administered since being confirmed?
    Answer. Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 requires 
institutions of higher education that receive Federal financial 
assistance to timely disclose all required information to the 
Department regarding gifts received from and contracts with a foreign 
source that, alone or combined, are valued at $250,000 or more in a 
calendar year. See 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1011f. This disclosure requirement is 
an important measure in ensuring transparency and identifying financial 
ties between U.S. institutions of higher education and foreign source.
    The Department's statutory duties under Section 117 include 
collecting disclosure reports that institutions are required to file, 
making data publicly available, and monitoring institutions' compliance 
with disclosure requirements. The Department is committed to ensuring 
the robust compliance with Section 117 and is actively engaged with the 
institutions with open investigations and other stakeholders to ensure 
that institutions fully understand and comply with their reporting 
obligations. The Department has reiterated that institutions are 
expected to exercise reasonable due diligence and make a good faith 
effort to determine whether a gift or contract involves an agent acting 
on behalf of a foreign source, which can include an entity or 
individual acting on behalf of a foreign government. It is important 
that foreign governments are not permitted to circumvent the reporting 
requirement by using intermediaries to transfer money, property, or 
other benefits in a manner that would be contrary to the statute's 
broad disclosure mandate and the statutory purpose of transparency with 
regard to gifts from and contracts with foreign sources. No matter the 
level of due diligence conducted, institutions have the ultimate 
responsibility to ensure their compliance with Section 117.
    The Department continues to collaborate with other Federal agencies 
through various interagency initiatives relating to research security 
and foreign malign influence in higher education. Accordingly, the 
Department is exploring ways in which it can deepen its partnerships 
with, and broaden its support to, other Federal agencies to contribute 
toward cross-government efforts in these areas so that we can be better 
understand how foreign funding may aim to undermine U.S. national 
security and academic freedom, diversity and openness on higher 
education campuses. The Department also works with higher education 
institutions and representative groups to provide technical assistance 
on compliance with the law.
    Foreign gifts and contracts reported by institutions of higher 
education under section 117, as well as additional information 
regarding the Department's administration of the statute, is available 
at the Department's section 117 webpage: https://fsapartners.ed.gov/
knowledge-center/topics/section-117-foreign-gift-and-contract-
reporting.
CCP Influence in American Schools, Colleges, and Universities
    Question. There must also be heightened scrutiny of Confucius 
Institutes and their successors, which have been tools of the CCP's 
propaganda efforts in the U.S. The institutes sponsor Confucius 
Classrooms in U.S. primary and secondary schools. Although the number 
of these classrooms has decreased, the National Association of Scholars 
(NAS) has found that some have continued to operate. Additionally, and 
despite the closure of many Confucius Institutes in the U.S. since 
2018, the NAS in March 2023 counted (1) a total of 13 Confucius 
Institutes in the U.S., (2) at least 28 institutions that have replaced 
their closed Confucius Institutes with a similar program, (3) at least 
58 institutions that have maintained close relationships with their 
former Confucius Institute partner, and (4) at least five institutions 
that transferred their Confucius Institutes to a new host.
    a. How concerned are you with the relationships that American 
schools, colleges, and universities have with entities owned, directed, 
controlled, financed, or influenced by the Government of the People's 
Republic of China (PRC) or the CCP?
    b. Does the department track the presence of such entities in 
American schools, colleges, and universities?
    c. Does the department track the relationships that schools, 
colleges, and universities have with such entities?
    d. Does the department track the relationships that school, 
college, and university faculty and staff have with such entities?
    e. Does the department track such entities' ownership of American 
schools, colleges, and universities?
    f. Please provide an update on how the department is enforcing 
reporting requirements under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act.
    g. Have you identified statutory gaps that Congress should consider 
closing in regard to foreign gift and contract reporting?
    h. To what extent has the department analyzed the influence of the 
PRC and CCP on American students?
    i. How concerned are you about the presence of Confucius Institutes 
and their successors in American schools, colleges, and universities?
    j. Do you believe that the benefits of Confucius Institutes' 
language and cultural programs outweigh the costs--such as the 
restraint of academic freedom and interference on academic or 
extracurricular activities and speech?
    k. What additional steps should the Federal Government take to 
protect American students from such entities' influence, surveillance, 
or harassment?
    l. Are you concerned with the influence of other countries of 
concern in our schools, colleges, and universities? If so, please 
elaborate.
    Answer. We are aware of the concerns raised by government 
institutions, including Congress and Members of the law enforcement and 
intelligence communities, with on-going operations posed by the 
operation of ``rebranded'' Confucius Institutes when it comes to 
foreign influence and academic freedom. We remain in close coordination 
with other U.S. government departments and agencies to understand 
trends by foreign countries that could undermine academic freedom, 
diversity and openness in higher education and that may undermine our 
U.S. national security.
Student Loan System
    Question. The Federal Government should not be using taxpayer 
dollars to favor one education path over another, yet that is precisely 
what the Biden Administration's student loan cancellation and pause 
plans do. The administration has wrongfully and unapologetically taken 
steps to cancel Federal student loans for millions of borrowers, which 
has no legal basis, and extend the payment and accrual pause on student 
loans, which is no longer justified. These moves would cost American 
taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.
    Alarmingly, your policies would mean that 85 percent of Americans 
with no undergraduate debt from college--many of whom did not even go 
to college in the first place--would bear the burden of those who do. 
That, Mr. Secretary, is picking favorites. This is politically 
motivated effort at the expense of working-class Americans and the 
modernization of our education system.
    Are you concerned that temporary student debt relief could lead to 
higher overall household debt levels and larger future debt burdens?
    Students from elite institutions owe a disproportionate share of 
student debt. The Brookings Institution discussed that students who 
graduated, or withdrew, in 2017 or 2018 from elite or highly selective 
colleges and graduate programs owed around 12 percent of all student 
debt in those years even though they only 4 percent of all borrowers. 
If the student loan forgiveness policy is not overturned, what will you 
do for students who did not go to elite or highly selective colleges or 
programs?
    Answer. The student debt relief program would have provided 
critical pandemic relief to over 40 million borrowers most at risk of 
delinquency or default when the student loan payment pause ends. These 
borrowers are working and middle-class Americans--nearly 90% of the 
relief would have gone to those earning less than $75,000 per year.
    Bigger picture, the student loan system is broken and it is 
saddling students with unaffordable debt. It's keeping borrowers from 
getting relief that Congress promised them years ago. The broken system 
hurts students by putting them at risk of default and delinquency. And 
it also hurts families and the country too by holding back 
homeownership and opportunity. It undercuts the transformational power 
of colleges to encourage economic mobility. Investments in our higher 
education system and the students and borrowers they serve strengthen 
our country and our society. We all benefit from getting more people to 
and through affordable college. As you note in your question, the vast 
majority of student debt is held by borrowers who did not attend highly 
selective colleges and universities. The Department is fully committed 
to supporting all student loan borrowers.
    The Administration also just finalized regulations creating the 
most affordable repayment plan ever, called the Saving on a Valuable 
Education (SAVE) Plan. Later this summer, borrowers will start saving 
money under the new plan, which will cut monthly payments to $0 for 
millions of borrowers making $32,800 or less ($67,500 for a family of 
four) and save all other borrowers at least $1,000 per year. 
Additionally, it will stop runaway interest that leaves borrowers owing 
more than their initial loan even when they keep up with their monthly 
payments. As detailed at length in the final rule, this new plan is 
focused on helping the most vulnerable borrowers avoid delinquency and 
default.
    Our Administration will continue our important work of making 
college more affordable and accessible for more low-income and working 
American families and making the student loan system more manageable 
for borrowers. Under President Biden's leadership, we have taken 
unprecedented steps toward this goal, including by working with 
Congress to increase Pell Grants by $900, which is the largest increase 
in a decade; taking action to fix a broken Public Service Loan 
Forgiveness program and discharge more than $42 billion in debt so 
public service workers can get the loan relief they were promised; and 
hold colleges accountable when they take advantage of students and 
borrowers.
    Question. Would eliminating accruing interest benefit working-class 
Americans?
    Answer. Yes, borrowers who have the lowest incomes relative to 
their debt payments derive the greatest benefits from this plan. This 
means someone making under $15 an hour will not see their loans grow 
due to runaway interest.
    Question. Would placing borrowers in an income-based repayment plan 
benefit working- class Americans?
    Answer. Yes. The income-driven repayment plan helps borrowers avert 
default and keep their loans manageable. Prior to the pandemic more 
than 1 million borrowers defaulted on their loans each year. These 
borrowers are overwhelmingly those who did not complete their programs 
or earn a degree.
    Question. Do you believe that cost should be one of the main 
considerations when proposing student loan plans?
    Answer. The Department is required to consider the costs of 
proposed regulations compared to their benefits. We only issue 
regulations when we determine that the benefits outweigh the costs.
A Shift from College For All
    Question. Typically, post-secondary education results in higher 
earnings and is a more reliable route to success for the middle class 
compared to immediately entering the workforce after high school. But, 
I think we can both agree that our higher education system is burying 
working families in debt. And, many times, working families take on 
this crippling debt for degrees that do not lead to good-paying jobs. A 
four-year degree does not guarantee a good-paying job nor a stable, 
middle-class job. Thankfully, Americans are increasingly shifting away 
from the ``college-for-all'' mentality and toward the world of options 
that our marketplace provides. And the number of trades in which one 
can find apprenticeships is increasing as well.
    Is improving workforce development, career counseling, or 
employment and training services less of a priority for the 
administration than cancelling student loans?
    Answer. Strengthening the preparation of young people and adults 
for success in postsecondary education and the workforce is central to 
our agenda at the U.S. Department of Education. The Department's 
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2022-2026 includes three related 
strategic objectives that are driving our work:
  --Strategic Objective 1.4: Promote greater access and supports for 
        youth and adults to engage in learning, succeed in 
        postsecondary education, and increase their employability in 
        high-demand occupations.
  --Strategic Objective 4.3: Increase equitable access to secondary and 
        postsecondary programs that have clear on-ramps to both high-
        quality jobs and additional high- quality postsecondary 
        educational opportunities.
  --Strategic Objective 4.4: Improve the alignment across secondary, 
        postsecondary, and career and technical education programs, 
        including through transparent and effective transition 
        processes, inclusive pathways, and clear credentialing 
        requirements.
    Because each program office of the Department plays an important 
role in preparation for postsecondary education and careers, we have an 
intra-agency team that is focused on expanding access to high-quality 
career pathway opportunities that lead to good jobs and the middle 
class. This collaborative effort will leverage each office's expertise, 
resources, and unique perspectives to create more opportunities for 
Americans.
    The Department's leadership also collaborates closely with their 
counterparts at the Departments of Commerce, Labor, Transportation, 
Agriculture, Energy, and other Federal agencies to advance the 
President's Investing in American agenda to prepare and connect more 
Americans with the good jobs that are being created by the American 
Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science 
Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and associated private investments. 
Many of these jobs do not require a four-year degree. This includes an 
intentional focus to support Registered Apprenticeship, career and 
technical education, adult education, and career pathway programs 
starting in high school.
    Question. Outside of requesting more appropriations, do you have 
any plans to shift more of your department's time and resources to 
Career and Technical Education (CTE) or other workforce development 
efforts?
    Answer. In addition to requesting $1.7 billion for Career and 
Technical Education in FY 2024, including increases for State Grants 
and National Programs, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is leading 
Raise the Bar: Unlocking Career Success, an interagency initiative with 
the support of the Departments of Labor (DOL) and Commerce (DOC), to 
reimagine how our nation's high schools prepare all students to thrive 
in their future careers. The initiative highlights four evidence-based 
strategies, or ``keys,'' to career success for young people, with CTE 
as a foundation for this work:
  --Participation in a comprehensive postsecondary education and career 
        navigation system that puts labor market information into the 
        hands of students and their families to make real decisions 
        about their futures; this guidance supports students' career 
        exploration and education planning and provides information and 
        assistance in pursuing further learning after high school.
  --Acquisition of postsecondary credit through dual or concurrent 
        enrollment programs to promote success in postsecondary 
        coursework and give students a head start in earning a 
        postsecondary credential.
  --Participation in work-based learning opportunities--including pre-
        apprenticeship and apprenticeship--for which students receive 
        wages or academic credit, or both.
  --Attainment of an in-demand and high-value industry-recognized 
        credential so that every young person can confidently enter the 
        labor market with real skills that employers need, earn a 
        living wage or more after high school, be able to pursue 
        further education, and live independently.
    In support of the initiative, ED will produce a suite of practical 
tools and resources for stakeholders on college and career readiness; 
create communities of practice to hear directly from the field about 
the challenges and opportunities in advancing college and career 
readiness for students; and hold regional convenings to highlight 
exemplary practices. Through this initiative, we hope to expand 
opportunities for all students to engage in innovative and equitable 
pathways that propel them to rewarding futures.
    Question. What are you doing to ensure that young Americans are 
informed of available career options and are not pressured to pursue 
degrees that are not in their best interests?
    Answer. Raise the Bar: Unlocking Career Success emphasizes that it 
is essential to provide high school students career advising and 
postsecondary navigation supports early and often, informed by accurate 
and up-to-date labor market information, so that every student 
graduates with clear career goals and a plan for achieving them. 
Assistance navigating the complexities of pursuing different types of 
postsecondary learning, such as a high-value industry-recognized 
credential program, Registered Apprenticeship program, and 2- and 4-
year degree programs, is especially important.
    Opportunities for work-based learning, another key to career 
success that we highlight in our initiative, also can help young people 
identify career goals and start building professional networks that 
they can tap after high school. Well-designed internships, pre- 
apprenticeships, and Registered Apprenticeships in which students 
receive one-to-one coaching support from a caring adult and support for 
planning life after high school can have a positive influence on their 
futures, with benefits that can continue well into adulthood. Using 
data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth of 1997 and a 
quasi-experimental research design, researchers found that, for young 
people from low- income backgrounds, participation in work-based 
learning--such as cooperative education, an internship, or Registered 
Apprenticeship--or in an employer mentorship program in high school was 
associated with holding a high-quality job at age 29, as measured by 
wages, benefits, hours, and job satisfaction.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Ross, M., Anderson Moore, K., et al. (2018), Pathways to High 
Quality Jobs for Young Adults. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Policy 
Programs at Brookings and Child Trends. Retrieved from: https://
www.brookings.edu/research/pathways-to-high-quality-jobs-for-young
-adults/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. What are you doing to reverse the ``college-for-all'' 
mentality in the department and in the country more broadly?
    Answer. We have been outspoken about the need to reimagine how we 
prepare young people for the future. Too many students do not take 
advantage of opportunities in high school for career exploration and 
career-connected learning. This leads to students entering 
postsecondary education without clear goals beyond attaining a 
bachelor's degree and without understanding the full array of 
postsecondary opportunities and valuable credentials in the sub-
baccalaureate space.
    The Career Connected High Schools program, for which the Department 
received $25 million in FY 2023, and has requested $200 million in FY 
2024, will demonstrate the value of career-connected, high school 
experiences that are tied to regional economic needs and aligned with 
various types of postsecondary education so that students who do choose 
to pursue a postsecondary credential after high school have a head 
start when they enroll. Funds will build support for strategies and 
practices that, when taken to scale over time, would strengthen career-
based pathways across grades 11-14, erasing current boundaries and 
barriers between high school, postsecondary education, and employment. 
The Career-Connected High Schools program will award competitive grants 
to create new structures and supports to help high school students, 
with a focus on underserved students, develop and navigate clear 
pathways to career preparation and postsecondary education, accrue 
college credit, pursue in-demand, high-value credentials, and gain 
direct experience and skills in the workplace that lead to high-quality 
jobs. The Department has received comments on the FY 2023 Notice of 
Proposed Priorities and plans to make new awards in FY 2024.
    The Department expects to launch a competition this summer for the 
$25 million appropriated in FY 2023 for the Career-Connected High 
Schools program, but we anticipate that we will be able to fund only a 
fraction of the applications we will receive. Scaling up the program in 
FY 2024 would enable the Department to better meet the need and demand 
of the field for assistance to reimagine how we prepare young people 
for the future. This issue has broad interest and support and could be 
further catalyzed given additional opportunity. According to the 
National Governor's Association, at least 31 governors focused on 
expanding career and technical education and workforce development 
opportunities for high school students their 2023 State of the State 
addresses.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ State Education Trends for 2023 (2023). National Governor's 
Association. Retrieved from: State Education Trends for 2023--National 
Governors Association (nga.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. What innovative steps have you taken, or plan to take, to 
increase coordination between the Education and Labor Departments to 
improve the training and employment services that the Federal 
Government funds?
    Answer. Leaders in the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult 
Education in ED, the Employment and Training Administration in DOL, and 
DOC meet regularly to share information, coordinate related activities, 
and collaborate on shared initiatives. Raise the Bar: Unlocking Career 
Success is one shared initiative. The Secretaries of Commerce and Labor 
joined me in Chicago, Illinois in November 2022 to announce their 
support of its launch.
    Another, more recent shared initiative is our support and 
collaboration in carrying out the President's Investing in America 
Workforce Initiatives. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, CHIPS and 
Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act are catalyzing public- and 
private-sector investments across the nation--including significant 
concentrations in key cities and regions. To unleash the full economic 
and job-creation potential of these investments, the Biden-Harris 
Administration has identified an initial set of five Workforce Hubs, 
each centered on key industries. In each Hub, the Administration will 
partner with state and local elected officials and community leaders to 
drive effective place-based workforce development efforts that are 
essential to building an economy from the bottom up and the middle out. 
Teams from DOL, DOC, DOE, DOT, and the Department are each leading on 
one of the Hubs, and supporting leaders in every Workforce Hub as they 
work to secure private-sector and state and local commitments to expand 
pre-apprenticeship and Registered Apprenticeship programs, develop or 
expand career and technical education programs aligned to Investing in 
America jobs and careers, and provide supportive services that are 
particularly critical to helping underrepresented students and workers 
succeed.
Freedom of Speech in Colleges and Universities
    Question. The department is expected to soon finalize its proposed 
rule ``Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or 
Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 87 Fed. Reg. 41390, 
RIN 1870-AA16 (Proposed Rule).'' I have communicated my many concerns 
with this proposed rule to you. Among these concerns is the fact that 
this proposed rule ignores First Amendment free speech and religious 
freedom protections and parental rights.
    Do you believe that requiring teachers, administrators, 
contractors, and grantees to ``affirm'' students' ``gender identity'' 
violates the First Amendment's guarantees of speech and religion?
    Answer. The Department, consistent with determinations of experts 
and courts, has recognized that treating a student inconsistent with 
their gender identity can be harmful. The Department does not interpret 
its Title IX regulations as restricting any rights guaranteed against 
government action by the U.S. Constitution, including the First 
Amendment. 34 C.F.R. 106.6(d). The determination as to whether 
particular conduct by a teacher, administrator, contractor, or grantee 
act violates Title IX or is protected by the First Amendment requires a 
fact-specific inquiry. The Department does not make compliance 
determinations without first conducting an investigation of all of the 
relevant facts. Please note that the Department is in the process of 
reviewing and considering public comments on its proposed Title IX 
regulations. Following the Department's review and consideration of the 
comments, the resulting final regulations and their effective date will 
be published in the Federal Register. The preamble to the final 
regulations will include a summary of the comments received, the 
Department's response to the comments, and an explanation of any 
changes made to the regulations that differ from the proposed 
regulations.
    Question. The 2020 Title IX rule made clear that Title IX does not 
restrict any rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, so it would not 
limit free speech or the free exercise of religion. Will you commit to 
making the same guarantee in this rule? If not, why?
    Answer. The Department has made clear in many contexts and across 
administrations that it interprets Title IX consistent with the 
requirements of the First Amendment. Title IX protects individuals from 
sex discrimination and does not regulate the content of speech as such. 
The Department is in a rulemaking process for Title IX and has not 
proposed any changes to current Sec. 106.6(d) of the Department's Title 
IX regulations, which states that nothing in the Title IX regulations 
requires a recipient to ``[r]estrict any rights that would otherwise be 
protected from government action by the First Amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution.''
    Question. Do you believe that there are instances in which a school 
should withhold information from parents about their child's belief 
that they are transgender?
    Answer. The Department affirms and respects parents' integral role 
in making decisions about their child's education. The Department's 
Title IX regulations specify that they should not be read in derogation 
of any legal right of a parent or guardian to act on behalf of their 
child, 34.C.F.R. Sec. 106.6(g). Title IX does not address the specific 
question of notifying parents about a child's gender identity.
    The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) affords 
parents certain rights with respect to the education records of their 
children. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g, 34 CFR Part 99. When children reach 18 
years of age or begin attending a postsecondary institution at any age, 
they become ``eligible students,'' and all of the rights under FERPA 
once afforded to the parent transfer to the student. Under FERPA, 
parents have the right, upon request, to inspect and review their 
child's education records, including education records that discuss 
their child's gender identity, if such records exist. 20 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1232g(a)(1); 34 C.F.R. Sec. 99.10. FERPA does not require a school 
or school district to affirmatively notify parents about information in 
their child's education records, but the school or the school district 
must comply with a parent's request to inspect and review education 
records no more than 45 days after receipt of a request. Id.
    The Department will continue working to ensure that the rights of 
all parents and students are protected under the laws enforced by the 
Department.
    Question. To what extent does the department track speech policies 
at universities and offer assistance in the development or improvement 
of the same?
    Answer. The Department does not track speech policies at 
universities or offer assistance in the development or improvement of 
those policies.
    Question. In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 
629, 651 (1999), the Supreme Court defined student-on-student 
harassment as conduct that is ``so severe, pervasive, and objectively 
offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' 
educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied 
equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities.''
    Are there instances where schools are defining harassment more 
broadly than the Supreme Court's definition, and if so, what have been 
the effects?
    Answer. The Department enforces its Title IX regulations and the 
definition of sexual harassment set forth in those regulations. The 
Department reviews school harassment policies to the extent they are 
relevant to an investigation by OCR but does not track definitions of 
harassment in school policies more generally. Any individual may file a 
complaint with OCR if they believe a school policy violates Title IX or 
any of the other laws enforced by OCR.
    Question. Do you have any concerns with the state of speech 
policies at colleges and universities?
    Answer. The Department believes that protecting First Amendment 
rights at public colleges and universities and upholding stated free 
speech policies is essential. The Department will continue to encourage 
all public educational institutions to protect students' First 
Amendment rights and private institutions to uphold their free speech 
policies.
    The Department does not track speech policies at colleges and 
universities. In February 2023, the Department issued a request for 
information on how the Department's regulations have affected or are 
reasonably expected to affect decisions surrounding First Amendment and 
free speech-related litigation in Federal and State court and 
institutional policies on freedom of speech. The Department is 
currently reviewing public comments received in response to its 
request. Public colleges and universities must already abide by the 
First Amendment, which provides strong protections for free speech and 
religious freedom, including protecting the rights of student 
organizations at public colleges and universities.
    Question. Do you believe that there is room for colleges and 
universities to improve their speech policies and make them less 
restrictive?
    Answer. The Biden Administration strongly believes that protecting 
First Amendment freedoms on public college and university campuses is 
essential to creating a healthy and dynamic learning community that 
prepares students to work and think critically and creatively to solve 
the challenges facing our country in the 21st century. The Department 
will continue to encourage all public educational institutions to 
protect students' First Amendment rights and private institutions to 
uphold their free speech policies.
    Whether it is having the freedom to debate issues of the day and 
engage with new topics in the classroom, gathering for expressive 
purposes, or engaging in constitutionally protected religious 
practices, protecting First Amendment freedoms serves students, 
faculty, staff, and administrators and ensures our colleges and 
universities are hubs of intellectual innovation and growth for their 
broader communities and the Nation. We have urged public colleges and 
universities and their students to engage thoughtfully on these 
matters, while holding paramount the goal of creating environments in 
which all students have the opportunity to learn and thrive. We also 
respect and rely upon the courts to protect First Amendment freedoms.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Baldwin. And with that, the Committee will stand in 
recess.
    [Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., Thursday, May 11, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]