[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE STATE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 5, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-137 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Virginia,
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
JAMES COMER, Kentucky SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah MARK TAKANO, California
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
KEVIN KILEY, California LUCY McBATH, Georgia
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania GREG CASAR, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina JOHN W. MANNION, New York
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
VACANCY
R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 5, 2025................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and Workforce.................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
WITNESSES
Neily, Nicole, President, Parents Defending Education........ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Cooper, Dr. Preston, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute.................................................. 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Nelson, Janai, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal
Defense Fund............................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Taylor, Johnny C., Jr., President and CEO, Society for Human
Resource Management........................................ 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut:
Article dated January 25, 2025, from Forbes.............. 68
McBath, Hon. Lucy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia:
Ways and Means Committee memo............................ 89
Kiley, Hon. Kevin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
United States: Change in Spending and Scores Since 2013.. 169
Onder, Hon. Robert F., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Missouri:
Growth in Administrative Staff, Principals, Teachers, and
Students in Public Schools (% Change Since 2000)....... 170
K-12 Spending Per Pupil vs. Median NAEP Score............ 171
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Mrs. Janai Nelson........................................ 172
Mr. Johnny C. Taylor, Jr................................. 186
THE STATE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION
----------
Wednesday, February 5, 2025
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg,
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Walberg, Wilson, Foxx, Thompson,
Grothman, Stefanik, Allen, Owens, Miller, Kiley, Rulli, Onder,
Mackenzie, Baumgartner, Harris, Messmer, Scott, Courtney,
Bonamici, Takano, Adams, Norcross, McBath, Hayes, Casar, Lee,
and Mannion.
Staff present: Mindy Barry, General Counsel; Solomon Chen,
Professional Staff Member; Sheila Havenner, Director of
Information Technology; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education
and Human Services Policy; Libby Kearns, Press Assistant;
Isaiah Knox, Legislative Assistant; Campbell Ladd, Staff
Assistant; R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director; Georgie Littlefair,
Clerk; R.J. Martin, Professional Staff Member; Audra McGeorge,
Communications Director; Eli Mitchell, Legislative Assistant;
Ethan Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Director; Ian
Prince, Professional Staff Member; Kane Riddell, Staff
Assistant; Sara Robertson, Press Secretary; Chance Russell,
Economist and Policy Advisor; Brad Thomas, Deputy Director of
Education and Human Services Policy; Ann Vogel, Director of
Operations; Ali Watson, Director of Member Services; Amaris
Benavidez, Minority Professional Staff; Ilana Brunner, Minority
General Counsel; David Dailey, Minority Chief of Staff; Bryan
Gonzalez, Minority Grad Intern; Rashage Green, Minority
Director of Education Policy & Counsel; Brandom Hernandez,
Minority CHCI Fellow; Christian Haines, Minority General
Counsel; Jo Howard, Minority Grad Intern; Emanual Kimble,
Minority Professional Staff; Samantha Wilkerson, Professional
Staff Member; Stephanie Lalle, Minority Communications
Director; Hannah Seligman, Minority Legal Intern; Raiyana
Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority
Director of Labor Policy; Marie McGrew, Minority Press
Assistant; Ben Noenickx, Minority Intern; Kathleen Pan,
Minority APAICS Fellow; Eleazar Padilla, Minority Staff
Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director;
Elizabeth Tomoloju, Minority Intern; Banyon Vassar, Minority
Director of IT.
Chairman Walberg. Well, good morning. The Committee on
Education and the Workforce will--who typed that up for me?
Take that ``the'' out. Education and Workforce will come to
order. I note that a quorum is present, and without objection
the Chair is authorized to call a recess at any time, and may
with personal preference, or personal preference, I would put
something in at this point as well.
There is no more important place for any of us to be this
morning related to our legislative work than in this Committee.
Education is key to everything that goes on in this country,
especially now and forever more. I am glad that we are all part
of this A Committee.
Good morning. It is a pleasure to welcome you to the first
hearing of the House Committee on Education and Workforce in
the 119th Congress. This morning, we are here to discuss the
State of American education. Unfortunately, we are here to
discuss problems that have resulted and continue to go on in
education as well.
Many students are failing to graduate from high school, or
college, with the skills needed to be successful. In too many
places education in core subjects like math and reading is
being replaced by indoctrination. That must change. I am
pleased to see that the Trump administration is taking
excellent steps to restore common sense, personal
responsibility, and parental choice through the education
system.
This is just beginning, and it is disruptive. It will have
to be to do the significant change. In K-12 education, there is
much work that needs to be done. Results from the most recent
national assessment of educational progress show that students
have still not recovered from the pandemic, if that is the key
excuse.
Students are still scoring at lower levels in math and
reading than they were in 2019. One reason for these shocking
scores is that many schools have lost focus on teaching the
core skills needed for a successful career. While many teachers
have done an admirable job helping students recover from
learning loss, many systems have become fixated on teaching
divisive ideologies.
Unfortunately, these efforts have been fueled by the
Federal Government itself. In 2024, researchers with Parents
Defending Education found that Biden-Harris administration
spent over 1 billion dollars in DEI grants. There is positive
news to celebrate in the K-12 arena, however, school choice has
grown dramatically in recent years.
More than 1 million students are benefiting from private
school choice programs, which is about double the number of
students from just 3 years ago. Additionally, we have seen a
grass roots movement of parent involvement. Decades of research
has shown that parental involvement, regardless of
socioeconomic status or background, has a strong impact on
student achievement and long-term success.
It is encouraging to see so many parents get more involved
in their school systems, as well as the growth of parent
advocacy organizations that support them. Their work has been
vital to making schools function better.
Turning to higher education, we have seen rampant
antisemitism and stifling of speech on campuses, fueled by
bloated DEI bureaucracies. America's adversaries are sending
billions of foreign funds to schools to manipulate them. All of
this has resulted in too many students being told what to
think, instead of how to think.
It is also the case that our higher education financing
system is at a critical inflection point. President Biden
attempted to spend 1 trillion dollars through executive actions
on the Federal student loan bail-out program alone.
Transferring student loan responsibilities onto the backs of
taxpayers will not solve the underlying issue that the Federal
student loan program is irreparably broken.
What is needed now, more than ever, are real lasting
reforms that protect both students and taxpayers from debt they
cannot afford. Our Committee has hard work ahead of us to
ensure our Nation's higher education system remains the crown
jewel of the world.
We also must address our broken workforce system. We have
about 8 million unfilled jobs in our country, so there is
clearly a mismatch between the skills our workforce has and the
skills our employers need. Unfortunately, the Nation's
workforce system authorized under Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act, or WIOA, is failing to fill in the gap.
Fortunately, our Committee made tremendous strides last
Congress in addressing these challenges. A Stronger Workforce
for America Act passed the House with strong bipartisan
support, and after further negotiations with the Senate last
year was poised for enactment.
I want to thank former Chairwoman Virginia Foxx and Ranking
Member Bobby Scott for their leadership on that bill. I look
forward to taking it back up in this new Congress. While we
have great challenges ahead of us, we also have great
opportunities in front of us, and I look forward to working
with all of our members to meet these challenges.
That process starts today, and I am excited for the
productive conversation we will have with this great panel of
witnesses. With that, I yield to my friend, and Ranking Member,
Mr. Scott.
[The statement of Chairman Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Chairman Walberg. Good morning,
everyone, and thank you for our witnesses for joining us today,
and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing.
I would like to first start with the elephant in the room,
and there is current reporting that President Trump plans to
issue an executive order to eliminate critical programs in the
Department of Education and call on Congress to eliminate the
entire Department.
Then I recall that that is exactly what the Project 2025
said the President should do. He said that on page 319 of
Project 2025. The irony is not lost on me that we are here to
discuss the State of American education, while our current
administration is actively discussing how to dismantle the main
Federal agency responsible for the safe quality education for
all students.
According to polls, the majority of the voters oppose the
abolition of the Department of Education. I also know that I,
and every Democrat will do what we can to ensure that the
Department continues. Now, the issue at hand is reflected in
the latest national assessment of educational progress data.
Schools are struggling to make up the lost time in the
classroom following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Achievement gaps, which existed before the pandemic, have
widened. According to that assessment, math and reading gaps
between higher and lower performing students continue to rise,
as black students continue to be more than 10 points behind
their white peers in all subjects.
In 2021, Democrats passed the largest, one-time investment
in education in the history of the United States, in the
American Rescue Plan Act, to provide schools with resources
they needed to reopen classrooms safely, and make up for lost
time due to the pandemic. Without this investment, we would
undoubtedly be in a worse situation than today.
The Rescue Plan Act was only a band-aid on the larger issue
of underfunding in schools, and it is abundantly clear that we
need sustained Federal investment over time to overcome decades
of underfunding.
Unfortunately, instead of investing in our children,
Republicans are stuck on proposals that only create more
challenges for students. Consider that the first education bill
we considered this Congress targets indeed, bullies,
transgender youth. Also, my Republican colleagues have
misrepresented programs intended to expand diversity, equity,
inclusion as the problem in education.
Republicans have threatened to ban books, police bathrooms,
take away funds from communities that need it most. I am sad to
report the dministration is promoting a warped vision of DEI,
discrimination, erasure and inequity.
This all serves to distract Americans so that they will not
notice the privatization of American education systems with
taxpayer funds going to private schools, the resegregation of
public schools, the erosion of services for students with
disabilities, and cuts to student loan program, and distracts
from the fact that the price of eggs is going up.
While some folks may be hollering about imagined DEI
problems, many in the public will fail to notice how the
taxpayer's money is being siphoned away from public education
and the student loan program to pay for tax cuts for the
wealthy and well connected.
Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that every student in this
country should have access to safe, welcoming, well-funding
learning environment, and that begins with eliminating
disparities in education with sustained Federal funding.
This Congress, Committee Democrats will reintroduce
legislation, such as Rebuild America's Schools Act, which will
make critical investments to repair and rebuild school
facilities, particularly in high need areas.
The Equity and Inclusion and Enforcement Act, which will
restore private right of action for students, parents and local
civil rights groups to bring discrimination claims based on
disparity impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and the Strengthen Diversity Act, which would provide
resources to states and school districts who want to
voluntarily develop schools' plans to integrate their schools.
We have to take steps to lower the cost of higher education
for students and families, and to that end we will also
reintroduce the Lowering Obstacles to Achievement Now, the LOAN
Act, which will lower the costs of college for current and
future student borrowers and their families by making critical
reforms to the student aid system, including doubling the Pell
Grant, improving public service loan forgiveness programs, and
making loans more affordable and accessible.
To that end, to promise our colleagues and students across
the country that we will not go along with programs to
dismantle our education system. We will fight any attempt to
dismantle the Department, and so we do not know what the plan
will be, but you can count on our opposition to any plan that
will abolish the Department of Education and the programs in
it.
To that end, Democrats will always be with the well-being
of students, teachers and parents across the country. With
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, gentleman. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 8-C, all members who wish to insert written
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5
p.m., 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is February
19, 2025.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official
hearing record.
I will now turn to the introduction of our witnesses, we
appreciate being here. Our first witness is Mrs. Nicole Neily,
who is the President of Parents Defending Education in
Arlington, Virginia. Welcome.
Our next witness is Dr. Preston Cooper, who is a Senior
Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, located in
Washington, DC. Welcome, Mr. Cooper.
Our third witness is Mrs. Janai Nelson, who is President
and Director-Counsel, of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund in
Washington, DC, welcome.
Our final witness is Mr. Johnny C. Taylor, Jr., who is
President and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management
in Alexandria, Virginia. Welcome.
We thank you for all being here today and look forward to
your testimony. I would like to remind the witnesses that we
have read your written statements, which will appear in our
full hearing record.
I would ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a
3-minute summary of your written statement. The clock will
count down from 3 minutes because the Committee Members have
many questions for you, and we would like to spend as much time
as possible on those questions with your answers.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-D, and Committee practice,
however, we will not cutoff your testimony until you go too
far. I also would like to remind the witnesses to be aware of
their responsibility to provide accurate information to the
Committee. First, I will recognize Ms. Neily, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MRS. NICOLE NEILY, PRESIDENT, PARENTS
DEFENDING EDUCATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA.
Mrs. Neily. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me. My name is Nicole Neily, and I am President and Founder of
Parents Defending Education, and the Executive Director of PDE
Action.
American education is in crisis. For far too long U.S.
schools have focused on everything but educating children, and
as last week's NAEP scores have shown, our children are bearing
the brunt of these bad decisions.
Schools are focused on the wrong priorities. Identity
politics permeate districts across America in word and deed.
Children are regularly treated differently based on race.
Color-conscious pedagogy, which considers colorblindness to be
negative, is omnipresent in America's colleges of education.
Eighty years after Brown v. Broad of Education, segregated
activities persist in the guise of affinity groups, where
students and teachers are included or excluded because of skin
color. The diversity industrial complex promotes programs like
this, conducting equity audits and hosting professional
development trainings.
Districts pay DEI consultants millions per year,
incentivized by the billion dollars in education grants awarded
by the Biden administration in the past 4 years. In the wake of
October 7th, antisemitism spiked in both colleges and K-12
schools alike.
From lesson plans about settler-colonialism to swastikas on
mirrors dismissed as Buddhist religious symbols, districts
lackadaisical response to Jew hatred bore a sharp contrast to
the antiracism fervor following George Floyd's murder.
Foreign funding remains problematic. Our investigation into
Confucious classrooms found districts around the country with
ties to CCP linked entities, and similar programming by the
Qatar Foundation also exists. The full scope of foreign
influence in K-12 merits investigation and is also a
significant problem in higher ed, which the Deterrent Act I
note tackles head-on.
Over the past several years, merit has been sacrificed on
the altar of equity. Rather than challenging talented students
to strive for greatness, schools are eliminating gifted and
talented programs and AP classes, so that all students remain
at the same level. We are witnessing the soviet-ification of
American schools in real time.
Finally, schools are unsafe. Under the guise of breaking
the school to prison pipeline, districts have removed school
resource officers, and moved toward non-punitive restorative
justice, making classroom management impossible.
Families are treated as the enemy. Trust between families
and districts is fractured. Rather than partnering with
parents, schools work against them. Families are being shut out
of their children's lives. PDE has identified over 1,100
districts around the country impacting more than 12 million
children and counting, with parental exclusion policies, which
State that parents do not have a right to know their child's
gender at school.
Districts should not keep secrets from families. As a
country we spend billions of dollars on mental health for
students, so why are schools telling kids that their parents'
love is conditional, and maybe it is time to lead a double
life?
Over the past 4 years, parental rights were routinely
disrespected by the Federal Government. When parents spoke up,
they were attacked by the media and DOJ. Through our FOIAS, PDE
discovered that the National School Boards Association worked
with Department of Education officials to smear American
families.
As George Washington Carver said, ``Education is the key to
unlock the golden door of freedom.'' The country's equity
experiment has been an unequivocal failure, and it is time to
move on.
Let us refocus American schools on core subjects,
prioritizing excellence and creating opportunities for those
who work hard. Although battered, the American education system
is not beyond repair, but to get things back on track it is
going to take a genuine partnership between families and
educators. Thank you.
[The Statement of Mrs. Neily follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mrs. Neily, and thank you for
setting the standard for 3 minutes. I now recognize Dr. Cooper.
STATEMENT OF DR. PRESTON COOPER, SENIOR FELLOW,
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Cooper. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member
Scott, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today on the State of
postsecondary education and the Federal Government's role in
shaping it.
My name is Preston Cooper, and I am a Senior Fellow
focusing on the economics of higher education at the American
Enterprise Institute. Americans are losing confidence in the
higher education system. According to the Wall Street Journal,
56 percent of Americans believe that a 4-year college education
is no longer worth the cost.
This changing sentiment has translated into a 12 percent
drop in college enrollment since 2010. To be sure, higher
education can be a great investment for students, but all too
often, that investment does not pay off. When students pay too
much in tuition, or do not learn the skills they need to get a
good job, or even fail to complete their degree programs at
all, the decision to pursue higher education becomes less of an
investment and more of a gamble.
The Federal Government heavily subsidizes higher education
programs with little return on investment for students. Between
2018 and 2022, I estimate that at least 37 billion dollars in
Pell grants, and 86 billion dollars in Federal student loans
flowed to degree programs that did not lead to a return on
investment for students.
When students pay too much for college, relative to what
they learned leaving school, it becomes harder to pay down
their loan balances. Before the pandemic, 11 million borrowers
were either in default, or delinquent on their debts. Millions
more were taking advantage of income-driven repayment, loan
forbearance, and other options to reduce or eliminate their
monthly payments.
These higher rates of loan non-payments mean that the
Congressional Budget Office expects that taxpayers will lose
223 billion dollars on student loans newly originated between
2025 and 2034, and that is to say nothing of expected losses on
outstanding loans.
While former President Biden's largely unsuccessful efforts
to cancel student loans on mass, did little to help matters,
the student loan programs' problems predate his administration.
Fortunately, Congress has a unique opportunity to address many
of the longstanding problems in the Federal student loan
program.
The College Cost Reduction Act introduced last year, takes
a three-pronged approach to fixing things, reforming the
student loan repayment system, imposing sensible caps on
borrowing, and holding colleges accountable for how well they
serve students. Postsecondary education in America suffers from
high costs, uneven financial value, and a chaotic student loan
system that creates more problems than it solves.
Addressing these challenges would represent a strong first
step toward restoring public confidence in American higher
education. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The Statement of Dr. Preston Cooper follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Now I recognize
Mrs. Nelson for your 3 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MRS. JANAI NELSON, PRESIDENT AND DIREC-
TOR-COUNSEL, NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, WASH-
INGTON, D.C.
Mrs. Nelson. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Walberg
and Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Committee members.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Janai Nelson,
President and Director Counsel of the Legal Defense Fund.
Since our founding 85 years ago by Thurgood Marshall, we
have fought to ensure that black students, and indeed all
students, have equal access to education. Seventy years ago,
the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Brown vs. Board of
Education ended legal, racial segregation in public schools.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren said that
equal public education is the very foundation of good
citizenship. Public education is critical to the health of our
economy, and it is essential to the viability of our multi-
racial democracy.
Sadly, Brown's mandate to provide all students with quality
learning experiences that respect their full humanity,
intelligence, and dignity regardless of their race, ethnicity,
or gender identity, or ability is under fierce attack.
Under the guise of promoting so-called school choice, or
parental rights, has emerged a reincarnated massive resistance
to high-quality, equitable and inclusive public education that
performs for all.
This massive resistance 2.0 seeks to achieve what George
Wallace and his extremist acolytes could not, the hoarding of
public resources to fund private education for a privileged few
at the expense of the many.
Our school system disproportionately fails low-income,
black, brown, indigenous, disabled, and new English learners in
alarming ways. They face vastly unequal educational resources,
leading to significant disparities in academic outcomes.
We can all agree that our K through 12 system must do
better, yet instead of working to fix these persistent actual
threats to the future of our country, a well-funded cabal of
activist organizations is lobbying for a separatist private
school system funded by public tax dollars.
As the organization that vanquished State sponsored racial
segregation in 1954, LDF stands firmly against a publicly
financed, separatist, private schools system in 2025. Over the
past 30 years, racial segregation has steadily worsened in
public schools. This shift correlates with two major changes,
the decrease in Court mandated desegregation oversight, and the
proliferation of voucher programs that defund public schools.
Privatizing public education and shirking Federal
responsibility would be disastrous for the 50 million students
and their families who rely on public schools and the equal
access that they are legally mandated to provide.
President Trump's orders to restrict teaching and learning
in inclusive and supportive environments, and his threats to
dismantle the Department of Education, and upend critical
enforcement of Federal civil rights laws will demolish the very
foundation of good citizenship.
We must reject these proposals out of the Project 2025
playbook and approach public education with common sense and
common purpose, not separatism and self-dealing. This Congress
owes it to the millions of families who are scared of what
these radical policies will mean for their children to choose a
better path.
Indeed, if we are being serious about educating all of
America's children equally, we must implement a proactive
vision that centers evidence-based interventions, like
universal pre-K, competitive teacher salaries, rigorous
standards, whole child supports, as well as gun safety
legislation to eliminate both barriers to equal education and
to truly protect our children.
Our country is at an inflection point and so is American
education. We can build a system in which all students can
thrive or allow our schools to remain spaces of division and
inequality, with an escape route for some to line the pockets
of private actors with public dollars.
I hope this Congress will invest in the promise of every
child in America by strengthening our public education system
that serves us all. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The Statement of Mrs. Nelson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mrs. Nelson. I now recognize
you, Mr. Taylor.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHNNY C. TAYLOR, JR., PRESIDENT AND
CEO, SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, ALEX-
ANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Mr. Taylor. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you. Thank you
for giving us and me the opportunity today. At SHRM, we
represent 340,000 H.R. professionals worldwide. We see
firsthand the challenges of today's workforce.
I just came back from Charlotte, North Carolina, where I
presented to the management team, the top 250 executives of
Bank of America, and I can tell you they agree with everything
that I am about to say. The education to employment pipeline is
leaky, it is broken, and it is busted.
Now that said, our system is still the best in the world.
We are proud Americans. Imagine what we could be if we
unleashed the power of all of the talent. First, higher
education is leaking. We have invested billions, yet degrees do
not always align with market needs, as Dr. Cooper just
mentioned.
Employers are shifting to skills-based hiring, valuing
experience and certifications over diplomas and degrees.
Initiatives like Michigan State's Align Center, for example,
and North Carolina's My Future NC Initiatives, prove that we
can better connect education to employment.
Second, K through 12 education is really broken. We have
undervalued vocational training, leaving students unprepared.
Nearly two-thirds of our students lack reading proficiency.
Programs like Aspire, which is the Aspire Trade High School in
North Carolina, and John Bounds High School's agriscience
program show hands on learning works.
I have a 14-year-old daughter right now in Virginia Public
Schools. I know what is happening in our public schools, and I
know that many of you have devoted your lives, including some
becoming teachers of the year because we are committed to
making this work.
Finally, our untapped talent pools remain overlooked.
Millions of skilled veterans, older workers, those who are
formerly incarcerated individuals with disabilities, they have
and are ready to contribute. We need them in the workforce, as
the Chairman mentioned. We have 7, almost 8 million, open jobs
in America. We do not have the luxury to exclude anyone from
the workforce.
If you are ready, willing, and able, we want you there. We
commend Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, Chairwoman Foxx
and others for their leadership in updating the WIOA system. We
believe that we need to get this done in Congress. We are
heartened by the bipartisan interest in continuing the efforts
of this Congress, and encourage the following key provisionss
to be retained.
Direct at least the 50 percent of funds for training,
leverage employer expertise, and create new staffing options.
Members of the Committee, the solution is clear, we need a
national strategy that aligns education with workforce demand,
and SHRM stands ready to partner with you.
This just is not about jobs; it is about people's lives and
their livelihoods. Thank you, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The Statement of Mr. Taylor, Jr. Follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, and thanks to each
of the witnesses. Under Committee Rule 9, we will now question
the witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I ask members to keep
our questions succinct, so the witnesses have time to answer. I
now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Neily, in your testimony you mentioned the problem of
foreign influence in both higher education and K-12. Although
the last administration failed to take this threat seriously,
the Committee introduced multiple pieces of legislation last
Congress to help address this serious problem.
Can you talk more about what steps Congress should take to
protect our students and the national security?
Ms. Neily. Big picture we have three things we need to do.
We need transparency, we need notification, and we need
consequences. Last session's Trace Act and the Deterrent Act
addressed these by providing access to curriculum, so parents
could know what their children were learning.
Lowering the reporting threshold for the higher education
foreign funding, creating K to 12 reporting, and also looking
into endowment funding, as well as disclosure to intelligence
agencies about what money is coming in.
Parents need to know so that they can make decisions
whether they want their child in the classroom or not, and also
whether school officials are receiving compensation, or
donations from foreign entities.
Finally, there must be consequences. When these rules are
broken, foreign actors, as well as schools, be they
universities or districts, must be held accountable for that.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Dr. Cooper, colleges and
universities often blame a lack of State funding for college
costs increasing, excuse me, twice as fast as inflation.
Increased costs always get my throat, over the last two
decades, yet those very same colleges have billions of dollars
to spare when it comes to hiring administrators, funding DEI
projects, or renovating their new football stadiums.
In your view, is the lack of affordability at many
institutions a funding issue, or a spending problem?
Mr. Cooper. I would say it is a spending problem. The
United States colleges and universities spend more per student
than any other colleges and universities in the developed
world, more than twice as much as many European counties. What
is more, State funding has actually been increasing on a per
student basis over the last 10 years or so, yet we still see
tuition go up.
I would argue that it is not a State funding, which is the
issue, it is the underlying costs, which are the issue.
Chairman Walberg. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, as you know
we almost got WIOA reform across the finish line last Congress.
You talked in your testimony about provisions of that bill that
would improve the Nation's workforce system, but for members
who are new to this Committee, in this Congress, could you talk
at a high level about why it is important for Congress to
finish our work on those reform efforts?
Second, I would add to that, in other words, why is WIOA
reform an important effort for us to take back up this
Congress?
Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, with the reauthorization of WIOA,
we have a generational opportunity to strengthen our Nation's
laws to ensure that American workers have the skills and the
knowledge to succeed. You mentioned earlier we have got 8
million--almost 8 million jobs open in this country. We need to
figure out how to solve for that gap.
Employers are hurting, and it therefore affects American
competitiveness. Many workers are seeking an alternative path
to a job that does not involve a 4-year degree. WIOA and its
programs are an opportunity for us to deliver that to workers,
and key to delivering on this promise, is to ensure that more,
not less WIOA dollars, go to skilling and upskilling dollars
that provide quality.
That is what this is all about. What we know with
everything that AI is about to do to us, from a displacement
standpoint, WIOA becomes more important, not less.
Chairman Walberg. Yes. Thank you. Then briefly, Ms. Neily,
give us your opinion why in recent years as parents have re-
engaged, especially after COVID, that they are seeing regularly
as a danger to our public education system especially, but to
education in general?
Mrs. Neily. Unfortunately, parents when they started to get
engaged in the system ask questions and demanded accountability
that the educational industrial complex was not prepared to
offer. They have been used to having our children behind closed
doors for decades, spending money as they want, and programing
them as they see fit.
The Michigan Democratic party in the wake of the 2022 mid-
term elections said that the purpose of a public education is
to teach students what society needs them to know. They
presupposed that they know what families need--what students
need to know, not what families want them to learn.
I think there is a big divide, and that is why I am excited
that we have an administration that now views families and
students as stakeholders in this discussion, rather than just
the activists and organizations that have been funding and
demanding money for so long.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I now recognize my friend from
Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today. Before I go into my questions,
I have to at least put on the record that when WIOA was agreed
to by both sides, it was actually included in the continuing
resolution that was submitted by Speaker Mike Johnson, and then
within the space of less than 6 hours, because of the
intervention of the Trump transition team, lead by Elon Musk,
that there were too many pages in the CR, that provision was
stripped from the bill.
We would--today, if the Speaker had stuck to the agreement
that he had agreed to and negotiated, we would have those WIOA
reforms in place today, but unfortunately again, the external
pressure by the incoming administration tanked it. That is just
again, a real step backward for all of the issues that we agree
on in terms of filling the job openings that are in the U.S.
economy today.
Mr. Scott began his remarks talking about the elephant in
the room. There is, in my opinion, two elephants. One is to
abolish the Department of Education. The second is the
Reconciliation Bill, which again, we are seeing, you know,
reporting that huge grant programs and tax assistance for
higher education are on the chopping block.
The human sacrifice to make sure that President Trump gets
his tax cuts for the rich. That is what is being discussed
right now in terms of paying for the Reconciliation Bill.
Attorney Nelson, pop quiz for you. The Department of
Education was created by statute in 1979. To abolish the
Department of Education, Congress would actually have to vote
on legislation to eliminate the agency. Is that correct?
Mrs. Nelson. Yes.
Mr. Courtney. Right. Since the enactment of the Department
of Education, there have been consistent attempts by far right
winged Republicans in Congress, the last one as recently as
March 24, 2023. Mr. Massie offered an amendment to H.R. 5 to
abolish the Department of Education. That measure was defeated
265 to 161, 60 Republicans voted in my opinion, sensibly, to
make sure the Department of Education stayed in place.
Again, the President is going to issue his executive
orders, pretending that he is actually doing--achieving this
goal, but as we have seen so far in the Federal District Courts
where his executive orders have actually been put to the test
of Article 1, Section 9 in terms of Congress's authority for
funding programs, he is batting 0 for 3.
Again, I think it is important for us to remember a reality
check that if the Department of Education's existence actually
resides in this branch of government in terms of moving
forward.
Among the programs that the Department of Education funds
talking about workforce needs is the Perkins Grant Program, and
again, in my district, visiting career technical trade schools
talking to comprehensive high schools that are now creating
career pathway programs, with money coming from the U.S.
Department of Education, to pay for welding boots, setups for
nursing programs.
The fact of the matter is that the Department of Education
is a major, major partner and contributor to again, achieving
the goals, Mr. Taylor, that you have mentioned, is that
correct?
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Now, in terms of the
Reconciliation Bill, which again, we have seen that every
Committee, you know, in Mar-a-Lago has been asked to again,
offer up offsets and pay for's to pay for the tax cuts. One of
the proposals that again, was reported by Politico, is a
Republican proposal would make college scholarships taxable
income.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask to enter into the record
an article from Forbes Magazine, hardly a far-left publication,
that again, describes what this proposal is, is that to make
scholarships taxable.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection.
[The information of Mr. Courtney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Again, I think really it does not
take a lot of imagination, and maybe again, Attorney Nelson can
help with this. It is just that taxing the scholarships raises
costs, and shifts costs to students, in terms of college
affordability. Is that correct?
Mrs. Nelson. Yes, it would.
Mr. Courtney. Again, today's sort of discussion, which is
sort of beginning on this premise that, you know, we are going
to have a normal discussion, as far as education policy. The
fact of the matter is that the elephants in the room that Mr.
Scott talked about in terms of basically blowing up the
Department of Education, and shifting costs to students is the
real test, and that is what we are going to be confronted with.
Again, as the Reconciliation Bill comes forward in any
package to abolish the Department of Education, and again, I
look forward to joining those Republicans who voted no to
abolish the Department of Education to make sure that that
measure fails. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, gentleman. I recognize the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we are very
fortunate that we actually will be joined soon by the
Ambassador to the United Nations, Elise Stefanik. That will
certainly enhance our hearing today. With that in mind, as we
consider the State of education, I know first-hand of the
positive parts of this, and that I am grateful my wife Roxanne
taught at an alternative school, giving young students the
opportunity of a second chance.
My father served on the school board in Charleston, South
Carolina, and my wife and I appreciate teachers where after the
third grade our four sons succeeded in math, only because of
educators, resulting in our oldest son Alan being the Attorney
General of South Carolina.
Our second son is an orthopedic surgeon. Our third son is
commercial real eState, and our youngest is in industrial
engineering. These successes are really due to educators making
a difference. With that in mind, I believe it is because of the
success of local elected school boards, and I very much support
President Donald Trump for his courage to promote local elected
school boards, with the elimination of the duplicative,
wasteful, interfering, and Federal Department of Education.
The funding, clearly, should go to the students, and not to
bureaucrats. With that in mind, Dr. Cooper, the American
Enterprise Institute is greatly appreciated for making a
difference promoting limited government expanded freedom. The
AEI is crucial for addressing the challenges of American
families, and we want to thank you for AEI.
In your testimony, you note that the Grad Plus Program
provides effectively unlimited loans to students, allowing them
to borrow institutionally determine attendance. In other words,
whether a school says is 10,000 or 10 million, the Federal
Government will provide a loan.
The creation of this has coincided with doubling of the
amount of graduate students borrowing. Given the structure of
uncapped lending, is there evidence that colleges have used
this to unduly increase tuition?
Mr. Cooper. There is absolutely evidence to that effect. As
you mentioned, the Grad Plus Program is effectively unlimited.
Students can borrow up to the cost of attendance, as defined by
the institution, which means that if the institution says it
costs $200,000 or 200 million dollars, students are legally
allowed to borrow up to that limit, defined by the institution.
This has resulted in increases in tuition at the graduate
level. A study published last year found that for every $1.00
of additional Grad Plus money that went out the door, colleges
hiked grad school tuition by 64 cents. The Grad Plus Program
has grown enormously in scale and scope since it was created in
2006, and graduate student loans now account for half of new
student loans issued every year by the Federal Government.
I would argue that, you know, the Grad Plus Program has
gotten relatively out of control, and some sensible caps in
borrowing are needed.
Mr. Wilson. Well, we look forward to AEI coming and
producing alternatives. With that in mind too, Mr. Taylor, you
were right that the workforce training has delivered tremendous
success with partnerships between the employers and educators.
A Stronger Workforce for America Act was authored by our former
Chair, Virginia Foxx.
Do you see what has been the success of that? In my home
State of South Carolina, we are so grateful. In the district I
represent Michelin Corporation, the largest manufacturing
facility in the world. BMW, we want everybody to have an X5.
Those are made in South Carolina.
Then while you are at it, we can buy a Volvo, a Mercedes
van, Samsung products, Bridgestone, Japan, and Lockheed Martin,
Boeing 787-10. We will be happy to sell everything because of
workforce development, so how can this be achieved?
Mr. Taylor. Well, you have taken my comments because that
is it. It speaks for itself. Industry has benefited the economy
in South Carolina, and ultimately in our country and globally
has benefited from that successful piece of litigation,
legislation. I think we need more of it. We need to commit and
double down on it, and so we violently agree that this has
meant a significant win for employers and employees.
Mr. Wilson. Well, hey, it is job creation.
Mr. Taylor. Right.
Mr. Wilson. We see it as South Carolina is now the leading
exporter of cars and tires of any State in the union. I do not
want people in Michigan to know that, but that is true. With
that in mind, Ms. Neily, too, indeed parents are under attack,
but I am really grateful that Representative Julia Letlow, and
the Republicans in the House passed the Parents Bill of Rights.
Is this legislation working?
Mrs. Neily. It is a terrific first step. We look forward to
continued engagement. We think there needs to be teeth. There
needs to be actual, you know, it needs to be passed by the
Senate, and but I am optimistic that going forward we will be
able to make sure that we deliver as a country for American
parents, and that we actually listen to them.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you all for being here today. I
yield back.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you for most of your comments, Mr.
Wilson. We are still the auto capital. I recognize my friend
from California now, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cooper, do you
believe that the Department of Education should be abolished?
Mr. Cooper. Well, I think that the Department of Education
was----
Mr. Takano. I am just looking for a yes or no answer.
Mr. Cooper. I think whether the programs that are currently
operated by the Department of Education----
Mr. Takano. Do you think that the Department of Education
should be abolished?
Mr. Cooper. I think it is immaterial whether the programs
are operated out of Education or the Treasury Department.
Mr. Takano. Do you think the Department of Education should
be abolished, sir?
Mr. Cooper. I really--I really cannot say because----
Mr. Takano. I will take that as a no. Ms. Neily, do you
think that the Department of Education should be abolished?
Ms. Neily. We won two world wars without having a
Department of Education.
Mr. Takano. You do not believe it should exist.
Ms. Neily. I did not say that. I said we won two world wars
without having a Department of Education.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Cooper--Mr. Cooper--Madam, this is my time.
Mr. Cooper, do you believe that the Department of Education
should be abolished?
Mr. Taylor, Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. I have to agree. I do not have a yes or no
answer.
Mr. Takano. You do not have a yes or no answer. All right.
Mr. Taylor. The work of the Department of Education needs
to continue. Whether or not the Department of Education, as an
institution. See too often I think we----
Mr. Takano. Okay, fine, fine.
Mr. Taylor. The work needs to continue.
Mr. Takano. I get what you are saying. I get what you are
saying. Whether we abolish it, or we reorganize it, do you
believe that the President alone, Mr. Cooper, can eliminate the
Department of Education, or reorganize it, or does he need a
vote of Congress to do so? Does he need to work with Congress
to do that?
Mr. Cooper. To eliminate it outright would require a vote
of Congress, but there are probably some things he can do by
executive order.
Mr. Takano. He can just stop funding certain
congressionally appropriated programs? He could just say I am
not going to fund those, and tell Elon Musk just find that
account, and do not fund it?
Mr. Cooper. It would depend on the program.
Mr. Takano. Okay. You would agree that there are programs
that are congressionally appropriated that he would need, you
know, he just does not have the power to impound?
Mr. Cooper. I would argue that if Congress has specifically
appropriated funding for a certain program, than you know, the
Education Department is obligated to fund that program, but
there is some flexibility the Department has.
Mr. Takano. All right. Essentially to eliminate the
Department of Education, to abolish it, he would need the vote
of Congress to do so?
Mr. Cooper. I agree with that. I agree with that.
Mr. Takano. Ms. Neily.
Mrs. Neily. I am not a constitutional scholar, and this is
outside of my area of expertise.
Mr. Takano. You do not agree that a President--that the
Department of Education, which was established in law through a
bill passed by Congress, signed into law by the President, that
to abolish the Department of Education, that he would also need
a vote of Congress to do that?
Mrs. Neilly. This is outside of my scope of area of
expertise.
Mr. Takano. You do not know. You do not know, but you are
an expert on----
Mrs. Neilly. I represent a parents' organization.
Mr. Takano. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Takano. You would absolutely need to vote. Well, I am
glad that we have at least two witnesses, you know, from the
majority, who believe that a vote of Congress would be
necessary, and I would hope that they would remind my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle what happened at
USAID over the weekend was illegal.
That a President cannot unilaterally dismantle an agency or
a Department that was established in law. That what he did was
outside the law and illegal. I mean, this hearing is called The
State of American Education, but from what I am seeing from the
other side's behavior is that it really should be called The
Republicans Surrender to a Would Be King.
I would love to discuss the State of education in America,
and I would love to have any semblance of productive discussion
in this Committee, but the only solution that Republicans have
offered us to the pile of problems that sit before us, whether
it is the abysmal childhood literacy rates in this country,
rampant gun violence in schools, the astronomical cost of
higher education and lifelong shackles of debt that we are
signing up our college students for, is to abolish the
Department of Education.
Well, either way, let us imagine that legally or illegally,
the Department of Education has been dismantled. The Department
protects students and veterans who have been defrauded and are
victims of predatory loan schemes for profit colleges. This is
critical for veterans who are disproportionately affected by
the student debt crisis.
Before COVID, student veterans had a 46 percent default
rate on their loans. Mr. Cooper, if a veteran is defrauded out
of their GI Bill benefits by one of the institutions known to
prey on veterans, can they recoup that benefit?
Mr. Cooper. For veterans aid I am not sure. For Federal
student loans, they can submit a claim to the Borrower Defense
Process to have their loans discharged.
Mr. Takano. Well, the answer is no. Once the GI Bill
education benefits have been used by the students, they are
gone forever. My Republican colleagues continue to propose
cutting regulations, which protect these student veterans,
including a loan relief after attending a failed school, rules
that prevent colleges from preying on veteran's GI benefits,
and tools to discharge debt for students who have been
defrauded by their institution. I yield back Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize
the gentleman from Florida--Georgia, excuse me, Georgia, Mr.
Allen.
Mr. Allen. Yes, we were in Florida last week. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. Before
I ask questions, I would like to briefly touch on school
choice. Of course, we hear the same old talking points from the
other side, yes. We got to turn education in this country
around, and it is going to take some bold, strong efforts to do
that.
Innovation is where it is at. Somehow, we have got to
motivate students too. I mean obviously in this indoctrination
of children is ridiculous. I mean, you know, it is reading,
writing and arithmetic, you know, it worked real well for a
long time. You know, a child's future success is often
determined early in life, and part of that quality is their K
through 12 education.
Parents and children should have the chance to choose an
education path that is right for them. That is why I am so
excited to hear the current administration speaking so forcibly
in favor of school choice.
It is an 80 percent issue with parents in this country.
With that being said, Mr. Taylor, with rising student loan debt
and many young people reconsidering the value of the
traditional college degree, there is a growing need for
businesses to prioritize skills-based hiring over degree
requirements.
Last year, the CEOs of Walmart and Home Depot co-authored
an op-ed, Not Everyone Needs a College Degree, outlining the
importance of this shift across the industries. SHRM has been
actively encouraging its members to adopt skills-based hiring
practices.
From your perspective, are more businesses embracing this
approach, and what additional steps can be taken to accelerate
this shift at the national left?
Mr. Taylor. The answer is yes. For the last four or 5 years
if you were not following it, we have experienced a turnover
tsunami, as they call it, as well as the great resignation. We
employers need talent. In a knowledge-based economy, you lose
if you do not have the best talent.
The best talent does not necessarily, and I want to be
clear because we are not anti-college and university degree
attainment, the best talent shows up in different ways. With
skill to credentials, ultimately what we want is people who can
do the work.
Whether or not they have a degree, and whether or not that
degree is from a fancy school, employers are committed to
allowing--listen, we have got to fill these jobs, and we are
filling the jobs because we have too many people who are under
skilled.
Our job is to eliminate, and I represent the world's
largest association of H.R. professionals, we have got to get
back to finding out do you have the skills to do the job, not
necessarily the paper that says you have the skills to do the
job.
Mr. Allen. Well, let it be said Bill Gates dropped out of
college because he happened to know more than the people that
were teaching him. Mr. Taylor, while we all understand the
value of a 4-year degree, it is becoming clear that we need to
shift the narrative around career pathways.
Prior to my tenure in Congress, I owned a construction
company in Georgia. I understand first-hand the importance of
having a trained workforce. Currently, there are over 400,000
open jobs in construction, and 40 percent of the construction
workforce is set to retire in the next decade.
Congress has taken an important step in supporting
individuals for certain skilled trade careers by championing
the bipartisan Workforce Pell Act, which would expand Pell
grant eligibility for short-term training programs. However,
with critical labor shortages, additional action is needed.
Mr. Taylor, beyond this legislation, what more can Congress
do to expand access to skilled trades in education, both in
high schools, and through workforce training programs to build
a strong talent pipeline? In other words, there are some people
that are motivated by other things.
Mr. Taylor. Right.
Mr. Allen. Like skills. How do we tap into that?
Mr. Taylor. Well, it starts in the K through 12 system. I
remember going through school, and we recognized--we have
everyone stand up at the end of your 12th grade and say who is
going to college. The people who were not going to college were
not recognized. We have got to start with letting people know
it is okay not to go pursue formal education in the way that we
have historically thought of that.
That it is okay to go get and acquire skills and they have
been credentialed, and then ultimately a credential that says
to an employer you can do the work. The narrative must change
early that you have not failed because you did not pursue
college. That is number one.
Second, and you have rightly pointed out, the passage of a
legislation. We have got to now talk about it a lot, and
encourage employers while there are people who will say they
will hire someone without a degree, what all of SHRM's research
says is you put someone in front of you, and that person does
not have a degree, but the other person has experience, we
still have a bias toward people who have degrees, even for jobs
that they clearly do not require degrees.
This is going to require a collective commitment by
industry, H.R. professionals, and thanks to you we have
government backing to make jobs available for people who can do
the jobs irrespective of the skills--the degree that they may
or not may not have.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Taylor, I am out of time. I have two more
questions that I want to submit to you, and I would like to
provide, if you would provide answers to those questions for
the record.
Mr. Taylor. Will do so immediately, thank you.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you, gentleman. Now, I recognize
the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, Dr. Adams.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member for
hosting this hearing today, and to the witnesses, thank you for
being here. Mr. Taylor, it is good to see you again. Let me
just say this. I spent 40 years in the classroom, 40 years. I
did not read about education in a report. I lived it, and I
will tell you right now that the way things are going, we are
failing our children.
That starts with teachers because if we do not invest in
the people standing at the front of the classroom, we cannot
expect students to succeed. Ms. Nelson, my first question is to
you. According to the National Center for Education Statistics,
according to the 2020-21 school year, only 6 percent of
teachers are identified as black.
Why is Federal investment in teacher diversity crucial to
all student's success?
Ms. Nelson. Well, first, Representative Adams, thank you so
much for your service as a teacher. It is critical that
students in our multi-racial democracy see themselves in the
teachers that stand before them in their classrooms, in the
school administrators, and in other leaders in this country.
It is important that they see representation and diversity
in every position of leadership, and it starts in the
classroom. It starts with their teachers. We also know the
Legal Defense Fund's Thurgood Marshall Institute has done
research that proves that when black students are taught by
black teachers, and are taught by a more diverse faculty, their
achievement soars.
If we want to invest in our students, we want to invest in
a diverse faculty as well.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. You know, this is not just about who
is in the classroom. It is also about which institutions are
being given the resources to uplift black students. HBCUs make
up 3 percent of colleges in America, but we are producing 17
percent of all black bachelor's degree graduates, 24 percent of
black STEM degree graduates, 40 percent of black engineers.
Ms. Nelson, how are HBCUs uniquely positioned to support
the growth and development of black students and their
communities? If you can be brief, I want to get some more
questions.
Ms. Nelson. Sure. HBCUs have long punched above their
weight, despite the fact that they have been deprived of
adequate funding. We know that 13 billion dollars of land
grants have not been distributed to the institutions that
deserve them by mandate of statute, so HBCUs deserve greater
investment, and as you noted, they not only deliver the
greatest number of graduates, they delivered 40 percent of CBC
members as well.
Ms. Adams. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much for that, and
thank you for the work that you are doing. I really appreciate
that very much. Mr. Taylor, let me ask you a question. As Chair
of the White House Initiative on HBCUs during the first Trump
administration, you saw firsthand how underfunding holds these
institutions back.
HBCUs contribute 16.5 billion dollars to our economy every
year, and that is the return on investment. Our schools are
still being short-changed. Do you believe that Congress should
be investing more, and if so, what do you think is the hold up?
Mr. Taylor. Well, and thank you for the opportunity. For
those who do not know, I ran the Thurgood Marshall College
Fund, the country's largest organization committed to advancing
and protecting the policies for our country's publicly
supported, so State HBCUs.
I think I start with the fact that HBCUs are HBCUs. That is
not a race-based designation. In fact, several HBCUs have more
non-black students than black students so that distinguishes
them from them. It is not a race-based distinction. These are
institutions that are open to all, and historically have shown
that to be the case, so it is really good that we have the
numbers, but even still, these institutions are not that.
What I did under the Trump administration, along with the
support of Secretary Betsy DeVos at the time, and President
Trump, was to get the highest level of funding for HBCUs ever
to that point. It still was not enough, to your point, and the
Biden administration has continued that work, so this is not a
political issue for us. These are incredibly important historic
jewels that need to be funded.
It is not about the institutions, it is about the students
who attend those institutions, who we, in the employer side,
need to fill those 7 or 8 million open jobs, so they are
critical to our workforce diversity.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. Let me move on, and ask about the
Augustus Hawkins Center of Excellence, the grant, a program
that is designed to support an array of teachers, and address
shortages and that funded an HBCU in my State.
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Ms. Adams. North Carolina Central, NCCU as we say. It was
listed in the recent Office of Management and Budget memo,
freezing Federal funding. Now, would you agree that this grant
was on that list?
Mr. Taylor. That concerns me. I have two NCCU graduates
sitting behind me, one a three-time North Carolina Central
graduate, and one who received his undergraduate degree, who
happens, by the way, not to be black, and he attended a
historically black college and university.
Anything that takes away from not funding or defunding
programs that work is not good for our country.
Ms. Adams. Yes. You mentioned that not all of the students
who attend are African American students. As a matter of fact,
we have a former Governor of North Carolina, who got--Governor
Easley, who received his degree from NCCU. Do you believe that
the attempt to freeze those funds align with the Committee?
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Adams. In expanding the educator pipeline, and you can
send me that in writing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. I now
recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of our witnesses that are here today, on an incredibly
important topic. I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, your leadership of this Committee throughout this
Congress.
Ms. Neily, I am a firm believer that a student's health and
growth contribute to academic success, and as you have noted,
and we have had a troubling trend in recent years of academic
declines across the country. To that end, I recently introduced
H.R. 649, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which allows
school food service providers the flexibility to serve students
all types of milk in school lunches, including whole milk.
Can you describe, as a parent yourself, the benefit of
providing students with a whole milk option in the school
cafeteria?
Mrs. Neily. Sure. Well, as a parent, my daughter is
underweight, and whole milk actually is one of the few things
that she drinks, and so I am happy that I know she is at least
getting some nutrients, in addition to all the Doritos she has.
Beyond that, certainly we want schools to have the flexibility
to serve students both what they want, as well as what they
need.
I think we have all seen the pictures of school lunches
that have been thrown out, apples that are being wasted, both
from a financial standpoint, as well as just a nutritional
standpoint. I think that is of concern, and so they have
schools be flexible to choose what they want, I think it is
really important.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you for that. As the Co-Chair of
the bipartisan Career and Technical Education Caucus, once
again, this Congress I continue to see the rewards of high
quality, low cost, CTE programs that provide learners of all
ages with tools they need to succeed in the 21st Century.
Part of the recent surge in enrollment in career technical
education is thanks in large part, is to substantial
investments reforms Congress has made to CTE over the years,
much of that thanks to this Committee, including most recently
the passage by legislation Strengthening Career and Technical
Education in the 21st Century Act.
In 2018, it was subsequently signed into law by President
Trump. Mr. Taylor, in your testimony I noted two great examples
of career and technical education in North Carolina and New
York. Can you talk more about how these types of programs are
equipping students with the skills and knowledge they need to
fill the more than 8 million job openings in the United States
today?
Mr. Taylor. Yes, and thank you for this opportunity. Thank
you also for your support of the legislation around
cybersecurity and increasing the number of individuals who have
the skills to help us from a national security standpoint, so
thank you very much, Mr. Thompson--Congressman Thompson.
Yes, as specifically mentioned in my comments, and in our
submitted proposal that there are two programs, one in North
Carolina, one in New York, one and two, they are all over, but
they specifically focus--one is on agriscience, and it starts
in high school, so we do not wait until college to begin
building this pipeline.
It is letting these students understand that there is a
real career in agriculture and agri-business, and there is
significant investment, so it was very wise--a very wise
investment on behalf of this Congress, and it is something that
we think needs to continue to be reinforced. It helps employers
in the back, and the one thing that I know, I have met with the
Presidents of John Deere, the Presidents and CEOs of Cargill,
and what they have all said to us is agri-business is not sexy.
People do not grow up and say send my kid to go work for an
agri-business, although it is absolutely a part of America, our
American economy, and our global dominance. We have said that
sort of investment is critical, and starting in high school
through those programs, introduces students who would otherwise
not know about it, or in the case of African American students,
who say historically we were pathed toward agri-business jobs,
and we do not want to go back there.
It is critical that we say there are huge opportunities
there for all students, and so that is a great example of a
program. We also have other programs that focus very early on
cybersecurity training. Part of the problem when we look at the
act of diversity--for example, employers who hire, is that the
pipeline did not provide us kids who were skilled, who were
even aware of the opportunities in the cybersecurity world.
Add to it what is going to happen with AI. If we do not get
this early, we are in big trouble, and for all our efforts to
want a diverse workforce, we are not going to be able to do it
because we have not prepared and offered through the pipeline,
a group of students who are even aware of the possibilities.
Mr. Thompson. Well, thank you very much. I do think that
given the fact that career and technical education, including
agriculture, is so much about innovation and technology today,
that it is getting sexier, you know. I had not thought about it
in those terms, but thank you for putting that in my head.
Dr. Cooper, I am out of time, but I have a question. I will
forward it to you, it basically is about accountability, and
national accountability in higher education, and the role of
states, which I, you know, some states do better than others,
investing in higher education, and it makes a difference, so
thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the sexy Chairman of Agriculture
for your questions.
Mr. Thompson. I knew that was a mistake when I said it,
actually.
Chairman Walberg. That is a picture in my mind we will not
forget. Now I go to the Harley rider from New Jersey, Mr.
Norcross.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for
putting together this hearing known as the State of the
American Education, and congratulations on your first hearing
as Chairman. What a great topic because it impacts literally
every one of our lives.
Many of us talk about education as that pathway to a future
that we all want. At many times, we do not agree on is what
education is, and should be, and the discussions say that it is
absolutely this, or absolutely is that. It is not. It is a
little bit of each. It is as diverse as we are Americans.
The idea that one size fits all in education just is not
the way to go. Quite frankly, you know, we have heard time
after time that in order to make it in America, you had to go
to college. Well, you know what? That might be true for certain
areas of careers. I want my doctor, medical doctor, certainly
to go to college, and we might even need a couple lawyers.
I am not sure we need all of them, but I grew up as--I
raised my son. I was a single father, and it was challenging,
and that is 46 years ago. I did something that was a little
unique at the time that goes to part of the discussion here. I
wanted to make sure that he and my daughter would see that you
do not have to follow a certain road.
I became a room mom for a bunch of fourth graders. I will
tell you 46 years ago they were not real interested in seeing a
male walk through that door, but for the education of those
children, I think it was incredibly important, and we have come
so far since then. Mr. Thompson, hey, I think that work is
sexy. I will tell you.
A career in technical education, our education system needs
to be focused more on what the career--what the job is. I know
it is great to have one of those pieces of paper up behind you,
but that is not a job. That is not a career. How we get there
is really something that is critical.
I focused a little bit on the earliest years and how do we
get there. We go through the schools in my district, and quite
frankly, around the country, we see there are some real
challenges. Schools are in dilapidated conditions, cyber is
just a thought if you do not bring it in.
That is why the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott and I introduced
a bill called Rebuilding America's Schools Act and invests 130
billion to go to those districts who need it most. Not
everybody needs to have the shiny marble hall, but we need the
basic educational ability to go into a school and do that. When
we talk about creating opportunities for jobs, when we first
started vocational schools, and inside regular high schools
were happening everywhere.
That fell off the edge, and now they are starting to come
back because they are finding out--that next generation, to
work with your hands is a value. Mr. Taylor, I just want to
touch base with one thing. You mentioned that it starts with
elementary education. I say it starts with parents.
Mr. Taylor. Yes.
Mr. Norcross. They say no matter what, I have a doctor, I
have a lawyer, and I have an electrician. I value each of them,
and we as a nation have to value them. Ms. Nelson, can you talk
about infrastructure in school, and why that is important, the
basics have to be there?
Mrs. Nelson. Absolutely. Children should be in facilities
that enable them to learn. We know that across the country
there are fundamental inequities in school funding that leads
to fundamental inequities in infrastructure.
In the State of Maryland, in Baltimore, for example, we
have litigated cases that have shown that the school system
there is suffering from buildings that have leaky ceilings,
that have, you know, bathrooms that do not function.
Unfortunately, that is not limited to that State. There is
the corridor of shame, and the State of South Carolina where
there are students who receive minimally adequate education, if
that. This is a chronic issue, and sadly it cleaves along
racial lines. It is something that we could certainly address
with a better funding mechanism, and that is something that
this Congress could take up.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. Mr. Taylor, what is your view on
this, and on the infrastructure, particularly in the early
years?
Mr. Taylor. I think it is really important, obviously, for
students to have great facilities, great teachers, et cetera,
but I do not think the answer is solely throwing more money at
it. We look at some school districts in this country who are in
the State of Maryland, for example, who have no funding
problem. Baltimore is one such example where more money has not
solved the problem.
I think we have to be very careful about the idea that we
can solve all of this by putting more money, and that often
times there is money, but it is not applied in the ways that
that will most effectively benefit the children.
Mr. Norcross. Let us be clear, we are not talking about
throwing money, we are talking about building infrastructure.
That is very different than giving a check.
Mr. Taylor. Often the question, the comment, the argument
is we need more money, to provide those foundational and
infrastructural investments. It ultimately comes back to yes,
there no--there are few people I have seen disagree with the
fact that children from every neighborhood, not withstanding
their ZIP code, should go into nice buildings, and have air-
conditioning and heat like others, et cetera.
That is not for debate, but then if it comes--but we need
more money to do it, and the only point is we, as employers,
who will pay into taxes, want to make sure that the investment
we were making, that it actually yields a return on that
investment in employers--in employment.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. As I am looking at my seconds
going down, this is a great start to conversations.
Chairman Walberg. Your time has expired.
Mr. Norcross. Sorry, Congratulations.
Chairman Walberg. I know electricians. They can keep the
juice going.
Mr. Taylor. I am a single dad too, Mr. Norcross, I like
that.
Chairman Walberg. Now, it is an opportunity to recognize
the gentlelady from my birth State of Illinois, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, and thank you to
all of our witnesses for being here today. Mrs. Neily, you
mentioned that Parents Defending Education has identified more
than 12 million children in 1,100 school districts across our
country impacted by parental exclusion policies.
Our colleagues on the left sometimes argue that we are
scaremongering to say that parents are being cut out of their
children's education. Can you explain why this is a very real
problem, and how parents really do get cut out?
Mrs. Neily. Representative Miller, as a parent, and as a
grandparent, you know that we have to sign permission slips to
give our children aspirin or sunscreen in school. The idea that
our schools are not offering intrusive mental health counseling
telling children they are born in the wrong body, that mommy
and daddy might not love them because of their politics or
their religion, is something that is so abhorrent that this is
happening with our tax dollars to our children behind closed
doors.
This is happening in 2025 in America. This is not a good
use of taxpayer dollars. It is destroying the parent child
relationship, and it is not just LGBT students that are hearing
this. Last year, or 2 years ago FOX News discovered that 349
students, or teachers, were arrested for teacher student, for
child sex crimes, 75 percent of which were with teachers, or
with their students.
These are horrifying statistics. We teach our children
about stranger danger, and so to have our public officials turn
around and say you should keep secrets from Mom and Dad is
something that is so devastating to a country, to a nation.
That is appalling that we are even having this discussion right
now.
Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Neily, you mentioned that China has waged
an influence campaign to get themselves implanted in our K
through 12 schools. What do we know about how many schools
China has infiltrated, and what are they teaching in these
schools?
Mrs. Neily. We released a report called--into Confucious
classrooms, called Little Red Classrooms, and we identified 143
districts around the country, in 34 states, including 20 near
military bases where Chinese teachers, Chinese materials,
curriculum had come directly from CCP linked entities.
The dollar amounts that were coming to these schools were
very low it is well below the Higher Education Act $250,000
threshold, but again, receiving curriculum, receiving books, we
do not actually know what is being taught. For all of our
friends discussing teaching true history, or in Tiananmen,
Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs genocide.
Are those covered in these classes? Almost certainly not,
and so, I think there is a real concern as to who is coming in,
and what our children have access to behind our backs.
Mrs. Miller. I do want to challenge the parents in our
country and taxpayers, to get involved, and find out what is in
the curriculum in the school districts that they are supporting
or their children are in. Books are silent teachers.
To close, I would like to commend President Trump for his
strong leadership to safeguard and strengthen our Nation's
education system. Last month he issued an executive order to
refocus schools on academic excellence, and ensure education
remains free from political indoctrination.
On the same day he signed another executive order promoting
school choice and empowering parents to determine the best
educational paths for their children. These decisive actions
affirm the President's commitment to an educational system that
prioritizes students and parents over government bureaucrats
and teacher unions. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I recognize
my faith-filled friend from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, and Ranking
Member Scott, and to our witnesses for being with us today. I
have read your testimoneys. Instead of addressing gun violence
in our schools, or taking real steps to get a handle on how
expensive a year of child care, or getting an education has
become in this country, my Republican colleagues have been
circulating a 50-page document going over ways that they can
raise revenue at the expense of American families. Hidden deep
in the leaked GOP memo is a proposal for a new tax on State and
Federal scholarships and fellowships, which I would like to
submit digitally for the record.
[The information of Mrs. McBath follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. McBath. In my home State of Georgia, students and
families have come to know and love the HOPE and the Zel Miller
Scholarships, two programs that will pay for students' full
yearly in-State tuition if they keep up their grades. I would
like to make this very, very clear, national Republicans are
proposing an increase on taxes for students and families in
Georgia.
An increase on taxes for families across this country.
Students in Georgia know that if you work hard in school, the
State will help you get through college, and start a career,
but this new tax threatens that promise and undercuts the
financial security of Georgia's families, of this Nation's
families.
Last year, more than 185,000 Georgians received almost a
billion dollars in scholarships and grants through the HOPE
Program alone. All of this award money, along with any other
scholarship that a student earns would now be considered
taxable income if this proposal by House Republicans were to
become a law.
I am a mother. I know how important the HOPE and other
scholarships are to all the families across this country. I
unfortunately never got to send my son, Jordan, off to college,
but we certainly had been planning for it. As a single mom
working as a flight attendant before I came to Congress,
figuring out how we were going to pay for it was something that
I thought about often.
Every day. I thought about it until the day that he was
murdered. The HOPE Program was something I knew that Jordan and
I could rely on, and it would be a gut punch for families who
also rely on HOPE and other types of financial aid to no longer
be able to count on these programs without receiving a new tax
bill. I am horrified at this attempt.
Families and students in our country deserve better. Ms.
Nelson, my question is for you. In your testimony, you did talk
about the importance of student aid. Can you briefly discuss
the impact that taxing scholarships, grants, and fellowships
would have on students and families at all income levels?
Mrs. Nelson. Absolutely, and thank you for also mentioning
the issue of gun violence. I would be remiss if I did not say
that there have been over 700 school shootings in the past
fewer than two decades.
To your question about taxation of scholarships, not only
is that concerning because it limits the opportunities to
achieve higher education, what many who are advocating for so-
called school choice will do with those tax dollars is syphon
them out of the public education school system, and use them to
fund private education for just a few.
Not only is it taking money out of the pockets of people
who need that funding to pursue higher education. It is then
funneling that money, potentially, into the pockets of private
actors who are trying to usurp the public school education
system.
Mrs. McBath. Is that something that has become more of a
problem throughout the nation? It seems increasingly that those
dollars are going to that very end. I just wanted to say thank
you for that answer, and I know that I will do everything in my
power that I can ensure that this proposal never makes it
beyond this memo.
I encourage all of my colleagues to fight back against this
tax increase that will make students' and families' lives
harder and more expensive back home. I am talking to my
constituents, and they are scared to death. How are they going
to be able to afford to send their children to college? Most of
the students across the Nation, they need help. They need
financial assistance, and why are we cutting them below the
knees and preventing them from having what they deserve?
It is a global and stellar academic education. They have to
be able to globally compete, and this does not do that. Thank
you, and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now, I recognize
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Rulli.
Mr. Rulli. Thank you, Chairman Walberg. Mrs. Neily, we have
seen Trump's work to combat DEI in schools. What else could be
done to address left wing influence in our public-school
systems?
Mrs. Neily. Oversight is a tremendously important thing.
The executive orders are a great first step, but there is a lot
of work to be done in Congress to put meat on the bones, to
actually put the regulations in place, and so I think a lot of
school board members are concerned about how this is going to
affect them. They have seen that ed tech vendors have dropped
the use of pronouns, and so people are worried about exposure.
I think that to the extent that we are able to offer some
reassurance of how this process will unfold in a clear and
orderly manner, I think that is important. As we know, these
activists are willing to die on this hill of dividing students
along amenable characteristics along race, along sex, along
things like that.
It is in the curriculum, it is in programming, it is in
teacher training materials, and so there really needs to be a
top to bottom examination, both at the local level, the State
level, and the Federal level. I know that the Department of
Education has taken steps to put people on leave.
I think that needs to extend beyond the Federal Government,
as well as going down to local activities because there is so
much money, as Mr. Taylor alluded to in the system, but it is
not making its way into classrooms. It is not making its way to
students that need it. It is not making its way into teacher's
pockets.
The growth of the administrative State has been appalling
over the past several years, and a lot of the ESSER money that
we received, or that we saw doled out under the Biden
administration, again was used for DEI programming in blue
states like California and Illinois, and it did not make it
into addressing the tremendous learning loss that our children
faced.
Let us remember, even before the pandemic, American
education was not in great shape. Our children deserve better.
We have a lost generation of children right now that deserve an
actual quality education.
Mr. Rulli. I cannot agree with you more. I was a school
board member for 8 years, and the exciting thing I have seen in
the last 2 years, you know, Ohio is, you know, it is a home
ruled State, so we like to bring them back to the basics, but
even when you look at Virginia, if you really want to take the
school systems back throughout the country, you want to start
at the school board meetings.
Normally we know at a school board meeting it is very low
attended, normally, unless there is something really big and
controversial going on. No one shows up there, but you know,
the people have a very big voice within a school board, and
school board members know we will be responsible for our
constituents to be re-elected, so your suggestions to parents
that are concerned with things that their kids tell them that
are taught in the school, and how they approach that school
board. Do you have anything for that?
Mrs. Neily. My organization has guides for parents'
questions to ask, ways to speak, how to get involved. We are on
the phone with parents 7 days a week talking them through their
2-minute comments, making sure they are hitting the high
points. This is very much a case of the price of liberty is
eternal vigilance.
We cannot be everywhere. You cannot be everywhere. The
Department of Education cannot be everywhere. I think we have
watched over the past 4 years Americans beginning to re-engage
their civic engagement muscles, that had frankly atrophied.
Many people focus on the Federal Government, but where you live
matters.
Your backyard matters, your local elected officials matter.
For people to be able to get involved in that and not be
shouted down by their school board members, who frankly do not
want the feedback, but they are not doing a great job, is a
terrific first start.
Mr. Rulli. I completely agree. Now, Mrs. Neily, you also
mentioned that the schools are eliminating gifted and talented,
and even I mean I am even hearing AP classes. Is this in the
name of DEI? Why is this an awful decision in your opinion for
the students?
Mrs. Neily. Yes, unfortunately we are watching what is
called de-tracking, multi-level classes are now considered a
bad thing because some districts feel that the wrong races, or
the wrong kinds of students are in these classes, and so the
solution then is frankly ripped out of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison
Bergeron, it is bring down the best performers so that everyone
is frankly, equally a low performer.
My daughter is in a gifted program, and she gets bored when
she is not challenged. I think we want as a country, to
encourage students to excel, to work hard. These are virtues
that made America the envy of the world, and so why we would
turn those aside and say no, no, no, that is privilege, no,
that is white supremacy, is something that is such a slap in
the face.
My grandparents met in an internment camp, and they were
able to pull themselves up out of poverty after they got out of
the camps. To deny other people, or for teachers and
administrators to tell people because of your skin color you
cannot achieve, or you cannot do better, the country is
systemically racist is a real insult.
You know, students lack the basic skills to succeed in a
global economy, and so we should try to bring up the low
performers but also celebrate the high performers.
Mr. Rulli. Okay. I completely agree, again. I think AP
classes maybe could be what unites both sides of the aisle to
get back to where we get our kids as to eye of the prize, so
thank you so much, Mrs. Neily, and with that I yield my time
back to the Chair, thank you.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the
educator for Connecticut, Ms. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, and thank you to all our witnesses
for testifying. I do not know who hurt you, or what teachers
your children have been exposed to, but that is--none of this
has ever been a part of my experience. This week the Washington
Post reported that the administration is preparing an executive
order to abolish the Department of Education.
President Trump has long promised to abolish the
Department, and Elon Musk has reiterated these proposed goals
on his social media platforms. Since its creation in 1979, the
Department of Education has been committed to ensuring high
quality education for children across the country.
As the Chairman noted, there are about one million children
who participate in private school choice programs, but 49.6
million children participate in public school education. What
about them? Who is advocating for them? There are not enough
slots in charter school programs for all 49 million of those
children.
The Department protects the civil rights of students,
supports students from low-income backgrounds, develops and
prepares educators, provides resources for English learners,
and is responsible for 1.6 trillion dollars in Federal loan
programs. In addition, the Department runs the National
Assessment of Educational Progress, and collects statistics on
enrollment, staffing, and crime in school.
The Individuals with Disabilities Acts, makes free and
appropriate public education available to eligible children
with disabilities. In the 2022 and 2023 school years, 7.5
million students received special education, or related
services through IDEA or the equivalent of 15 percent of all
public school students.
Shutting down the Department of Education would profoundly
impact Title I schools. It is telling that none of the
witnesses on this panel could say affirmatively yes, that the
Department should be shut down because you know that the answer
is no.
The Department administers 18.4 billion in Title I program
funding to low-income K-12 schools. Also, as I mentioned, the
Department runs 1.6 trillion in student loan programs, one of
its largest missions. Mr. Cooper, in your opening you talked a
lot about the cost of college.
I think that the conversation we should be having is how do
we lower the cost of education, not discourage it. While many
of you have a very short memory, I chose to go to college
because my grandmother could not. There were laws prohibiting
it.
While you throw around and weaponize words like diversity,
equity and inclusion, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund did not come
into play in these conversations as a nice gesture. It was to
push back on laws that prohibited people like my grandmother
from pursuing higher education.
While you are correct, Mr. Taylor, we need to prepare the
next generation workforce, as we know in an industrialized
nation, that is not just going to be people who work in
factories. That is going to be the doctors and the lawyers, and
the teachers, and the social workers, and the community
leaders, the engineers, which all require college degrees.
What we should be doing is trying to make every opportunity
available to every student that wants it, no matter what that
opportunity is. Ms. Nelson, can you talk a little bit about
what would happen to the 7.5 million children who receive
services related to IDEA from the Department of Education, and
need for us to be advocating for them.
What would happen to them if the Department is dismantled?
Mrs. Nelson. Well, I am glad that you mentioned the number
of Federal statutes that the Department of Education is
responsible for enforcing, along with the Department of
Justice. Children who need IEPs, individual education plans,
because they learn differently, because they have challenges in
different ways would be bereft of any Federal support without
the Department of Education.
They would have to rely on State and local governments that
are often underfunded and often do not have the expertise to
enforce Federal law. The Department of Education is an absolute
necessity to the survival and thriving of this Nation's
students, and especially those who are more challenged.
Mrs. Hayes. Have you seen a push for all of these voucher
programs and private charter school programs--a push to attract
those students?
Mrs. Nelson. No. That is the problem.
Mrs. Hayes. I have not either.
Mrs. Nelson. That is the problem. That is the problem with
these private schools being funded with public tax dollars.
Private schools are not required to accept all students. They
often reject students who have learning disabilities, or who
somehow do not fit the mold of a private school child.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, my time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. Thank the gentlelady, and I recognize the
gentleman from Missouri, a new member of the Committee, glad to
have you on it, Mr. Onder.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, and thank you to
the witnesses for appearing here today. In the United States,
today we are faced with a cruel irony that regarding K to 12
education over the last decade, and this trend does go back
much further.
We have spent more and more on education, public education
and gotten worse and worse outcomes. I spent a decade in the
Missouri General Assembly, 8 years of that on the Senate
Education Committee. Over and over again, lobbyists for the
school administrators, the school board association, the
teachers' unions, came to our Committee, and they had one
message, give us more money.
Give us more money. In Missouri, and these are national
statistics, indeed we have been giving public education more
money. We are up to now about almost 16,000 per student K to
12. At the same time here are NAEP Scores, of which the most
recent data came last week.
These are plummeting. They plummeted worse after COVID. I
would say not after COVID, after the government response to
COVID, which was very dysfunctional and very harmful.
We had this irony that we are spending more, and we are
getting less in the way of favorable outcomes. At the same
time, we have--what are we spending the money on? Well, here--
here is a graph of the growth. In blue and the green are the
growth of students and teachers, about 8 percent both, almost
identical.
37 percent growth in principals and assistant principals,
and 88 percent growth in other administrators. By the way, the
teachers make on average $70,000 a year, actually a little less
in Missouri, unfortunately. The administrators on average make
$103,000 a year.
This is where our money is going. This is where our money
is going. We are taking our eye off the ball, and not focusing
on what really matters, which is these teachers teaching these
students how to read and write, and do math. What is worse is
we are getting our eye off the ball in other ways.
Instead of teaching, reading and writing and math, not what
to think, but how to think. Instead, you know, Mrs. Neily, we
are spending time doing things like well, running urgent care
centers in schools, and all the wrap around services, whatever.
If we cannot teach kids how to read, what are we doing running
pediatrics offices and urgent care clinics?
Even worse yet, we are indoctrinating these kids with
pernicious ideologies. Kids are learning about the 15 latest
genders but not how to do multiplication, division and all.
Mrs. Neily, just I believe, by the way, I believe that the
Federal Government is playing a very negative role in all of
this. The Federal Government is only providing 11 percent of
the funding but driving this administrative bloat.
What can we--and I believe abolishing the Department of
Education is definitely a big part of the solution. There are
some good functions in the Department of Education, IEPs, and
so on, but they could be spun off. Mrs. Neily, how could we get
back on the focus of how--of educating kids, rather than
indoctrination and, you know, bloating our school
bureaucracies?
Mrs. Neily. Unfortunately, I think a fish rots from the
head. President Biden had a day one executive order injecting
equity into everything, and we saw that play out in the form of
grants, in the form of other things. As you know, he who pays
the piper calls the tune.
Every Federal dollar that goes out the door has strings
attached to it where they know that they have to prioritize
equity over student excellence. Let us think back to the NEA's
annual meeting several years ago where the General Assembly
vote did not vote through to focus on student excellence, but
they do learn things like abortion, foreign policy, and things
like that.
We have teachers union leaders that have sold off their
members, prioritizing things like restorative justice over
actually educating children, keeping teachers safe. Teachers
right now have taken on such a large load. They are an
emotional support animal. They are a generous support
transition counselor.
That is like a $250,000 a year job, that is not a $50,000 a
year job.
Mr. Onder. Right.
Mrs. Neily. Our teachers deserve better, and I think they
want to get back to the basics because that is what they were
hired for.
Mr. Onder. You know and when I talk to teachers in my
district, and I am a physician. When I have talked to my
patients who are teachers, they do not want to do any of that.
A great majority of them do not. Some are idealogues, but the
great majority do not.
They are doing it because as you say, the Federal
Government is driving this train, they are paying the piper,
they are calling the tune. Thank you for your testimony. I
yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and now I
recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion, welcome.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Ranking Member
Scott, and thank you to the witnesses that are joining us here
today. I was a former teacher of almost 30 years. I taught
science, physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, AP biology, 15
to 1 living environment. I worked directly with students,
families, and other teachers.
Education is the great equalizer. It is also the great
stabilizer, and our public schools are the cores of our
community. I was also the founding Chairman of the New York
State Senate Committee on Disabilities. I am also a parent. I
understand how critical it is to make sure that our schools are
well funded, that our students have all the resources they need
to be successful, and that our teachers are supported, and have
that as well.
In the New York 22d congressional District, it is the home
to great public schools that are supported by our communities.
Families choose to move to my district because of our fantastic
schools. Between my wife and I, we spent nearly 60 years in a
classroom, and we spent those years in both private, public,
urban, suburban and other settings.
I have seen the disparities that exist between our own
public schools, and the inequities that impact the chances of
students meeting the great American dream, and having that
great equalizer of public education. I am glad that we are
having this conversation today because there are areas of
education that do need improvement, but some of the things that
I have heard today have nothing to do with what is happening in
the classrooms.
I encourage, as the previous Congressman mentioned, that
you have conversations with your teachers, with your friends
that are teachers, with your family members that are teachers
that you trust. Also, as a New York State Legislator, I was
proud to support record funding for our schools as they are
performing more necessary functions for our communities, and we
are asking teachers, social workers, and school psychologists,
to do more than they ever had before.
As the cores of our community, they have the ability to do
so and have. I have also increased expansion of universal pre-K
into various areas of the State. I more than doubled
apprenticeship funding, so that people can change careers at
whatever point in their lifetimes, including in their secondary
education setting, and that has transformed lives.
My question is for Ms. Neily. I started teaching in 1993.
Since that time, we have increased the number of parent teacher
organizations specializing in things like special education
PTOs. We also have an increased number of meet-the-teacher
nights. We live stream school board meetings. We have websites
that have access to syllabi, curriculum.
We have easy access to teachers with emails and phone
calls. Beyond all that, we also have students in classrooms
with cell phones that are audiotaping, videotaping, or
livestreaming instruction in those classes. My question is yes
or no question. Do you believe over the course of the last
generation that parents have less access and input into
education?
Mrs. Neily. Yes, I do.
Mr. Mannion. I would argue that my experience and my wife's
experience in a classroom, and my experience as a parent, your
comment is highly subjective, and inaccurate.
Mrs. Neily. Thousands of parents around this country would
love to have access that your district does. I have talked to
hundreds of parents around the country who have to file public
records requests on a regular basis to have access to those
curriculum, to have access to lesson plans.
I myself, through my organization, have paid approximately
$100,000 over the past 4 years to gain access to emails, lesson
plans and things like that. I know how to fight, but most
average parents do not know how to. When they do ask questions,
when they show up at a school board, they are shouted down,
they are called names.
They are doxed by their colleagues and by members of the
school board.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Ms. Neily. I believe what you are
referring to are very outlying instances.
Mrs. Neily. I believe you are----
Mr. Mannion. In New York we have over a half a million
students that are identified as students with disabilities. I
participated in CSE meetings, and both sides of that table.
Parents understand that it is necessary to continue the
Department of Education, and that these students receive a fair
and appropriate public education.
Do you believe that fulfilling our Federal requirements for
our students with disabilities is a distraction, as you have
stated in the past?
Mr. Owens [presiding]. Excuse me, your time has expired.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, thank you so much. I would like to
now--Mr. Harris, North Carolina.
Mr. Harris. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to all
of our witnesses, thank you all for your participation today in
this hearing, and I have had the opportunity to review your
testimoneys. Ms. Neily, I was taken in your testimony that you
mentioned the threat of foreign adversaries posed to our
students.
We know from reports, from watchdog organizations like
yours, that foreign funding is an issue at the K through 12
level, and in higher education.
Calls of the lack of accountability and transparency, this
is likely just the tip of the iceberg of what we know. For
example, this Committee worked with the Select Committee on the
CCP and found that nearly two dozen universities across the
country had specialized joint research partnerships with China
involving sensitive military technology.
I am particularly shocked by the lack of caution our
schools have when partnering with our greatest foreign
adversaries, such as the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, all
of this led me to introduce the No Contracts with Foreign
Adversaries Act, which would begin to tackle this problem at
the collegiate level by requiring institutions to disclose
contracts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran.
My question to you, Mrs. Neily, is can you just elaborate
what harm does the take money first and ask questions later
approach have for our students, as well as for our national
security?
Mrs. Neily. Unfortunately, I think most school districts
are not aware of the threat that is posed. In Fairfax, the
Thomas Jefferson School for Science and Technology, formally
America's No. 1 Magnet School partnered with the Tsinghua
University High School, which is that partners with Tsinghua
University, a Chinese military school that is supervised by the
Chinese defense industry, according to the Australian security
policy studies.
The Simpson County Board of Education in Kentucky entered
into an agreement with the North China Electric Power
University, which works directly with the Chinese government's
energy sector to push China's global energy initiatives as part
of its belt and road initiative.
These are things that local school boards and school
districts are not aware of whatsoever. Often times this is
secure or classified information that these kinds of things are
taking place. For us to open our doors, and open our data bases
to these foreign adversaries, is something that I think is
appalling, and that really needs Federal intervention, so thank
you for your work.
Mr. Harris. Well, and thank you for your work, and for
again, bringing this information forward because I think it is
going to be absolutely critical in protecting our national
security as well as our students going forward.
Switching gears just a little bit, in the public school
system, Ms. Neily, and this again is to you, who currently has
more influence over a child's intellectual development, parents
or bureaucrats?
Mrs. Neily. Unfortunately, it seems to be bureaucrats at
this moment in time. When you have school officials that are
telling children that their parents love is conditional, but
their parents might not love them because of their religion, or
their politics, that really throws up a wall that unfortunately
is going to create lasting damage, much beyond a child's
graduation from high school.
What parents often I talk to them, and they say they have
to de-program their kids from what happens in school. There is
both the pressure of trying to conform to and please an
authority figure, like a teacher or a principal, as well as the
peer pressure because everyone else around them is also getting
inculcated with the same materials.
Mr. Harris. Well, I think--and as a followup to that I
think your point is well taken, is the Federal system of
supporting education really structured to empower parents, or
is it set up more to empower school systems themselves?
Mrs. Neily. Right. I mean I think, you know, looking at the
influence that the teachers' union leadership has had over the
Federal Government over the past several years is something
that I know is likely to taper off over the next coming years,
and I think American families are excited about that.
Mr. Harris. Well, and I would like to give a moment just to
discuss any examples you have seen of parental rights being
trampled on at the expense of the woke gender movement that I
think all of us in the country have been aware of.
Mrs. Neily. I think in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, they had a
sign up, and they also have teacher training materials that
said, you know, the right to know a child's gender identity is
something that must be earned. I mean the idea that I have to
earn information about my child is something that is appalling.
We have watched districts weaponize FERPA, the Federal
Education Rights and Privacy Act, saying that children have a
right to privacy from their parents. That was not the original
intent of the law, and to watch local officials take and
bastardize something that was intended to be both a sword and a
shield for families, is something again that is a deep slap in
the face.
There are Federal statutes in place. The PPRA where that
governs the amount of information of what can be, what
questions districts can collect from students. Often times
school officials do not even know that there are things where
if they are asking students about sexuality, about drug use,
about politics, that they have to notify parents and give
families an opportunity to opt out.
That is because school officials are not learning what
their obligations are under the law, when they learn from their
school associations, and they learn from the superintendent
association, the principal's association, they are learning
about woke topics instead of learning about their actual
responsibilities.
Mr. Harris. Well, thank you so much, and I would say, I
mean you have been a wealth of information this morning, and
all of you on the panel. We appreciate again, your service, and
the information that you have made us aware of today. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. I would now like to recognize my
friend from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses. I am not going to sit in this hearing today and
pretend that everything is normal because it is not. We are
barely 2 weeks into the new administration. We have already
seen extreme attacks on public education straight out of the
Project 2025 playbook.
Here is a reminder. Members of Congress swear to support
and defend the United States Constitution. No member of either
party should stay silent as the Trump administration and Elon
Musk take unconstitutional and illegal actions to withhold
appropriated funding, or to violate our constitutional
separation of powers.
I know that Democrats, and hopefully some Republicans,
because we have seen that over the years, will stand against
attempts to weaken or dismantle our system of public education,
or divert Federal dollars from public schools to private
educational institutions that are only available to a few, and
generally not accountable for their students' safety and
success.
Yesterday, I was proud to introduce House Resolution 94
with more than 60 of my colleagues in defense of public
education and in defense of the civil rights protections
provided to students under the authority of the U.S. Department
of Education, an authority that is granted by Congress.
I have to say I am pretty disappointed that the Chair of
this Committee said yesterday that he would support efforts to
depower the Department of Education. We are all here to, I
would hope, do what is best for the students in this country.
Ms. Nelson, you testified that voucher programs and the
lack of the kind of public school accountability and
transparency that is required of public schools, do they
obscure whether taxpayer dollars are effectively spent and
whether students receive the support they need?
That was in your testimony. You also testified that
divestment from public education in favor of privatized
education will exacerbate the kind of transparency and
accountability that is in the public system. I also want to
note that I represent a lot of rural communities. I represent
urban communities as well, and in rural communities, they do
not want their public education dollars taken away and say
here, we are taking away your public education dollars, here is
a voucher.
There is no place to use it because there is no place even
close by to use a voucher. What are the challenges with holding
private schools accountable? Do we know how students are doing
in these schools?
Mrs. Nelson. Yes, and thank you for naming the elephant in
the room, the elephant in this country, and that is what is
basically a grand larceny of our entire Federal Government,
while we stand by and watch folks in this room attempt to
pickpocket public education.
You talk about transparency and accountability, and I have
heard that mentioned by some of the witnesses on this panel. If
we are serious about those two concepts, we know that private
education does not have the same oversight that public
education does. It certainly would not have sufficient
oversight if we were to dismantle the Department of Education.
Private schools operate under the radar. We do not get to
collect the same data and information that we do in public
schools, so the idea that we are necessarily giving children a
better education in private school is anecdote. It is not
clear.
Ms. Bonamici. I do not mean to interrupt.
Mrs. Nelson. Sure.
Ms. Bonamici. I want to get through my questions. What
happens if parents take one of these vouchers and then go to a
private school, and they discover that gosh, this is not
everything they promised, is there any recourse for them?
Mrs. Nelson. Well, they can try to return to a public
school, but if we were to take this to its full logical
conclusion, and parents are shopping children around to
different private schools, we know that the infrastructure of
public schools in the public school system will significantly
deteriorate.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that, and I wish I had 5 hours
to dispel some of the myths that I have heard here today, but I
want to ask you about this so-called parent's rights campaign.
Mrs. Nelson. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. That calls for narrow minded book bans and
revision of curricula. Now, everybody in this Committee knows,
because it is the law, that the Federal Government does not
have dictate curriculum. A lot of the issues I have heard
discussed here today are local issues.
Recent efforts, including the so-called parents bill of
rights that actually moved through the House last Congress,
have been written in ways that could really harm vital mental
health support for students, and behavioral healthcare, the
need for behavioral healthcare, is something I hear about
constantly.
In fact, the National Association of School Psychologists
indicated that the bill would ``undoubtedly exacerbate the
youth mental health crisis and undermine efforts to improve
school safety.'' I hope we all care about school safety, and if
we really cared about school safety, we would do something
about gun violence.
How would this Republican parent's bills of rights, and the
dismantling of the Department of Education affect resources and
policies that foster a safe and healthy school climate, and how
would students, schools, and communities be harmed?
Mrs. Nelson. Well, children need additional supports. Of
course, we all agree that children should receive basic
education. They should leave school with skills. They should
learn reading, math and everything else, but they also require
additional supports as any parent knows, as I know, as a
parent.
Students are not just what they learn in the textbook. They
are nurtured by their teachers, they are nurtured by their
environments, and they deserve the types of investments that
will enable them to succeed. What we have heard a lot today is
a lot of anecdotal conspiracy rhetoric about what is happening
in schools.
As a proud product of the public school system, and a proud
parent of children who have attended public schools, I have
seen nothing of the sort of what is been alleged today.
Ms. Bonamici. The same. I spent years as a very involved
public-school parent, and I have to say that children do not
learn when they are hungry, or when they are sick, so the
thought of withdrawing support for students is not appropriate,
is baffling. I yield back.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize my
friend from Indiana, Mr. Messmer.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor,
apprenticeships are a proven model, paid, on the job training
with related technical instruction to educate workers for
career success. Despite the growth over the past decade,
registered apprentices only make up about three-tenths of a
percent of the workforce.
What are the greatest barriers to broader adoption of
apprenticeships from an employer standpoint, and what are some
of the challenges in engaging students to pursue those
apprenticeships?
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Messmer. We--so, we are huge,
huge supporters of apprenticeships. From SHRM's standpoint, we
need them again, to address the worker shortage, and more
importantly the skilled worker shortage. The earlier that we
can allow people, for example, who do have college degrees to
gain experience while in college often through registered
apprenticeships, we are increasing that pipeline of highly
qualified workers.
The barriers are one, the word apprenticeship suggests,
especially when you speak to people coming out of higher ed,
that it is not quite, you know, you do not need an
apprenticeship. I am a lawyer for example, and my
apprenticeship was considered a summer associateship. It is the
way we talk about it that has made it less attractive to
students, and so they do not rush to that because they assume
that apprenticeship is tied to me becoming a welder, which is a
very good job, and they pay more than that lawyer, who
graduated from law school.
At the end of the day, we have to work on what has been a
stigmatization of that word apprentice. That is a barrier. Then
second, and significantly for historically underrepresented
communities, oftentimes these apprenticeships are unpaid.
I have got to tell you as much as one wants to get
experiential treatment, if you do not--if you have to choose
between, and oftentimes children--I was one of those children,
who had to spend the summer making money to pay for school for
the next year. If I had the choice--had to make the tough
choice between an unpaid apprenticeship and working a job that
did not necessarily give me skills that would prepare me to be
a better lawyer, but one was unpaid. That is a problem.
To the extent this Congress can help us fund those
apprenticeships, those are the two significant barriers that we
see. By the way, it is not limited to historically
underrepresented groups, there are a number of majority members
who come from places like West Virginia, where they may be
financially challenged, and they cannot participate in
apprenticeship programs because of funding.
Mr. Messner. Thank you. Mrs. Neily, tomorrow I will
introduce the Instruct Act, which will require intelligence
agencies to boost their inner agency coordination on foreign
harm influence in our schools, along with retroactively share
all past reports on the topic across departments. In your
opinion, do you view this legislation as a step in the right
direction?
Mrs. Neily. I think absolutely it is a step in the right
direction. Schools collect such a vast amount of data about
children on a regular basis, and frankly, it is not secured
very well. We all hear on a regular basis about schools being
hacked, data being held by ransomware.
What is going to happen when that--with the information
about either military families, or just average families, is
held by a hostile, foreign power that seeks to exploit us. I
think it is terrifying, and I think your bill is a step in the
right direction.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Does accepting money from foreign
sources lead to education system being beholden to the values
and influences that do not share American values?
Mrs. Neily. Absolutely. We do not know who is writing the
books. I think for parents to actually know that information
means that they can make an informed decision whether they want
their child to enroll in a Mandarin course taught by a
Communist Party official, or if maybe they want to take a
Spanish course instead.
Parents deserve the right to make that decision, with
complete information, which as of this moment in time they
currently do not have.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. In my home State, school choice
programs have shown to statistically benefit minority
populations at a much higher ratio than the rest of the
population. Mrs. Nelson, can you validate with statistical
data, rather than anecdotal claims that school choice programs
penalize minority students?
Mrs. Nelson. Certainly. I am so glad that you raised your
State of Indiana where more than a quarter of the students, who
are required to repeat grades in your State are black, and
nearly a tenth are Latino. I will tell you that school
vouchers, in many of the programs that we are aware of, have
actually decreased the learning of the students who have those
vouchers.
It has not improved their educational outcomes. It has left
them----
Mr. Messmer. You can provide a statistical data to show
that?
Mrs. Nelson. I can, I can provide statistical data.
Mr. Messmer. Well, that is a little contrary to what we
have seen in our State, so.
Mrs. Nelson. Well, I am happy to share what our studies
have shown, and in fact, if we look at the State of South
Carolina, I will give you that example, where the Supreme Court
of the State of South Carolina just last November in a court
case held that their voucher program contradicted the State
Constitution, and was unconstitutional because it drained
resources from the public school system.
There are significant concerns, not only about the
educational value when you use school vouchers, but also what
it does to destroy the public school system for the rest of the
children, the vast majority of children who are left without
vouchers and are in the public school system.
We do not just want to focus on those who have vouchers. We
want to focus on the majority of students in this country, the
nearly 50 million who do not have vouchers to shop around and
try to find a better education.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize from
Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am glad that we are having
this hearing today because I do strongly agree that the State
in America, excuse me, the State of education in America,
should be a concern for all of us. I think that perhaps I
disagree on what are the most serious threats. I disagree on
the seriousness of the assertion that those most serious
threats are things such as woke ideology, or radical
indoctrination, or the fact that you know, LGBTQ+ people exist.
I, however, do believe that among the most serious threats
are the active and deliberate dismantling of public education.
Republicans focus on demonizing our most marginalized students
to distract from the fact that they have no intention, or we of
course, have simply not heard of any intention to actually
improve the State of education.
Throughout not just this hearing, but in general around
this topic, we hear a lot of buzz words, such as school choice,
our parents' rights, our education freedom, our indoctrination,
our Federal overreach, and that is by no coincidence.
These are talking points that we saw, were core tenets of
Project 2025. In this plan conservatives outlined how they
would dismantle the Department of Education, gut public
education, strip away civil rights protections, and impose an
extremely ideological agenda on our schools.
Right now, the President is reportedly preparing an
executive order to bypass Congress and illegally impound funds
within the Department of Education, a first step toward
dismantling the agency altogether.
The President has promised to attack these institutions,
and he is doing that. Let us be clear about what these policies
really mean because we have seen them before. These are the
same arguments that were used to resist desegregation, to
justify pulling public dollars out of integrated schools and
pouring them into segregated academies, and to privatize or
prioritize incarceration over the education of black and brown
students.
The language has changed, but the goals seem to remain the
same. Attorney Nelson, when we hear conservatives pushing for
parental rights and claim to be fighting against
indoctrination, what do you see are the natural consequences of
these efforts. What influence do you think it has on our
students' curricula, or the learning environment for the
students or the teachers?
Mrs. Nelson. Yes. We absolutely believe that parents should
be involved in children's education. This is not a new concept.
If you talk to any teacher, any teacher would welcome parents
to engage. What we do not want is parents to try to override
the expertise of teachers who we have hired because they are
specialized in teaching and training students about what should
be in the curricula, about what should be in terms of our
national standards, right?
Federal laws that have been passed, that have been informed
by experts' research, and other data, not the anecdotes that
people want to bring to advance their own political ideology.
Inviting extremist groups like Moms for Liberty to determine
what the curricula of this country would be, would be
absolutely disastrous.
They would be pedaling an indoctrination by ignorance.
Indoctrination by deprivation of knowledge, and that certainly
does not allow us to be a competitive country and does not
serve all of our children to succeed.
Ms. Lee. Yes. Very quickly, do you believe that dismantling
the Department of Education would help us fulfill the promises
of Brown?
Mrs. Nelson. Absolutely not. It would be counter to the
very promise of Brown. The Department of Education began
because we recognized the need for there to be national
standards and national oversight of our public education
system, and for there to be a Federal apparatus to enforce our
Federal civil rights laws as they pertain to education, and
other laws.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. How do you think, if at all, do these
conservative policies or proposals make our students more
competitive, improve the global standing of the United States,
or prepare our students to enter emerging careers, or ensure
that our students will be prepared to address the significant
challenges on the horizons?
Ms. Nelson. No. To the extent that these conservative
policies attack diversity, equity and inclusion, basic
principles of fairness. Those are America last policies. Those
are not policies that will advance our students to become
competitive in an increasingly global marketplace, in an
increasingly global economy.
We should be leveraging our diversity. It is our greatest
strength. We should be leveraging multi-linguicism. Instead, we
are trying to find ways to really narrow the focus of our
education and to replace it with conservative, extremist
ideology.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. While the most harm, per usual, will be
black and brown students, students with disabilities, and other
marginalized students, we will all pay the price as Attorney
Nelson just said. While our commitment to racism may be
lucrative for the billionaires running the administration right
now, the rest of this Nation will learn that we will all sink
or swim together.
The outcomes in this investment reserved or accepted for
black students will be reflected in our global State in tech
and innovation. While other nations invest in all of their
students to increase their global competitiveness, racism in
our public schools will serve as an anchor for ours. I thank
you and the panel, and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I recognize
the Vice-Chairman of our Committee, Mr. Owens from Utah.
Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, this is
such an important hearing, the State of our education. One of
the most important conversations we are going to have about our
most important national resource, our children. It has been
interesting. First of all, we can all agree, based on recent
results, that our present educational system is failing our
children miserably.
We pay more per child than any other industrialized country
except Luxembourg, and yet 60 percent, this is not anecdotal,
60 percent of our fourth graders, 70 percent, this is not
anecdotal, of our eighth graders are failing, based on the NAEP
reading and math proficiency scores.
We are paying more per student with a lower rate of return
on investment, 70 percent failure rate, and we can no longer do
this. I will be honest with you. I would be a little bit more
accepting as a stakeholder in the NAACP if they were not silent
when 75 percent of our black boys were found in 2017 not to be
able to read and write in the State of California.
We have here in Baltimore, zero proficiency in math for
many of our students. We have black mothers and fathers lining
up to get into a choice, a voucher program because they are
living in a ZIP Code, the kids cannot get educated. We have the
audacity to say we are experts at education. The parents are
ignorant, and yet we have this remarkably failing system.
The answer has been so far let us put more money into it.
You know, I have been hearing this for 40 years. We cannot
disturb--we cannot mess up this system because institutions
because our kids--we cannot take our kids out because that
institution will fail.
Well, when we have this kind of failure, we need to make
sure our kids are focused in that direction. We need correction
through innovation, merit through every piece of the pipeline,
and when we do that is have this conversation about giving our
parents a choice.
Ms. Neily, I want to say thank you. It is good to see you
again, and I thank you, the support you have for thousands upon
thousands of parents across this country that are not really
respected in this body here. You are the stakeholders. As a
parent, I know what is best for my kid, and I would think
everybody in this room would feel the same way.
You would do everything you could to get your child out of
a failing school system. Well, we need to start looking at
other people's children the way we look at ours. Ms. Neily, in
your testimony you mentioned the school district has paid DEI
consultants millions of dollars. Can you explain to us exactly
how those DEI consultants have been--what they were paid for?
Mrs. Neily. Sure. In 2021, we released what we called our
consultant report card. We identified over 100 consultants with
hundreds of contracts in dozens of districts across the
country, making money hand over fist. Encouraging districts to
do things like privilege walks, privilege bingo, things that
are not helping children, but are actively hurting them.
A study by the Network Contagion Research Institute showed
that DEI programming, surprise, surprise, leads to more
divisions in interpersonal relationships. When we see districts
spend money on this, it actually might have been better use
literally lighting in a fire, because at least then children
would be warm instead of hating each other.
Mr. Owens. Dr. Cooper, critics of the market based and
accountability mechanisms, such as risk sharing and performance
funding, often argue that they would punish the open access
institutions, or deter colleges from enrolling low-income
students, who have a lower likelihood of success.
However, these critics do not seem to fit your testimony as
it relates to accountability systems, proposed under the
College Cost Reduction Act. What did you find in your analysis
of the bill's accountability system, and do you believe the
schools would ultimately reduce the share of low income and
disadvantaged students they enrolled as a result?
Mr. Cooper. My analysis of the College Cost Reduction Act,
excuse me, found the exact opposite of what the critics allege.
We find that open access institutions, community colleges,
regional public 4 years would actually benefit from the College
Cost Reduction Act because the CCRA rewards schools for
enrolling low-income students, and also serving them well,
getting them through, making sure they graduate, making sure
that they have good earnings after graduation, and that they
are keeping their prices to a reasonable level.
Mr. Owens. Okay. Thank you. I have a question, Mr. Taylor.
I am going to have done in writing and sent to you. I will just
say this. I grew up at a time where education was our gateway,
segregated community. We led our country because parents and
teachers understood their responsibility to their kids, that
our country grows middle class.
Men entering college. Men committed to marriage, percentage
of entrepreneurs in a segregated black community because
education was put in place to help our kids, not this
institution. We are going to change that, and for those who do
not get it yet, let me suggest you go out and talk to some
parents who really are stuck in these areas that they cannot
get out of.
As a matter of fact, I will take it further. How about
taking your kids, and letting them go into these failing
schools, and just see how cool it is to have all this other
stuff going on, and reading, and writing and understanding math
is not a priority. We are going to make this change. I am
excited about the process. I look forward to working with my
colleagues across the aisle. Kids should come first. That is
our top priority. Thank you, and I will yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman and recognize the
passion that allows you to wear a Super Bowl ring. Who should I
bet on? No, we will not. I now recognize the gentleman from
Texas, a new member of our Committee, glad to have you on it,
welcome Mr. Casar.
Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chairman. Today, we have heard from
House Republicans on this Committee, support for Trump and
Musk's plan to abolish the Department of Education, to slash
critical programs that help students like Title I, Pell grants,
financial aid, and programs that help kids learn, all to pay
for a tax break for Trump's billionaire buddies and for friends
of Elon Musk.
Today, we have heard on the Committee alarming support from
House Republicans for a national voucher scam, that would pull
money out of our public schools and hand it out in private
contracts just to enrich their billionaire donors and/or
friends. If you cannot believe it, just take a look at what has
happened here over the last couple of months.
Musk has been using the Federal Government to get himself
even more rich. He spent 277 million dollars to elect Donald
Trump, and since the election he has become 154 billion dollars
richer. How is making billionaires richer, while taking money
away from our kids--how is that good for education? How is that
good for student outcomes? How is that good for our community?
How is that good for our taxpayers?
It is good for no one, but Trump's ego, and for Musk's
pocketbook. In places like Texas, I have seen rural Republicans
speak out against these voucher scams because they know that
pulling money out of our teachers and out of our public schools
to hand over to unaccountable voucher schools is not empowering
parents. It is taking money away from parents and handing it to
these companies.
For years, unaccountable, unregulated private schools have
stolen public money through State voucher programs. We know
some of those voucher schools took public funds for kids that
were not even intended, or going to those schools, were not
attending that school, embezzling millions of dollars.
Elon Musk has used this kind of thing to his advantage for
years. Remember that he is a government contractor himself, who
is taking untold amounts of money from a Federal Government
that he has saying he is trying to make more efficient for
somebody, but he is really trying to make it more efficient for
himself.
What happens to our students that we want to learn when
they have Title I funds cut away from about 60 percent of our
public schools because of this House Republican plan to give a
billionaire a tax break? Who fills that gap? Is that our
teachers spending their extra money that they barely have so
that they could support our students?
Is that local taxpayers that then have to pay to fill the
gap essentially backfilling the billionaire tax break that the
Republican majority wants to pass? Our public schools that
serve, not just poor kids, but working class and middle-class
kids going to have to close? How does that improve learning for
our students?
We must continue to fight, and I am ready to fight on a
bipartisan basis. If we can see some bravery from some number
of rural Republicans, just like I have seen in the last few
years in places like Texas, who are willing to stand up to the
grift, who are willing to stand up to the corruption, are
willing to actually stand up for our students.
We can improve our education system, and we can do it
without stripping it for parts and selling it to the highest
bidder. Trump, Musk , and their minions, want to expand these
voucher scams not because they want to improve reading, not
because they want to improve math, but because they want to
improve their own wealth. They want to improve their own
standing in the stock market.
You know, this DOGE supposed agency to me is not the
Department of Government Efficiency, it is the Department of
Billionaire Corruption. From politically motivated firings this
last week, to privatizing education, to eliminating whole
departments against the Constitution, all so that private
contractors can cash in, Trump and Musk are focused on one
thing, enriching themselves no matter what the cost to
Americans, and I would hope to hear some House Republican spine
against this spineless corruption.
Unfortunately, what I have been hearing in Committee today,
Mr. Chairman, is people either being silent, or going along
with it even though they know it is going to hurt our kids.
Look at State after State after State where they have passed
these voucher scams, even Republicans that voted for it.
You talked to them publicly and privately, they say this
did not help. All it did was take money away from those schools
that are asking for our help. Those people like us that are
entrusted with these positions of power, we should be using it
responsibly, and not just be going along with the folks that
already have more wealth than anybody has ever had in the
history of this planet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the Chairman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, a new
member of our Committee as well, Mr. Mackenzie from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Mackenzie. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman for the
opportunity to talk about the State of American education
today, and I appreciate all of our testifiers sharing their
experiences and their opinions with us. It is an important
conversation we are having because when we look at higher
education for the years that I have been in public office, both
at the State level and here at the Federal level now, we have
been touting and advocating choice for individuals in higher
education.
We have said that higher education is not only about 4-year
colleges, but we have said that there is so many other good
options out there available to students, whether it is career
and technical schools, going into the military, going straight
into the workforce, then maybe doing continuing education in
that particular job.
Lots of choice at the higher education level. What we have
in America is we have the best system of higher education in
the entire world because of that choice. That is a key element
of our higher education system. Then when we talked about K
through 12 education, for some reason people want to oppose
choice. They want to block choice.
They want to hold people in positions where they are
failing, or they are not secure in their own school districts.
I want to give the example of a family that came to me to talk
about their young daughter who is in high school. She is a low-
income student, but she is in a very good school district. By
all accounts she should have been getting a good education, but
ultimately she became the victim of bullying.
I am just talking about light bullying, or you know,
friendly jostling in the hallways. This was assault. I saw the
videos. It was assault, and the school meted out the proper
punishment, but ultimately the perpetrator ended up back in the
same school, and that student felt like she could not actually
go to school and learn in a safe environment, even though it
was a good school.
Everybody in the community knows that that is a great
school district, and she should be getting a good education.
The parents, they wanted to consider their different options.
They looked at online schooling, and they said well, that is
not going to work for her. That school district did have an
online option, but they said we are two working parents, we are
not going to be able to be there and supervise her on a day in
and day out basis.
She is not going to be able to learn in that kind of
environment. We do not feel like she would be safe at home.
They looked at private schools. The price was too expensive,
she did not qualify for any scholarships, and so that option
was closed to them as well because they were not wealthy, they
did not have that choice, so that choice was closed out to
them.
Finally, there were charter schools in our community. They
looked at the charter schools, but those seats were capped
because people who wanted to oppose choice said that she could
not get an additional seat in that school.
Ultimately she was stuck in this situation where she was in
a great school district where almost all of the other students
are learning well, but she, as a victim of bullying, was stuck
in an environment where she did not feel safe, she was not
ultimately going to school, she was not learning, and she was
going to be on a path to failing that school year because of
opposition to choice.
When people stand up here in opposition to choice, I want
to recognize that there are real victims. When you oppose
choice, there are people, there are individuals in those
classrooms who are the victims of your opposition to choice.
What we need to do is we need to talk about expanding choice
for everybody, so that every student has that opportunity to
succeed.
It should not just be for the wealthy, it should be for
every student regardless of your race, regardless of your
socioeconomic status. We want that choice for everybody. The
public wants that choice. If you look at public opinion
polling, overwhelmingly it is in favor of school choice.
That is the minority position to oppose choice in K through
12 education. That is a losing position, it is failing, it is
not only failing our public, it is failing students like the
one that I talked about today. What I want to do is I want to
raise up those voices of parents.
I want to raise up the voices of advocates for school
choice, those are not just buzz words. There are real people
and real lives attached to those movements. When we stand here
and oppose, I want you to recognize that you are not just
opposing choice, you are opposing that girl who is a victim of
bullying. You are opposing her getting a better education, a
better opportunity and a better life.
That is what you're opposing. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to have this discussion at the start of
this session about the State of American education. We have
lots of things that we can improve upon, but there are so many
good things going on across this country that everybody should
have access to.
Every single person should have those same opportunities,
not just the wealthy, which is what is going on in this country
right now. We can expand those opportunities to individuals
that are not wealthy and give them the same opportunities as
the wealthy by giving them choice.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to you, but I just want to
say thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
advancing legislation this session that will help every
American student get the best opportunity and the best life
they can have. Thank you.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize
the Chairman of the Early Childhood Elementary and Secondary
Education Subcommittee and a passionate educator himself, Mr.
Kiley from California.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have just received the
latest test scores for students across this country, and they
are absolutely alarming. What we see is that the trend
continues to be one of decline, as you can see in this chart
right here. The bottom part of the graph shows from 2013 to the
present average scores in reading and in math, fourth and
eighth grade. Then the top of the chart is particularly
interesting because that shows the level of spending.
The gray curve there is actually inflation, so you can see
the spending line above that exceeds that. This is a steady
growth in spending in real dollars that is proceeding in tandem
with a steady decline in student achievement.
When we are talking about the reforms that are going to be
considered by the President, as well as by this Committee, I
certainly welcome any arguments against them that seek to
identify what the implications of those reforms might be.
There are two responses that I think are wholly inadequate
and are frankly the only responses we have really heard today
from the other side of the dais. No. 1 is defending the status
quo. This is the status quo. It is failure, continuing decline,
a continual dimming of the prospects of America's young people,
and a diminished capacity of America to lead the world.
The second response, also inadequate, is to say the
solution is to just spend more money under the current system,
because as we can see there has been an inverse relationship
between spending and student achievement. Mr. Taylor, you
mentioned this earlier, that simply spending more money does
not necessarily help matters.
Why do you believe that is that we see this actually
inverse correlation between spending and student achievement?
Mr. Taylor. Well, because we ultimately referred to the K
through 16 system has the people who produce the product that
we employers buy. We are increasingly seeing a lower quality
product come out of the K through 16 system. Sadly, if we go
back to the manufacturer, the K through 16 system ultimately
the manufacturer is the parents, but you get into the system,
and you ask them, and they say well, we are spending more money
on it, and we are telling them, but you're not giving us what
we need.
There is not enough volume, and the people who do come
through often your product often does not have the skills. Some
of those are what we call--you call soft skills; we call power
skills. They do not know how to interact with other employees.
They do not know how to work on teams, they do not know how to
show up to work on time.
There is a startling statistic that 20 percent of right now
Gen Z parents are showing up to the interviews with them. This
is what is happening in the workplace, so we are saying got it.
You are spending a lot of money, but we are going to tell you
on the other end of this that the product that you are
receiving and delivering to us is suboptimal.
Mr. Kiley. Right. This is a characterization of the system
as a whole. However, there are examples of schools and school
systems that do quite well, that have an excellent educational
product. I am very grateful that the Chair has trusted me to
lead the Subcommittee that spans K-12 education as well as pre-
K, and our overarching goal is going to be to look at how can
we make it so these examples of really good schools, and good
school systems become the norm, rather than the exception, and
I think that there are principles that you can clearly identify
with successful school systems.
They allow flexibility in terms of how schools are
operated. They demand accountability for actual outcomes, and
then they provide parents and families with choices. Now, this
of course is generally a characterization of how charter
schools work, and charter schools are--have been very
successful in many states across the country.
Some of the priorities that our Committee is going to focus
on are No. 1, the question of funding. How do we reimagine the
role of the Federal Government in education, both when it comes
to the bureaucracies that existand how funding gets allocated.
No. 2 is how can we support school choice in states that
hold states accountable for policies that run against school
choice, whether that be for charter schools or other forms of
choice.
No. 3 is how can we assist educators across the country in
incorporating the very powerful personalized learning tools
that advances in technology have made available. No. 4, is
examining how literacy is being taught across this country.
There is still way too many districts and states that do not
properly teach literacy.
No. 5, is expanding the role of career education, which I
know is a major priority of the Chair, and No. 6 is we need to
look at the broken nature of special education funding, which
is clearly inadequate for many districts, causing many
districts to have to then dip into their general fund budgetand
is not giving students with special needs and their families
the support that they need.
I think that we have a tremendous opportunity, Mr. Chair,
to catalyze absolutely amazing education reform across the
country that will go a long way toward helping millions of kids
and better preparing our country for global leadership in the
future. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. We wish you well
on those ideas and challenges. I now have the privilege of
recognizing the Chairwoman Emeritus of this Committee, Mrs.
Foxx from North Carolina.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses
for being here today. An important topic that you are dealing
with. Dr. Cooper, the Parent Plus Program has been regarded by
many as the most predatory program in the Federal student loan
portfolio.
Like Grad Plus, these loans have origination fees four
times higher than the Stafford loans provided to students at a
9 percent interest rate, which is higher than many private
student loans today. Moreover, Parent Plus loans have no limit
on how much parents can borrow. Can you discuss the harms of
Parent Plus, as well as who is actually benefiting from these
programs?
Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. The Parent Plus Program is
a predatory loan program. There is simply no other way to
describe it. As you mentioned, the interest rates exceed 9
percent, the origination fees exceed 4 percent, and what is
more, 20 percent of the parents who are getting Parent Plus
loans foisted on them by colleges, have an expected family
contribution of zero.
What that means is that the Federal Government has
determined that those parents can contribute nothing
financially to their children's education, yet that same
Federal Government is turning around and handing them an
effectively unlimited loan.
Now, the ones who really benefit from the Parent Plus
Program are the colleges. Out of 5,000 colleges in the United
States, just 500 of those use more than 80 percent of Parent
Plus loans issued every year.
Mrs. Foxx. Let me do a followup on it. Last Congress, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle claimed that the
reforms included in the College Cost Reduction Act, which
sunset the Parent Plus Program and reformed undergraduate
lending, to allow for more flexible borrowing limits would
``cut off access to Federal aid for half of students.''
From your expert perspective, is this actually true?
Mr. Cooper. I think that reflects a misunderstanding of
what the College Cost Reduction Act actually does. Only 10
percent of college students even use Parent Plus dollars, so it
is impossible for half the students to be affected by that, and
as a matter of fact the Urban Institute found that over 90
percent of college students would be unaffected by the limits
imposed in the College Cost Reduction Act.
Who would be affected are the schools that are simply
charging outrageous amounts and forcing the amounts onto
parents. I would say not allowing those schools to foist
unlimited loans on the parents is a feature, not a bug.
Mrs. Foxx. Well, a bit of hyperbole then, right? Mr.
Taylor, I know employers are thinking about student debt of
their employees. We have been trying to address that issue
here. I find it crazy that we allow people to borrow unlimited
amounts through the Plus Loan Program.
Worse, that we allow parents and even grandparents to
borrow unlimited amounts when the Federal Government has
determined they have no ability to pay them off, as Dr. Cooper
just said. How do you feel about the Plus Loan Program, and do
you think it is fair we lend the money out in this manner?
Mr. Taylor. Dr. Foxx, great to see you. We have been
talking about this work a long time, the Thurgood Marshall
College Fund, because I think the Parent Plus loan, to use the
term ``predatory,'' as that program currently works is an
understatement.
We have seen--I understand access and the importance,
particularly in the graduate school of Graduate Plus type
programs, and one to help diversify our Nation's workforce. The
flip side is that we know that on the employment side people
show up with $150,000 of debt and an undergraduate degree in
art, or communications, whatever it is.
They simply cannot focus on their work because they are
working two jobs. It is not at all unusual to find someone who
is under that kind of debt load from the undergraduate debt
load, and my gosh, if they went to go get a master's degree,
and those students simply cannot perform, so they are working
40 hours with us, 30 hours in the evening with Uber, and then
they come back to us, and they are not their best.
We are therefore, not getting the return on our investment.
We then fire them, and it is a vicious cycle. It is not about
on the front end, well intended, I am certain the policy, but
in the end what it has done has made it very difficult for
employers to retain high-quality people and to see the
productivity and efficiency that we need.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Ms. Neily, 2 weeks ago I introduced
H.R. 650, the Family Rights and Responsibilities Act. This
legislation affirms the fundamental right that parents have to
direct the education and upbringing of their children before
interfering in parental educational choices.
This bill requires the Federal Government to prove a
compelling government interest. In your experience, does the
Department of Education know a child's needs better than
parents do?
Mrs. Neily. Absolutely not. Parents know what is going on.
They know what their children's needs are, what their
children's education style are, and so to the extent where
parents are able to determine an education, institution or
values that comport with what they want, as opposed to what a
bureaucrat in Washington wants, I think it is so much the
better, so thank you.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I think the gentlelady. I now recognize
the conservative conscience from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. A couple things. First of all, we are
going to look at college because we have kind of covered
everything today. At the University of Wisconsin in 1993, there
were 26,000 full-time employees, OK. Ten years later the number
of full-time employees went up from 26,000 to 33,000, but the
number of faculty fell from about 7,200 to 5,800.
There was a dramatic cut in the number of faculty and a
dramatic increase in the number of what I will call
administrative staff, something that was not teaching. Can you
comment on that to me at all? I believe that is a nationwide
trend, and that is why I want to bring it up because we always
talk about cost of education.
It seems to me, I mean I have talked to some people in the
universities, they try to give me honest answers, but what is
the deal on that? Does somebody want to comment on this?
Mr. Cooper. America's universities absolutely have a
spending problem. U.S. universities and colleges spend more per
student than any other large county in the developed world. The
University of Wisconsin is just one example.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, that is good. I will give you
another question. Different countries start educating their
students formally at different ages, and in America that could
be 5 years old, can be 6 years old, whatever, but there is no
question that some countries, and I think countries like
Finland or Singapore, they start a formal education later, and
thereby have a higher percentage of the children with their
parents.
Do you know why we are--can you comment on this idea, the
American idea of in cost trying to get the children away from
their parents earlier and earlier, which I hear a lot of some
advocates for, as opposed to doing it in other countries where
we have more confidence in the parents. Do you have some
comment on that?
Mrs. Nelson. Is that an open question?
Mr. Grothman. Yes. Well, I just want a comment on that, why
maybe we do not try to--since we are supposed to be a free
country here. Why do we not emulate counties like Israel, I am
sorry, emulate countries like Finland and Singapore where, you
know, the parents are primarily responsible for the children at
a younger age?
Mrs. Nelson. Well, studies have shown that universal pre-K
has boosted the ability of students to succeed in every
context. If you invest in pre-K, you see the dividends returned
at every other step of the education system. The other
countries that you refer to that enable parents to stay with
their children longer also have social supports for those
families.
They have a social safety net. They have other income that
they provide for families in order to sustain their economic
wherewithal when they are unable to work because they are
taking care of their children.
Mr. Grothman. Right. I am familiar with the Brookings
Institution's study on Head Start, and it showed it was not
that good. Do any of the other three of you have an opinion on
getting kids in a formal setting at a younger age?
Mrs. Neily. I think the devil is in the details on how we
execute on some of these things. The programs that we are
seeing, the pervasive, poisonous ideology in K to 12 schools,
if we start that even earlier at younger ages, 3, 4 years old,
and we start to teach children to identify themselves and
others on the basis of race, sex, or other amenable
characteristics I think it really continues to exploit the
power dynamic between an adult and a child.
To the extent where parents want to keep their children
home, I think universal pre-K really removes that choice from
parents, and that is something that I oppose.
Mr. Taylor. What I oppose though is that what we know is
that we have a problem keeping women in the workforce. They
disproportionately are responsible for early childcare. To the
extent that is an opportunity for a woman to go back to work
who wants to go back to work, and this is not exclusively
women, but disproportionately women, we can do that by allowing
them to ensure they have high-quality care for their children
that is also education.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, thank you my conservative
witnesses. Next question I have for you, I was talking to some
school superintendents recently, and they felt one of the
reasons that they were struggling in school to provide a good
education is a lot of the children come from difficult family
backgrounds.
They felt there was a difference in the children that had a
stable, two parent thing. Not that single parents do a
fantastic job in many cases, a fantastic job, but nevertheless
they felt overall they were able to do a better job with the
kids with both parents there.
Could you comment on that? Is that we have a decline in
America in the number of kids with both mom and dad at home? It
seems to hurt the outcomes of the education system. Is that
true?
Mrs. Neily. Ian Rowe, at the American Enterprise Institute
has done terrific research on this, on the success sequence of
that children obviously do better with two parent households.
To the extent where we see programs in school that encourage
the disruption of----
Mr. Grothman. I will give you one more question.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired. We will
have to get the question answered in writing.
Mr. Grothman. Well, I will let you finish the question
then, rather than jump in, finish it.
Mrs. Neily. There are programs in schools right now, Black
Lives Matter at School Week that prioritize the disruption of
the western prescribed nuclear family. That would be a two-
parent household. There will be things like that, and so when
students are learning and being taught lessons like that, I
think it is a negative.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time has expired. Now I
recognize my friend and the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott from
Virginia, for his questioning.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Neily,
should parents always have the right to know things about their
children, even if there is credible evidence that the child
will be endangered if the parents get that information?
Mrs. Neily. Education officials are mandatory reporters,
and so if the school official believed that a child is in
danger, they are obligated to report that to Child Protective
Services. The CPS process is onerous, but there is due process
built into it, and it is not a school official making a
unilateral decision about a parent's----
Mr. Scott. Should the parent always know?
Mrs. Neily. A parent should know if, unless a school has
determined that they are harmful, or that they are in harm, but
that should be referred to CPS, not made unilaterally.
Mr. Scott. Should the parents have veto power over the
curriculum?
Mrs. Neily. Parents should have the choice to determine an
educational setting that works for their child. If a parent
decides that a public school is not providing the values or the
quality of education they want, then they should be able to
find other alternatives.
Rich families can already, poor families may not.
Mr. Scott. Should parents in public schools have veto power
over the curriculum?
Mrs. Neily. Parents should have access to their curriculum
so they should know whether this is a good fit for them or not.
That is a problem that accessing that information has been
problematic from coast to coast.
Mr. Scott. They should not have veto power over----
Mrs. Neily. I did not say that. I said they should at least
have awareness of what that is.
Mr. Scott. I was asking the question. You did not say it,
that is right. Should they have veto power over the curriculum?
Mrs. Neily. I have never seen or heard of a school district
where a parent has tried to exercise veto power over what a
curriculum is. They would like access to it, and they have
been----
Mr. Scott. Ms. Nelson, is there evidence that increases in
vouchers in public--in private education leads to segregation?
Mrs. Nelson. Yes. There is evidence that the increase in
voucher use, voucher scams, siphons money from the public
education system, and leaves some of the children who are most
vulnerable without adequate resources. We know that those
children are disproportionately black, Latino, low income and
people with learning disabilities.
Mr. Scott. Do you have--I think you referred to studies
that showed that increased diversity in the school leads to
increased student achievement?
Mrs. Nelson. Yes. There are studies that show that
increases in diversity, equity and inclusion create a more
hospitable environment for learning, that they increase higher
graduation rates, they improve critical thinking, better
problem solving ability, increased student satisfaction and
motivation, improve self-confidence.
There are a multitude of benefits to having a more
inclusive learning environment.
Mr. Scott. Is there any evidence that public education is
enhanced by school choice?
Mrs. Nelson. No. There is not if you define school choice
by the voucher scam programs that are being pedaled. School
choice exists within our public education school system. There
are many opportunities for students to learn in different ways
that can be accommodated by strengthening our public education
school system without vouchers.
Mr. Scott. What would the elimination of Title I do to
equitable educational opportunities?
Mrs. Nelson. It would be absolutely devastating. There are
many students who come from low-income families who rely on
Title I funding, who rely on school lunch programs, free
breakfast programs, and other ways to nourish them, so that
they can nourish their minds during the school day.
Mr. Scott. What problems do we need to rationally address
in public education?
Mrs. Nelson. We need to address real problems, not
fictional, or anecdotal issues that people are using to alarm
parents across the country. What is really plaquing our schools
is inequitable funding.
There is not an argument that we necessarily need to pour
more dollars. We need to take dollars away from things like
funding prisons where we fund prison populations at a rate of
three times the amount that we fund per capital pupil
investments.
Mr. Scott. That is a historically recent phenomenon.
Mrs. Nelson. Yes, yes, and almost every person who spoke
today lauding their education system is spending nearly three
times the amount on prisoners than they are on actual students.
We also know that racial segregation in our schools has
actually increased in the past 30 years because of some of the
reasons I have mentioned earlier in my testimony.
Mr. Scott. Let me ask Mr. Taylor a question. Is there
inherent value that cannot be instantaneously monetized in a
liberal arts education?
Mr. Taylor. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Scott. How do you improve access to that opportunity,
or should we just leave that opportunity to those that could
afford it?
Mr. Taylor. No. Absolutely not. In fact, what we have
found, especially at some of our more premium and premier
employers, many of the high-end professional search firms, law
firms, et cetera, is that we find people with degrees in
anthropology, liberal arts music, art, are incredibly critical
thinkers.
They learn to work with others, and they are very
innovative and creative, so we see lots of advantage to the
traditional undergraduate education, liberal education.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I would like
to recognize the Ranking Member for his closing remarks.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have heard a
lot about school choice, it is really a false choice, it just
leads to separate and unequal schools. I thought we had gotten
away from that about 60, 70 years ago. We need to focus on
improving education, but for the vast majority of the students
that will be attending public schools.
We need to also make sure that higher education, that
people who have access to higher education. I think everybody
can agree that it is not affordable right now. When people
calculate, Mr. Cooper, has suggested that people are
calculating it is not worth it. That is their solution to that
would be not to--to tell people not to go. The solution to that
would be make it more affordable, so that everybody can have
that opportunity.
As Mr. Taylor mentioned, whether it is technically aligned
with a particular job or not, because the liberal arts degree
has inherent value. There are job training programs. We have
got programs in WIOA, we need to continue working on that. I
think we are on the right track on that, but access to higher
education is going to be a challenge, and we just cannot allow
the present situation that worked 30-40 years ago.
If any college--virtually any college you wanted to go to,
you could afford to go to, Pell Grant covered 80 percent of the
costs of going to the State college. With a summer job and 15
hours a week during the school year, you could work your way
through college and come out with no debt.
Now, as it has been suggested, you work 40 hours a week and
still cannot come out of college without crushing debt. We have
challenges in higher education, but the numbers and the results
of where we are in public K through 12, obviously suggests that
we need to make significant improvements, but dismantling the
public education system is not the right course.
Thank you for holding the hearing, and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the
witnesses for what you have added to our hearing today because
it would not be a hearing without witnesses, but credible
witnesses who can speak from different viewpoints, and I think
that is the same with this Committee here.
I think I could safely assume that this Committee agree on
the basics of education and workforce. We have to have an
educated workforce, and that comes from good educational
institutions that are achieving, that are making it. I would
think that the majority--I know for myself, I do not oppose
public education.
I do not want to decimate public education. My first 13
years of education was in public education, and a mother who
was a public school teacher, and several aunts, and a daughter-
in-law, and all in public education. I think we also ought to
be able to agree that we have problems.
Those problems are opportunities. At this point in time, I
think we can agree that we are not achieving the excellence
that we want to achieve. Can I safely say that? IDEA funding is
not funded completely. We know that. The Department of
Education is responsible for that.
NAEP scores are going down. Antisemitism and anti-
Americanism has put up its ugly head on our higher education
institutions, some very elite higher education institutions as
well. You know, after spending 1 trillion dollars since the
inception of the Department of Education, we are still failing.
We have the opportunity to at least work toward solutions, and
that will cause great attention and some heat and some
disagreement.
I think it is important at this time that we jealously--we
jealously, and that is a word I want to use, steward our
Article I authorities, but that also includes not fearing
outside influences up to and including the President of the
United States, and whoever he has as advisors and assistants to
find out what he would conclude is what we need.
We can use that as a goad to do even better, whether we
agree or disagree. I happen to agree that this Committee will
work on finding solutions within our Article I authorities and
powers and responsibilities, and we better not let down on
that. Student, parents, teachers are our No. 1 priority in the
educational system, correct?
Then the workforce is what we have got to point our eyes
toward, whatever area of workforce there is. They need to be
the best educated and prepared possible. Expressing our
diversity bestwill be in the context of merit and excellence,
and how we achieve that in the end is important.
We have that opportunity on this Committee to help
determine where we go. Yes, we want more choice on our side of
the aisle, and I am not so sure that all of our colleagues on
the other side would disagree with that. It is what choice it
is, but we want more choice, and we want the same choice that
billionaires already have.
I think I am right on that one. You throw out things that
this is going to give choice to billionaires. No, they have it
already. They have the money to pay for it, and they do that.
We have to find a way to give choice to everybody as much as
humanly possible.
I believe we can agree on our desire to improve education
opportunity for all, and that is where I want us to focus from
this first hearing on. I wait with expectation of how we can
work together, and how we can--we can work in a creative
tension, to force our ideas, all of our ideas, to be better in
the outcome of it all.
I think a lot, if not all has been said today, and right
now all have said it, so if there are no further business to be
conducted here, and without objection, the Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:07 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional submissions from Rep. Kiley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submissions from Rep. Onder follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Mrs.
Janai Nelson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Mr.
Johnny C. Taylor, Jr. follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]