[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEWING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL
YEAR 2014 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 21, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-18
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-891 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 21, 2013..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Duncan, Hon. Arne, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Additional Submissions:
Questions submitted for the record by:
Barletta, Hon. Lou, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania.................................. 77
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California................................ 79
Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey.................................... 78
Hudson, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina............................ 77
Chairman Kline........................................... 74
Loebsack, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Iowa...................................... 80
Roby, Hon. Martha, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Alabama....................................... 77
Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana....................................... 75
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in
Congress from the Northern Mariana Islands............. 81
Salmon, Hon. Matt, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona....................................... 76
Secretary Duncan, response to questions submitted for the
record..................................................... 82
Mr. Rokita, letter, dated June 25, 2012, requesting
clarification and additional information from Secretary
Duncan..................................................... 53
REVIEWING THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL
YEAR 2014 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
----------
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, McKeon, Wilson,
Foxx, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie, DesJarlais,
Rokita, Bucshon, Roby, Heck, Hudson, Messer, Miller, Hinojosa,
McCarthy, Tierney, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, Bishop, Loebsack,
Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Sablan, Yarmuth, Wilson, and Bonamici.
Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary;
James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services
Coordinator; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf
Jones, Education Policy Counsel and Senior Advisor; Cristin
Kumar, Professional Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk;
Brian Melnyk, Professional Staff Member; Brian Newell, Deputy
Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Jenny
Prescott, Staff Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and
Human Services Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative
Assistant; Nicole Sizemore, Deputy Press Secretary; Alissa
Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director;
Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli,
Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Kelly Broughan,
Minority Education Policy Associate; Jody Calemine, Minority
Staff Director; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Education Policy
Advisor; Tiffany Edwards, Minority Press Secretary for
Education; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education
Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy Advisor;
Brian Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media
Coordinator; Megan O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Michael
Zola, Minority Deputy Staff Director; and Mark Zuckerman,
Minority Senior Economic Advisor.
Chairman Kline. Before we begin, I would like to take just
a moment to say a few words about the tornado that swept across
central Oklahoma yesterday afternoon. According to recent
reports--and we were checking this just a few minutes ago--as
many as 91 people lost their lives and hundreds more have been
injured.
The death toll includes young children, many of whom were
seeking shelter at local elementary schools. Emergency
responders and volunteers are now putting themselves in harm's
way to rescue neighbors, friends, and loved ones, and I
sincerely hope for the safety and the safety of all those.
My thoughts and my prayers are with the victims, their
families, and the people of Oklahoma, and I know yours are, as
well.
And I now recognize Mr. Miller for any remarks he wishes to
make.
Mr. Miller. I thank the chairman, and I certainly want to
join him in his remarks. We all have a sense of sadness and
shock at what took place in Moore, Oklahoma. Some of us heard
our colleagues, Tom Cole--it is his home town--describe the
tragedy. And of course, this morning the numbers got worse.
But the amazing response of that community to help one
another and their first responders, I join you with giving them
our very, very best thoughts and prayers. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I thank you, George.
Let's take just a moment now and, please, all of us, to
honor the victims and their families with just a brief moment
of silence. [Moment of silence.]
Thank you.
Okay. A quorum being present, the committee will come to
order.
Well, good morning, and welcome back, Secretary Duncan. We
realize your time is valuable and we do appreciate the
opportunity to speak with you today about the President's
budget proposal.
I would like to begin with a brief overview of what is in
the administration's budget for the upcoming fiscal year.
The President has asked for more than $71 billion in
discretionary funding for the Department of Education, up $5
billion from last year's request and $3 billion from the year
before. This is on top of a request for $7 billion in mandatory
funding for Pell Grants, $17.5 billion to reform the teaching
profession, and $1.3 billion for a new universal preschool
program, bringing the total budget proposal to a, frankly,
staggering $97.1 billion.
Without question, the President's budget for the Department
of Education has exploded over the last 5 years. The roughly
$60 billion spent by the Department in 2009 seems almost
reasonable by comparison.
Yet despite the significant increase in education spending,
we haven't seen any measurable improvements in student
performance or graduation rates. It is time to acknowledge the
fact that throwing more money into the nation's education
system is not the right answer to the challenges facing our
classrooms. We have tried it for decades now.
Since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, federal spending on education has increased nearly every
single year, but we just aren't seeing results. So we need to
work together on a new way forward that will better serve
students and taxpayers.
Now, let's discuss an item that is not in the President's
budget.
Mr. Secretary, you and I have talked about this so many
times. The very, very first time I ever saw you, when I was
sitting over in that corner, we were talking about this
subject, and that is the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
Once again, the number in the President's budget is, in my
judgment, simply appalling. Per the law, the federal government
is supposed to fund up to 40 percent of the cost of education
of students with special needs.
Well, once again, the administration's budget does not even
come close to that figure. In his budget request, President
Obama's contribution to IDEA remains at a paltry 15---15
percent.
I am concerned that instead of meeting our commitments and
improving existing initiatives, the administration continues to
propose more spending for new, untested programs. For example,
instead of more IDEA funding the President's proposed an
expansive early childhood initiative. While we recognize the
value of quality early learning experiences, we must remember a
number of programs with similar goals are already out there,
including Head Start, the Child Care and Development Block
Grant, and dozens of state preschool programs nationwide.
Reforming and improving existing programs throughout our
education system should take precedence over new initiatives,
and I believe this is one area Congress and the administration
can work together. A large part of this effort must be
rewriting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
While I have made my concerns with the waiver process
abundantly clear, I recognize the importance of freeing states
and school districts from the law's outdated metrics and
regulations. However, this must be done through a full
reauthorization of the law, not executive fiat.
Mr. Secretary, you and I agree on the importance of
restoring local control and flexibility. You and I agree we
must empower parents in our education system and support school
choice initiatives. And you and I agree teachers should be
judged on their ability to motivate students in the classroom.
You have been repeatedly quoted in the press stating that
you want Congress to reauthorize the law. The committee will
soon renew its efforts to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, and this time I ask for the administration's
leadership as we work to advance the legislation to the House
and Senate. We would like to put a new law on the President's
desk before the end of the 113th Congress.
Let me end on a positive note. I appreciate that, like--I
know, George--I appreciate that, like Republicans, the
President has acknowledged the value of moving student loan
interest rates back to a market-based system. As you know, the
committee recently approved, with bipartisan support, the
Smarter Solutions for Students Act, legislation that mirrors
the President's proposal that ties student loan interest rates
to the 10-year Treasury note.
I am grateful for the time you have spent working with us
on this proposal, Mr. Secretary. Your input was valuable.
I hope the administration will work with us to move this
bill quickly through the legislative process and into the
President's hands before the interest rate cliff hits millions
of students on July 1st.
Again, thank you for being with us today.
I would now like to yield to the senior Democratic member
of the committee, Mr. Miller, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
I'd like to begin with a brief overview of what's in the
administration's budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The president has
asked for more than $71 billion in discretionary funding for the
Department of Education--up $5 billion from last year's request and $3
billion from the year before.
This is on top of a request for $7 billion in mandatory funding for
Pell Grants, $17.5 billion to ``reform the teaching profession,'' and
$1.3 billion for a new universal preschool program--bringing the total
budget proposal to a staggering $97.1 billion.
Without question, the president's budget for the Department of
Education has exploded over the last five years. The roughly $60
billion spent by the department in 2009 seems almost reasonable by
comparison. Yet despite this significant increase in education
spending, we haven't seen any measurable improvements in student
performance or graduation rates.
It's time to acknowledge the fact that throwing more money into the
nation's education system is not the right answer to the challenges
facing our classrooms. We've tried it for decades now. Since passage of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, federal spending on
education has increased nearly every single year. But we just aren't
seeing results, so we need to work together on a new way forward that
will better serve students and taxpayers.
Now let's discuss an important item that is not in the budget.
Mr. Secretary, considering the glut of new spending in the
president's budget, the lack of funding for the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act is simply appalling. Per the law, the
federal government is supposed to fund up to 40 percent of the costs of
educating students with special needs, but once again, the
administration's budget does not even come close to that figure. In his
budget request, President Obama's contribution to IDEA remains at a
paltry 15 percent.
I am concerned that instead of meeting our commitments and
improving existing initiatives, the administration continues to propose
more spending for new, untested programs. For example, instead of more
IDEA funding, the president has proposed an expansive early childhood
initiative. While we all recognize the value of quality early learning
experiences, we must remember a number of programs with similar goals
are already out there, including Head Start, the Child Care and
Development Block Grant, and dozens of state preschool programs
nationwide.
Reforming and improving existing programs throughout our education
system should take precedence over new initiatives, and I believe this
is one area Congress and the administration can work together. A large
part of this effort must be rewriting the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
While I have made my concerns with the waiver process abundantly
clear, I recognize the importance of freeing states and school
districts from the law's outdated metrics and regulations. However,
this must be done through a full reauthorization of the law--not
executive fiat.
Secretary Duncan, you and I agree on the importance of restoring
local control and flexibility. You and I agree we must empower parents
in our education system, and support school choice initiatives. And you
and I agree teachers should be judged on their ability to motivate
students in the classroom.
You have been repeatedly quoted in the press stating that you want
Congress to reauthorize the law. The committee will soon renew its
efforts to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and this
time, I ask for the administration's leadership as we work to advance
legislation through the House and Senate, get through the conference
process, and put a new law on the president's desk before the end of
the 113th Congress.
Let me end on a positive note. I appreciate that, like Republicans,
the president has acknowledged the value of moving student loan
interest rates back to a market-based system. As you know, the
committee recently approved with bipartisan support the Smarter
Solutions for Students Act, legislation that mirrors the president's
proposal to tie student loan interest rates to the 10 year Treasury
note.
I am grateful for the time you have spent working with us on this
proposal, Mr. Secretary. Your input was very valuable. I hope the
administration will work with us to move this bill quickly through the
legislative process and into the president's hands before the interest
rate cliff hits millions of students on July 1st.
Again, thank you for being with us today. I would now like to yield
to the senior Democratic member of the committee, George Miller, for
his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary Duncan, for joining us here today
to discuss President Obama's agenda for transforming education
in America.
This hearing comes at a time when students and schools are
making big transitions to new academic standards, to new
assessments, to new accountability and school improvement
systems, and teacher and principal evaluations. However, in all
this movement forward, I fear that students and parents have
lost a federal partner, creating an uncertain environment as a
result of Congressional inaction.
There is a failure to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary
Act and there is the heavy hand of automatic budget cuts
through sequestration. There is the danger of getting more than
$20 billion--gutting more than $20 billion from the
supplemental nutrition programs that help low-income families
keep food on the table and their students prepared to come to
school. There is the threat of piling on even more college debt
onto students and families.
And there is the continued threat of the Republican budget
proposals that would drastically cut vital education resources.
As reported just last week, the Department of Education is
facing nearly a 20 percent reduction in funding on top of the
cuts already made through sequestration. You may have noticed,
as theywe prepare to send the military budgets forward with
improvements, the cuts fall on education and we don't even know
if that appropriation bill will get out of committee.
With all of these, Congress is failing to provide the
support to help students and families succeed at a time of
massive transformation. For each of the past 2 years
Republicans have released budgets filled with giveaways to the
wealthiest Americans at the expense of educating our nation's
children.
This year isn't any different. In March, Republicans put
forth a budget that not only keeps in place the across-the-
board cuts known as sequestration, but actually calls for even
more draconian cuts in education programs across the country.
In contrast, I am glad to see that President Obama
recognizes education as an investment and not an expense. His
budget seeks to ensure our nation is equipped to grow our
economy and to help retain our global competitiveness.
The Obama budget proposals recognize that competitiveness
has to start early through quality, comprehensive early
childhood education programs. Investing in greater access to
high-quality preschool, child care, and voluntary home
visitations is a proven way to close the achievement gap,
strengthen school readiness, and prepare the next generation
for high-skill jobs.
President Obama is also rightfully outlining goals of our
nation, including college and career readiness and returning
the United States to first in the world in college graduation
rates. Unfortunately, the Republican budget negatively impacts
students by making it harder to go to college and harder to pay
off debt. It would eliminate the in-school interest subsidy and
allow interest rates to double for subsidized student loans.
To add insult to injury, just last week the Republicans in
this committee pushed through legislation that would put more
debt on the backs of students in order to pay down the deficit.
In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that students
and families would pay a higher interest rate cost under the
Republican proposal even if interest rates double. Students
would be better off if we just let the interest rates double,
and that is just unacceptable.
This plan asks low-income students to pay down the debt
while asking nothing from the more fortunate among us to pay
their fair share in taxes. We can do better and we must do
better. As my Democratic colleagues pointed out last week,
education is a vital public good. We must serve the good with
the public investment. We must also get back to the business of
doing real legislative work.
Mr. Secretary, 2 years ago you charged Congress to fix No
Child Left Behind, but in the 2 years since then Congress has
remained at a standstill. In the face of Congress' inability to
act, you have given 37 states plus Washington, D.C. the needed
relief from parts of NCLB that no longer work and are
desperately in need of change.
Almost a dozen waivers are still pending, and while I would
much rather Congress achieve the full ESEA reauthorization, I
understand why your action is necessary.
That being said, I must say that I have serious concerns
over some of the decisions the department has made in granting
those waivers and how some of the states have implemented them.
We see some states lessening their focus on student subgroups,
on weakening the impact of performance targets, and moving away
from focusing on graduating students with a regular diploma in
a reasonable amount of time.
I would remind you that the key to the federal role in
education is to protect and promote equity. I imagine that you
are beginning to plan with--how you will consider the renewal
of these waivers by the states. As you do, I would urge you to
hold a high bar for everyone to insist that they meet that high
bar even where changes are necessary. You must be the
conscienceconscience of the nation, resisting temptation to
focus on what is good for adults rather than what is good for
students.
I wish we did not need to discuss the waiver renewal. I
wish we were working in a bipartisan fashion to renew this law,
the way we have done for many, many years over the history of
the law. It is the only way we could get a bill to the
President's desk and signed into law. Unfortunately, it doesn't
appear that we are on that track.
So in the meantime, I urge you to insist that our schools
set high expectations for students, give educators and students
the tools they need to meet those expectations, and implement
the proposals made by almost every governor across this nation
to improve their school systems with the help that they are
getting from the waivers. And the Congress should now turn its
attention to a full bipartisan reauthorization both of the
Elementary Secondary Education Act and also the Higher
Education Act so we can work out a bipartisan long-term fix for
student aid questions.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Secretary Duncan for joining
us here today to discuss President Obama's agenda for transforming
education in America.
This hearing comes at a time when students and schools are making
big transitions--transitions to new academic standards, new
assessments, new accountability and school improvement systems, and
teacher and principal evaluations.
However, in all of this movement forward, I fear that students and
parents have lost a federal partner, creating an uncertain environment
as the result of Congressional inaction.
There's the failure to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
There's the heavy hand of automatic budget cuts through
sequestration.
There's the danger of gutting more than $20 billion from the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that helps low-income
families keep food on the table.
There's the threat of piling even more college debt onto students
and families.
And there's the continued threat of Republican budget proposals
that would drastically cut vital education resources.
As reported just last week, the Department of Education is facing a
nearly 20 percent reduction in funding on top of the cuts already made
through sequestration.
With all of these, Congress is failing to provide the support to
help students and families succeed in a time of massive transformation.
For each of the past two years, Republicans have released budgets
filled with giveaways to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of
educating our nation's children.
This year isn't any different.
In March, Republicans put forth a budget that not only keeps in
place the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration but actually
calls for even more draconian cuts to education programs across the
country.
In contrast, I am glad to see that President Obama recognizes
education is an investment and not an expense. It seeks to ensure our
nation is equipped to grow our economy and help retain our global
competitiveness.
The Obama budget proposal recognizes that competitiveness has to
start early through quality, comprehensive early childhood education
programs.
Investing in greater access to high-quality preschool, child care,
and voluntary home visitation is a proven way to close achievement
gaps, strengthen school readiness and prepare the next generation for
high-skill jobs.
President Obama has also rightfully outlined goals for our nation
including college and career readiness and returning the United States
to first in the world in college graduation rates.
Unfortunately, the Republican budget negatively impacts students by
making it harder to go to college and harder to pay off debt. It would
eliminate the in-school interest subsidy and allow interest rates to
double for subsidized student loans.
To add insult to injury, last week Republicans on this committee
pushed through legislation that would put more debt on the backs of
students in order to pay down the deficit.
In fact, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that
students and families would pay higher interest costs under the
Republican proposal, even if interest rates doubled as scheduled for
the neediest students in July.
This plan asks low-income students to pay down the debt while
asking nothing from the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share
of taxes.
We can do better. And we must do better. As my Democratic
colleagues pointed out last week, education is a vital public good. We
must serve that good with public investment.
We must also get back to the business of doing real legislative
work.
Mr. Secretary, two years ago you charged Congress to fix No Child
Left Behind. But in the two years since, Congress remains at a
standstill.
In the face of Congress's inability to act, you've given 34 states
plus Washington, D.C. needed relief from parts of NCLB that they so
desperately need. Almost a dozen waivers are still pending. While I
would much rather Congress achieve a full ESEA reauthorization, I
understand why your action was necessary.
That being said, I do have serious concerns over some decisions the
department has made in granting waivers and in how some states have
implemented them.
We see some states lessening their focus on student subgroups,
weakening the impact of performance targets, and moving away from
focusing on graduating students with a regular diploma in a reasonable
amount of time.
I would remind you that the key federal role in education is to
protect and promote equity. I imagine you are beginning to plan for how
you will renew some of these state waivers.
As you do, I urge you to hold a high bar for everyone and to insist
on changes where necessary. You must be the conscience of the nation,
resisting the temptation to focus what's good for adults rather than
what's good for students.
I wish we did not need to discuss waiver renewals. I wish we were
working in a bipartisan fashion to renew this law--the way we have done
for years. It's the only way we could get a bill to the president's
desk and signed into law.
Unfortunately, that is not where we are.
So in the meantime, I urge you to insist that our schools set high
expectations for students and give our educators and their students the
tools to meet those expectations.
That is what we must all focus on in this Congress. A high-quality
education is one of the most important opportunities we can give our
children.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I look forward to your testimony.
I yield back.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all committee members will
be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements,
questions for the record, and other extraneous material
referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official
record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished
witness. He is known, actually, to all of us really well. I
just do want to make a couple of points that I always find
interesting.
Secretary Duncan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on
Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.
You have been with us quite a while, Mr. Secretary.
And just to show his stick-to-itiveness, he is still here,
and from 2001 to 2008 he was the longest-serving big city
education superintendent in the country.
Perseverance, Mr. Secretary. We are glad to have you. Floor
is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, and I just wanted to say again, on
the Oklahoma situation--I spoke last night with the state
superintendent, who does a fantastic job, Janet Barresi.
Whatever we can do to help out in this situation, we are
committed to do that.
Placed a call to the local--Moore's public school
superintendent, Susan Pierce, this morning. She is a 40-year
veteran and was due to retire at the end of June.
And I just want to thank all the heroic teachers and first
responders. There has been significant loss of life,
significant loss of the life of children in schools, but just
amazing, amazing work done by teachers and administrators and
first responders. And obviously, all of our thoughts and
prayers are, frankly, with them this morning.
I am pleased to be able to talk with you today about
President Obama's vision for investing in education in ways
that ensure quality opportunity for every child and that
deliver a strong return on investment for the taxpayer's
dollar. That ROI is so important, especially in tough economic
times like this.
As we walk through this conversation, I am going to ask you
to visualize and keep in the back of your mind a 4-year-old
little girl, because at the end of the day this isn't just
about programs or accounts or budgets; it is about the
consequences of the choices we make for real families and real
children.
I think and I desperately hope that we all agree that
improving our education outcomes is a vital national interest
that we all share. The decisions we make will have a major
impact on our economy, on our economic competitiveness, and on
that 4-year-old girl's chances of having the good life she
deserves as part of a thriving middle class.
That is a core American value, but right now, frankly, it
is in some danger. You have already heard that we have lost our
place as the global leader in college completion, that we now
rank 14th.
We should, frankly, be embarrassed. It is no badge of honor
that we have fallen so far behind our international
competitors. We want good jobs to stay in this country and not
migrate overseas.
Here is another indicator that should concern us: Let's
start by looking at what is happening in employment for young
adults.
Next slide, please.
In 2000 we were doing better than France, Britain, Japan,
Germany, and Canada, but by 2011 we were doing worse than all
of them. Why? David Leonhardt, the Pulitzer Prize-winning New
York Times economics writer, said, and I quote--``The United
States has lost its once large lead in producing college
graduates, and education remains the most successful job
strategy in a globalized, tech-heavy economy.''
And that is why we are working so hard to try and improve
opportunities for every child, to make the United States the
global leader in college completion again. We have been working
for 4 years to raise standards, improve teaching, establish
strong systems of technology and data, fix our most broken
schools, and make college more accessible and affordable. And
we have made some real progress.
Next slide, please.
Mr. Chairman, you sort of asked the question, ``Have we
made progress?'' and I think while the progress is not fast
enough--we have a long way to go--the honest answer is there
has been real progress. High school graduation rates are at
their highest level in over 3 decades, and for the first time
in a long time we are actually on track to a 90 percent high
school graduation rate by the year 2020.
Next slide.
We have talked a lot about the quote-unquote ``dropout
factories,'' those high schools where 40, 50, 60 percent or
more of young people are dropping out. In the past 3 years,
from 2008 to 2011, we have 700,000 fewer children--less
children--attending quote-unquote ``dropout factories.'' That
is a big step in the right direction. Those young people now
have a much better chance of not just graduating but then going
on to some form of higher education.
Next slide, please.
In terms of Pell Grants--and we know Pell Grants often go
to first generation college-goers, and English language
learners, and folks who don't happen to be born with a silver
spoon in their mouths. From 2008 to 2010 we went from about 6
million Pell recipients to 9.4 million Pell recipients, more
than a 50 percent increase. And again, these are young people
who may be--are often the first in their families to ever have
the opportunity to graduate from college.
And then the enrollment rates--next slide, please? Yes,
thank you.
The enrollment rates in the college have gone up
significantly, particularly among the African American and
Latino populations, which we think is so important. And in a
country that is becoming majority minority, this is the face of
our country as we move forward. So real progress there.
And Hispanic students, 32 percent now attending college
compared to 22 percent in 2000. African American, 38 percent
today versus 30 in 2000. So real progress. Long way to go, but
feel very good about that.
Both you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Miller talked about
the flexibility we are providing to states, and with up to 37
states, and we think that is going absolutely in the right
direction. Again, we would love to fix No Child Left Behind and
fix it in a bipartisan way, but until Congress gets its act
together we are going to continue to partner directly with
states to make sure that they are not stuck with a law that is
years outdated and had many perverse incentives in there.
But we have a lot of hard work ahead of us.
Next slide, please.
Too many low-income kids and minority children simply
aren't receiving the education they need to reach the middle
class. And let's look at these numbers, starting with high
school.
Fully 96 percent of kids from the highest income group
complete high school. It is just almost a given--96 percent;
while less than two-thirds, only 63 percent, of those who come
from the lowest economic quartile do.
The next slide is even more stunning and, I think, compels
us to act.
Fewer than one in 10 of low-income children eventually
graduate from college. Less than one in 10--9 percent. Compare
that to more than half of our high-income students walking
across the stage with a diploma. Not enough there either, but a
huge difference in outcomes.
Think about what that does and how that hurts us as a
country--in jobs, in terms of our international
competitiveness, and what it means for the lives of children
and families who are trying to escape poverty and trying to
escape psychosocial failure.
Next slide.
So how do we change the odds? Where should we invest to
change?
I want to read you a quick quote from James Heckman, who is
a Nobel Prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago.
He says, ``Investing in disadvantaged young children is a rare
public policy with no equity-efficiency tradeoff. It reduces
the inequity associated with the accident of birth and at the
same time raises the productivity of society at large.''
What is the most important single thing we can do in
education to change those outcomes that I just talked about?
And I am convinced it is investing in high-quality early
childhood education--in preschool.
On average, the average child from a low-income family
starts kindergarten when they are 5 years old in September;
they start school 12 to 14 months behind their peers in
language development and pre-reading skills. That is morally
and educationally unacceptable.
And we know how to fix it. As Professor Heckman says, this
is one of the few public investments with no tradeoffs because
the ROI--the return on investment--of high-quality preschool is
so high.
Next slide.
But to date, quite frankly, as a country we are not yet
serious about preschool. The United States ranks 28th among
OECD countries in the enrollment of 4-year-olds in early
learning.
And maybe that is not surprising. The United States also
ranks 25th among OECD countries in public funding for early
learning. And if we expect to compete effectively in a global
economy, we have to invest in what matters most and what makes
a difference.
The President's Preschool for All proposal can be a game-
changer in expanding access and quality for the kids and
families and communities who need it the most. It is a major
investment to tackle a major issue.
Think about that 4-year-old girl. Whether she is from
Goodhue County, Minnesota; or Winston-Salem, North Carolina; or
San Diego, she deserves a supportive, word-rich environment.
She needs the chance to develop both her cognitive and non-
cognitive skills.
She may not have a home life that can pick up that academic
slack, but we can help support and strengthen struggling
families. That young girl deserves access to high-quality
preschool.
Our international competitors are ahead of us. James
Zimmerman, former CEO of Macy's, and John Pepper, former CEO of
Procter & Gamble, have written, and I quote--``Universally
available pre-kindergarten is not only the right thing to do,
but the smart thing to do.''
Other countries have realized this. China reportedly has
set a goal of giving 70 percent of all children 3 years of pre-
kindergarten education.
Why is it the smart thing to do? Because of the ROI--the
return on investment.
Dr. Heckman found that for every dollar we invest in
preschool, that dollar returns $7 just in public funds. Some of
that comes from greater productivity; some comes from reduced
need for cash handouts and other supports. And almost $3 of
every $7 comes from reduced costs of crimes and cops and jails.
Stop and think about that one for a moment. We should ask
ourselves, preschools or prisons? Where do we want to invest?
What costs less? What helps society more?
The answers are very, very obvious. Affordable, high-
quality early learning is the most important thing we can do in
education to help children and help to strengthen families.
But I can tell you what doesn't help: incoherent cuts to
programs serving our most vulnerable students. Especially since
it is up for a vote this week, I must address the House
Appropriations Committee proposed FY2014 302(b) allocations.
They represent a cut of 22 percent from FY13, pre-sequester
level.
Cutting education in that way would be a baffling, self-
destructive move that would devastate efforts to improve our
international competitiveness. It is exactly the wrong thing to
do for our economy. It would represent dumb government dumbing
down America.
Those cuts would multiply the damage of sequestration,
which continues to hurt low-income and special needs students,
young families counting on Head Start programs, military
families, Native American children, and communities whose
schools rely on Impact Aid.
But together we can choose another path and make smart,
strategic, long-term investments. Let's return our focus to
plans with positive ROI.
President Obama's proposed early learning investment is the
front bookend of a cradle-to-career pipeline that aims to
prepare students for college and for work. We are working to
strengthen that pipeline with an emphasis on college
completion, which has become the ticket to a solid middle-class
life.
Central to that effort is keeping interest rates low on
student loans, which will require your action before July 1st
to prevent those rates from doubling. We know that you share
that concern, but we need to keep working with you to find an
approach that will keep college affordable for students and
families now and into the future.
To make college more accessible we have dramatically
simplified paperwork to make it easier for families to access
federal student aid. The result will be even more high-need
students attending college.
In K-12, ESEA flexibility has provided crucial space for
innovation and system-wide improvement, the best help we can
get to states until you guys fix ESEA in a bipartisan manner.
Under ESEA flexibility, we are seeing states raise standards,
refine systems of support and accountability for schools, and
hold more schools accountable for the learning of students with
special needs and minority children, far too many of whom were
literally invisible under No Child Left Behind.
We have also acted to improve services for students with
special needs. During our administration, we have requested
hundreds of millions of dollars in increased funding in
addition to the unprecedented $11 billion provided in the
Recovery Act to students with special needs, including
significant improvements at the preschool level.
We are also focused on the needs of students in rural
communities. Each of our 2014 competitive grant proposals will
include criteria or priorities targeting rural areas
specifically, and we welcome the input and thoughtfulness of
Congress as we work to ensure that all of our competitive grant
programs give strong opportunity to rural schools.
We want to see every community in America have excellent
opportunities. Our children and our nation deserve no less.
What that improved opportunity adds up to is a return on
investment for our economy and for America's families.
According to a recent Brookings study, the benefits of a
college degree compared to an investment that returns 15.2
percent a year.
We know that the engine of our economy in a globally
competitive environment is the best-educated workforce in the
world. It is the only way to build a strong, vibrant, and
growing middle class.
And we know that giving every child an opportunity is the
right thing to do. It is who we are as a country.
Thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Secretary Duncan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Education
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm pleased
to be here today to talk with you about President Obama's priorities
and plans for the Department of Education, particularly as they relate
to the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for education.
This morning I'll sketch out some important progress made in the
President's first term. I will highlight urgent educational challenges
that remain, not only for our Nation as a whole but in every
congressional district and community in the country. And I will talk
about ROI--the return on investment in education spending--with special
emphasis on the President's landmark preschool plan. Finally, I want to
close by summarizing a number of other key elements of the President's
education 2014 Budget.
The big takeaway message here is that education is more than a set
of numbers on the ledger line. Education is not just an expense--it's
an investment. In fact, it is one of the most critical investments in
the future that we, as a Nation, can make. America cannot win the race
for the future without investing in education--it's that simple.
Budgets entail value choices. They reflect the aspirations of our
citizens and leaders. And I am glad to say that, for the most part,
Federal education funding has enjoyed bipartisan support, even in tough
times. In America we invest in the future, not just in spite of
challenges, but as the means of overcoming them.
Dating back to even before the States ratified the Constitution,
the fledgling Continental Congress passed the Land Ordinance of 1785
and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, granting Federal lands to States
to create and support public schools.
In the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln signed the Morrill
Act, creating our Nation's land grant colleges. FDR signed the GI Bill
during the midst of the epic battle of Normandy, expanding not only the
opportunities for returning veterans but those of their children for
generations to come.
Fortunately, our Nation is not in the midst of World War II or the
Civil War, and we are not in the midst of the Depression. But this is a
time of fiscal challenges. And as President Obama said in his State of
the Union address, it is a time to work for ``smarter government.'' We
don't always live up to this goal in Washington. But I've yet to meet a
lawmaker who has stated a preference for dumber government.
Unfortunately, sequestration, with its indiscriminate cuts to
education, the military, and other critical public investments, is not
an example of government at its finest.
You won't see our high-performing competitors funding education by
sequester. In a knowledge-based, globally-competitive economy, our
competitors are determined to invest in education. They want to
accelerate their progress, not cut back on public education.
South Korea's investment in education, as a percentage of GDP,
increased by nearly a third from 2000 to 2009, whereas our investment,
as a percentage of GDP, increased by just 6 percent. Education spending
as a percentage of GDP rose at more than twice the U.S. rate in many
other countries as well during the last decade, including Australia (up
15 percent), Denmark (18 percent), and the Netherlands (21 percent).
Today, the U.S. is one of only four Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development--OECD--countries where students in low-income
schools have to cope with higher student-to-teacher ratios than their
peers in more advantaged schools.
But the question is not just whether we should continue to invest
in education, but how can we make smarter investments in education? How
can our education system become more productive? One way to answer
these questions is to look at the return on investment in our education
policies.
Progress During President Obama's First-Term
During the President's first term, the Administration worked hand-
in-hand with the Congress to make critical new investments in
education. We launched new programs like Race to the Top and Promise
Neighborhoods, redesigned the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program,
and dramatically expanded the Pell Grant financial aid program for low-
income students. All of those efforts expanded educational opportunity
and challenged the status quo where it had become unproductive.
In a development that none of the experts foresaw, 46 States, plus
the District of Columbia, came together to design and adopt the Common
Core standards. For the first time, almost every State is supporting
higher standards that show if students are truly college- and career-
ready--whether they are from Mississippi or Massachusetts. This was a
sharp change from what we saw in the 4 years from 2005 to 2009, when 19
States actually lowered their academic standards for students. We can
thank courageous State leadership for stopping this insidious dummying
down of standards.
Today, we are starting to see the payoff of those first-term
investments and setting higher expectations for our students. In 2010,
the on-time high school graduation rate hit its highest level in 3
decades. In 2008, less than two-thirds of Hispanic students graduated
on time from high school. Today, about three in four Hispanic high
school students graduate with their class.
Because the graduation rate of Latino students rose from 2008 to
2011, an additional 164,000 Latino students graduated on time. That is
164,000 people with a better chance of getting a good job, owning their
own home, and supporting a family.
On-time graduation rates for African-American students are up, too.
In 2008, only about three in five black students graduated from high
school on time. Today, two in three do so, resulting in an additional
83,000 African-American students graduating on time in 2011.
These gains are due in part to a sharp drop in the number of high
school dropout factories--schools where fewer than 60 percent of ninth
graders graduate 4 years later. Since 2008, the number of high school
dropout factories has dropped by almost 20 percent, from about 1,750
high schools to roughly 1,425 high schools.
For our families, that means nearly 700,000 fewer teenagers are
trapped in those high schools today than in 2008. That is a big step in
the right direction.
In higher education, we're seeing substantial increases in college
enrollment, too, especially for Hispanic students. More than half-a-
million additional Hispanic students--about 550,000 in all--are
enrolled in college today than were enrolled in 2008. That is 550,000
more people who are getting their shot at the American dream and the
opportunity to thrive in a globally competitive world. And overall, the
number of Pell Grant recipients has increased more than 50 percent,
from 6.2 million in 2008 to more than 9 million 3 years later. That is
the biggest expansion of educational opportunity in higher education
since the GI Bill.
In a knowledge-based economy, the ROI--the return on investment--
for many of the strategies the Administration has pursued is huge. We
believe our efforts to support and strengthen the teaching profession
through improved teacher evaluation, better professional development,
and the RESPECT program will pay large, long-term dividends for our
children and our communities.
Economists at Harvard and Columbia have documented that having a
good teacher rather than an ineffective one can increase the lifetime
earnings of a class of students by over $260,000. Multiply that by the
number of classes a teacher would instruct over the course of her
career, and it is clear that even a single good teacher can have a
multi-million dollar effect on the economy.
The ROI for attending college is huge, too. Unlike when I and many
members of the Committee were growing up, there are no good-paying jobs
anymore for high school dropouts--and even those with a high school
diploma struggle to make a living, with the average high school
graduate making $1.3 million during his or her lifetime, compared to
$2.3 million for the average college graduate.
The Theory of Action for the President's Preschool Plan
Our focus on ROI is a key justification for President Obama's
groundbreaking preschool proposal. Preschool for All would create a new
Federal-State partnership to enable States to provide universal high-
quality preschool for 4-year olds from low- and moderate-income
families, up to 200 percent of the poverty line.
Contrary to what you may have heard, the President's plan would not
be a new Federal entitlement program. States would use Federal funds to
create or expand high-quality preschool programs in partnership with
local school-based and community providers. States would provide an
increasing match for the program, and every cent of the $75 billion
provided by the Federal Government over the next 10 years would be paid
for by increases in taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products. Our
intent is for every State to choose to participate.
Our theory of action in expanding high-quality preschool is going
to be the same as it was in the first term, with a strong emphasis on
supporting and partnering with States, incentivizing innovation, and
identifying what works to strengthen education and accelerate
achievement.
That means that at the Federal level, we should be tight on ends
but loose on means. The Department should set a high bar for quality in
preschool programs. But it should leave it up to State and local
leaders to choose the best means for reaching that bar.
Under the President's plan, States would be required to meet
quality benchmarks linked to better outcomes for children--like having
high-quality State-level standards for early learning, qualified and
well-compensated teachers in all preschool classrooms, and a plan to
implement comprehensive assessment and data systems.
The urgent need today for greater access to high-quality preschool
for children from low- and moderate-income families is not really in
dispute. Fewer than 3 in 10 4-year-olds today are enrolled in high-
quality preschool programs. And we know that, on average, children from
low- income families start kindergarten 12 to 14 months behind their
peers in language development and pre-reading.
Despite these data, as the following charts demonstrate, the United
States ranks 28th among industrialized nations in the enrollment of 4-
year-olds in early learning, and among 29 industrialized nations, the
U.S. devotes less public spending to early learning as a percentage of
GDP than 24.
The ROI on High-Quality Early Learning
In an era of tight budgets, it's essential that we ask ourselves,
what is the smartest use of our education dollars? The answer, I
believe, is that high-quality early learning is the best education
investment we can make in our children, our communities, and our
country. As President Obama has said, ``if you are looking for a good
bang for your educational buck,'' high- quality preschool is the place
to look.
In the near-term, high-quality preschool reduces placements in
special education. It reduces grade retention. It boosts graduation
rates. In the long-term, high-quality preschool both increases the odds
of holding a job and decreases crime and teen pregnancy.
Nobel laureate James Heckman recently examined evidence from a
rigorous, longitudinal evaluation of the Perry Preschool project and
found that the high-quality preschool program returned seven dollars
for every one dollar it invested. A longitudinal study of the Chicago
Child Parent Centers also found an ROI of seven to one.
States like Oklahoma and Georgia know about these data and are
leading the way in creating universal preschool programs. In fact,
numerous States led by GOP governors--including Alabama and Michigan--
are investing in quality and expanding coverage to more 4-year-olds.
Not only are States investing in high-quality preschool, voters are
approving sales tax and property tax increases to fund preschool
initiatives. Last November, voters in San Antonio, Denver, and St.
Paul, Minnesota, approved tax increases to support preschool programs
in their communities.
Voters and parents understand that in today's global economy,
ensuring access to high- quality preschool is not a luxury but a
necessity. They understand that investing in high-quality preschool is
a win-win proposition, with a big economic return. And they understand
that we have to stop playing catch-up in education. We have to level
the playing field for young children, so everyone can begin
kindergarten at the same starting line.
This is why the centerpiece of President Obama's education budget
for fiscal year 2014 is a pair of major new investments in early
learning: a $75 billion mandatory request, over 10 years, to support
the Preschool for All initiative; along with a $750 million
discretionary request for Preschool Development Grants.
Preschool for All would create a new Federal-State cost-sharing
partnership aimed at making high-quality public preschool available to
all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate- income families while also
providing incentives for States to serve additional children from
middle-class families. The companion Preschool Development Grants
proposal would help build State capacity to implement the high-quality
preschool programs required by Preschool for All.
Other Priorities in the President's 2014 Request for the Department of
Education
These preschool proposals are part of an overall request of $71.2
billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education
in fiscal year 2014, an increase of $3.1 billion, or 4.5 percent, over
the fiscal year 2012 level.
In addition to early learning, this request is focused on
strengthening K-12 education, making our schools safer and creating
positive learning environments, supporting career- readiness for all,
improving affordability and quality in postsecondary education, and
supporting the Administration's Ladders of Opportunity initiative for
high-poverty communities.
Strengthening K-12 Education
The 2014 request provides essential funding for traditional State
formula grant programs that are the foundation of Federal support for
State and local efforts to ensure that all students meet college- and
career-ready standards, including a $14.5 billion request for the Title
I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program and $11.6 billion for
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Grants to States
program. At the same time, we would continue our emphasis on creating
meaningful incentives to leverage more effective use of Federal
education funding in key areas such as putting a great teacher in every
classroom and a great leader in every school; building local capacity
to support successful school turnarounds; and improving teacher
preparation and classroom instruction in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
Reforming Federal Support for Effective STEM Education
The Administration is proposing a comprehensive reorganization of
Federal STEM education programs as part of a Governmentwide realignment
that would reorganize or restructure 116 programs across 13 agencies.
Reforming Federal support to support an effective, cohesive
national STEM education strategy is a top Administration priority.
Scientists and engineers are key innovators in our society. They play
an essential role in developing new industries and opportunities that
create jobs and spur economic growth. Our Nation depends on an
innovation economy, and America's capacity to build and create should
never be limited by a shortage of talent in the STEM fields.
At the core of this strategy for improving K-12 STEM education is a
$150 million request for STEM Innovation Networks, which would support
creating partnerships among school districts, institutions of higher
education, research institutions, museums, community partners, and
business and industry. These networks would develop comprehensive plans
for identifying, developing, testing, and scaling up evidence-based
practices to provide rich STEM learning opportunities in participating
local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools. They also would work to
leverage better and more effective use of the wide range of STEM
education resources available from Federal, State, local, and private
entities, including federally supported science mission agencies.
Other key elements of the Department's STEM request include $80
million for STEM Teacher Pathways to support the President's goal of
developing 100,000 new effective STEM teachers by recruiting, training,
and placing talented recent college graduates and mid-career
professionals in the STEM fields in high-need schools; and $35 million
to establish a new STEM Master Teacher Corps, which would identify
teacher leaders in STEM fields who would take on leadership and
mentorship roles in their schools and communities aimed at improving
STEM instruction and helping students excel in math and science.
More Effective Teachers and School Leaders
Consistent with the Administration's proposal to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the President's Budget
would provide $2.5 billion for Effective Teachers and Leaders State
Grants to provide flexible, formula-based support for States and LEAs
that commit to improving their teacher and principal evaluation systems
and to ensuring that low-income and minority students have equitable
access to teachers and principals who are effective at raising student
achievement. We also would renew our request for a 25 percent national
activities set-aside totaling nearly $617 million that would allow the
Department to build evidence on how best to recruit, prepare, and
support effective teachers and school leaders and to invest in efforts
to enhance the teaching and leadership professions.
In addition, the budget includes $400 million for the reauthorized
Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund, an increase of $100 million over
2012, to help States and LEAs improve the effectiveness of teachers and
leaders in high-need LEAs and schools, in particular by creating the
conditions to identify, recruit, prepare, support, retain, and advance
effective and highly effective teachers, principals, and school
leadership teams in those schools. We also are asking for $98 million
to support a redesigned School Leadership Program that would more than
triple the Federal investment in training for principals. This proposal
would promote evidence-based professional development for current
school leaders aimed at strengthening essential leadership skills--such
as evaluating and providing feedback to teachers, analyzing student
data, developing school leadership teams, and creating a positive
school climate.
Supporting School Turnarounds and Data-Based Innovation
We would expand our commitment to helping States and school
districts turn around their lowest-performing schools through a $659
million request for the reauthorized School Turnaround Grants (STG)
program. The request includes an increase of $125 million that would be
used for competitive awards to help school districts build their
capacity to implement effective interventions in persistently lowest-
achieving schools or priority schools, and to sustain progress in
schools that have successfully completed a 3-year STG project. In
addition, the Department could use up to $25 million of these funds to
build district capacity by expanding the School Turnaround AmeriCorps
initiative, a new partnership with the Corporation for National and
Community Service that places AmeriCorps members in low-performing
schools to support their school turnaround efforts.
The request also would strengthen K-12 education through a $215
million proposal for Investing in Innovation (i3), an increase of $66
million, to expand support for using an evidence-based approach to test
new ideas, validate what works, and scale up the most effective
reforms. Up to $65 million would be available for the Advanced Research
Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-ED), an initiative modeled on
similar entities at the Departments of Defense and Energy that would
aggressively pursue technological breakthroughs with the potential to
dramatically improve the effectiveness and productivity of teaching and
learning. And an $85 million request for statewide longitudinal data
systems (SLDS) would provide an increase of $47 million to support the
development of P-20 reports and tools to inform policy-making at the
State and local levels, as well as the development of in-house analytic
capacity for States and school districts.
Supporting Career-Readiness for All
To out-innovate and out-compete the rest of the world, secondary
schools and postsecondary institutions need to strengthen the links in
our education system to better support career training and skills. The
President's 2014 Budget seeks to promote career-readiness for all, in
large part through a $1.1 billion request for a reauthorized Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education (CTE) program. The reauthorized
CTE program would strengthen alignment among secondary and
postsecondary CTE programs and business and industry, and create a
better accountability system for improving academic outcomes, technical
skills, and employability outcomes.
We also are proposing $300 million for a new High School Redesign
program, which would support partnerships of school districts,
employers, and postsecondary institutions that would redesign high
schools in innovative ways to ensure that all students graduate from
high school with (1) college credit, earned through dual enrollment,
Advanced Placement courses, or other postsecondary learning
opportunities; and (2) career-related experiences or competencies,
obtained through organized internships and mentorships, structured
work-based learning, and other related experiences.
In addition, we are asking for $42 million to fund a demonstration
and evaluation of Dual Enrollment programs. This proposal would
establish or expand dual enrollment programs, aligned with career
pathways and local workforce needs, which offer high school and adult
students the opportunity to earn college credits while enrolled in a
high school or GED program. Research has shown that participation in
dual-enrollment programs is linked to increased high school graduation,
higher rates of college enrollment and persistence, and higher college
credit accrual rates.
Affordability and Quality in Postsecondary Education
The 2014 request continues to support the President's ambitious
goal that America will once again have the highest proportion of
college graduates in the world by 2020. The urgent and growing need for
higher education reflected in the 2020 goal comes at a time when paying
for college is a challenge for many American families. As a
consequence, the President's budget proposes comprehensive reforms to
increase affordability and quality in higher education, including $1
billion for a new Race to the Top--College Affordability and Completion
competition. That competition would drive change in State higher
education policies and practices to improve college access,
affordability, completion, and quality. The request also includes $260
million for a First in the World fund, modeled after the Investing in
Innovation (i3) program, which would make competitive awards to
encourage innovation in higher education to tackle and improve college
completion rates, increase the productivity of higher education, build
evidence of what works, and scale up proven strategies. Funding would
also support validation systems for competency-based learning, which
has the potential to improve completion rates, and funding for programs
that employ alternative validation systems that can demonstrate good
outcomes for students at minimal to no cost for them.
In addition to promoting systemic reforms in higher education, the
President's 2014 request includes student aid proposals that would make
college more affordable, including linking student loan interest rates
to market rates and preventing a scheduled July 1, 2013, doubling of
Subsidized Stafford Loan rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The
President's budget would expand repayment options to ensure that loan
repayments for all student borrowers do not exceed 10 percent of a
borrower's discretionary income, and significantly increase aid
available under the Campus-Based Aid programs. For example, the request
includes a $150 million increase for the Work-Study program as part of
an effort to double participation over 5 years, as well as reforms to
the Perkins Loans program that would expand loan volume by some eight
and one-half times, up to $8.5 billion, while making Perkins Loans
available at up to an additional 2,700 college campuses.
Building Ladders of Opportunity--and Promise Zones
The President's 2014 Budget for education would help directly
address the growing concern that too many communities in America--
urban, rural, and, increasingly, suburban--suffer from the negative
effects of concentrated poverty, including developmental delays among
young children, poor educational outcomes, high rates of crime and
incarceration, health problems, and low employment. One new strategy
for addressing the challenges of concentrated poverty is the Promise
Zones initiative, which will revitalize high-poverty communities across
the country by attracting private investment, increasing affordable
housing, improving educational opportunities, providing tax incentives
for hiring workers and investing in the Zones, and assisting local
leaders in navigating Federal programs and cutting through red tape.
This interagency effort will explore opportunities to make better
use of all available resources--Federal, State, and local--to address
the negative effects of concentrated poverty. The President's budget
would support Promise Zones through significant requests in his
signature place-based programs, including $300 million for the
Department of Education's Promise Neighborhoods, a $400 million request
for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Choice
Neighborhoods program, and $35 million for the Department of Justice's
Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Grants program, in addition to tax
incentives to promote investment and economic growth.
Making Schools Safer
In January of 2013, President Obama released his plan to reduce gun
violence, make schools safer, and increase access to mental health
services. The 2014 request supports this plan's common-sense proposals
with new investments designed to improve school emergency plans, create
positive school climates, and counter the effects of pervasive violence
on students. For example, we are asking for $30 million in one-time
emergency management planning grants to States to help their LEAs
develop, implement, and improve emergency management plans designed to
enable districts and schools to prepare for, prevent and mitigate,
respond to, and recover from emergencies and crisis events.
The request also includes $50 million for School Climate
Transformation Grants, to be coordinated with related proposals at the
Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. These grants
would help create positive school climates that support effective
education for all students through the use of evidence-based behavioral
practices. Funds would be used to scale up a multi-tiered, decision-
making framework that has been shown to reduce problem behaviors,
decrease bullying and peer-victimization, improve the perception of
school as a safe setting, and increase academic performance in reading
and math. In addition, $25 million for Project Prevent grants would
help school districts in communities with pervasive violence break the
cycle of violence through the provision of mental health services to
students suffering from trauma or anxiety (including PTSD), conflict
resolution programs, and other school-based strategies to prevent
future violence.
I want to close by talking briefly about school safety and gun
violence. This issue is very personal for me. Frankly, it's something
that has haunted me from the time I was a little boy, growing up on the
South Side of Chicago.
I grew up playing basketball on the streets in many of Chicago's
inner-city communities. I had older teenagers who looked out for me and
who helped protect me. Far too many of them ended up being shot and
killed. After graduating from college and playing ball overseas, I came
back to Chicago to run an ``I Have a Dream'' program for a class of
sixth graders. One of my first memories was of one of our young men,
Terriance Wright, whose teenage brother was shot one afternoon.
Going to that funeral, and trying to help that family through that
process, was brutal. We have far too many parents burying their
children--that is not the natural order of life. When I led the Chicago
Public Schools, we lost one child due to gun violence every 2 weeks.
That is a staggering rate of loss. In Chicago, we took steps that no
public school system should ever have to take. We created burial funds
for families that couldn't afford to bury their children.
So, I absolutely refuse to accept the status quo. And I have two
simple goals for change that everyone can agree on: first, that many
fewer of our Nation's children die from gun violence; and second, that
many more children grow up free from a life of fear.
If we refuse to act now, if we refuse to show courage and
collective will in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, I think we
will never act.
Sometimes the time picks you; sometimes you pick the time. Today,
sadly, the time has picked us. If we don't move forward now in a
thoughtful way to protect our children, then we, as adults, as parents,
as leaders, have broken a trust with children to nurture them and keep
them safe from harm.
On my wall in my office in Chicago, I kept a picture that one of
our teenagers had drawn for me. It was a picture of him as a fireman.
And the caption that he wrote to go along with it was: ``If I grow up,
I want to be a fireman.'' That's a deep statement about this young
man's world. Think about what it means that so many of our youth today
think about ``If I grow up,'' not ``When, I grow up.''
Everything we are preaching to young people about going to college,
building careers, deferring gratification, and planning for the future,
is all undermined when a child is afraid they will get caught up in the
craziness of gun violence. We need all our children, whether it is in
Newtown, Connecticut, the South Side of Chicago, or Aurora, Colorado,
to think of themselves in terms of ``when I grow up.''
And when children do have that confidence, our opportunity gaps,
our achievement gaps, will shrink. When that day comes, education will
fulfill its role in America as the great equalizer. It will truly be
the one force that overcomes differences in race, privilege, and
national origin.
Conclusion
The need is urgent. And I say to the committee, whether you are
Republican or Democrat, our children and our country cannot wait. We
cannot postpone providing every child with a world-class education.
I look forward to working with you to develop and implement a
fiscal year 2014 Budget for education that reflects the needs of our
children and our Nation. And I would be happy to take any questions now
that you may have.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Mr. Secretary--one of those
days. You may be spared my questions entirely here.
Secretary Duncan. It is part of my strategy.
Chairman Kline. Yes, I know. It is working.
I am going to begin, after clearing my throat, by taking a
moment to talk about the President's proposal--your proposal--
to move to a market-based interest rate on all federal student
loans.
As you know, the basics of your plan, the administration's
plan, falls largely in line with our goals for student loan
interest rates. For example, your proposal moves to a market-
based interest rate on all loans; our proposal moves to a
market-based interest rate on all loans. Your proposal is based
off the 10-year Treasury note; so is ours.
You have three different formulas for calculating the
student loan interest rates. I thought it would be a little
better to narrow it down to two; we can talk about it.
We aimed to get our proposal as close to budget-neutral as
we could and ended up with savings of $995 million over 5 years
and $3.7 billion in savings over 10 years. Your proposal is a
little different, costing $29.8 billion over 5 years and saving
$6.7 billion over 10.
To protect students in the high interest rate environments
and try to find common ground with some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, our bill includes a reasonable
interest cap. Your legislation does not include a cap but
expands the income-based repayment program, bringing the total
cost of your proposal to $33.4 billion over 5 years with $3.1
billion in savings over 10 years.
I would say our proposals are pretty close and others
agree. I am going to quote for just a moment from a Washington
Post editorial yesterday. It says, quote--``This year President
Obama proposed pegging loan rates to the rate at which the
government borrows plus a relatively modest markup. On Thursday
the House Education and Workforce Committee endorsed a similar
policy. Its bill may reach the House floor this week.'' It
will, indeed, reach the House floor this week.
Continuing, ``Backers of the President's plan and those
behind the House's say the proposals are designed to be roughly
budget-neutral over 10 years. There is no reason to delay
passing such a policy.''
So, Mr. Secretary, we have some competing ideas up here. I
just want to get you on the record, if I can, as to where the
administration stands. Are we going to go to an interest rate
that has pegged to the market for a long-term solution or are
we going to keep kicking the can down the road?
Secretary Duncan. I just think, Mr. Chairman, that
Congress, not just in this specific instance but generally, we
have to start taking on tough issues. We have to take them on
together in a bipartisan way, and we have to think for the long
haul.
So we are very interested in a long-term solution. We are
interested in this being budget-neutral, not sort of trying to
reduce the deficit on the backs of students. But I appreciate
your thoughtfulness. We want to continue to work with you and
other members.
And the idea of coming back every 2 years to try and fix
something, to me it is just a very--with all the real
challenges that the--you know, the country is facing and what
is going on today in Oklahoma, the fact that we can't think
long-term, the fact that we can't sort of take a tough issue,
deal with it, move it off the table, move onto other issues, I
just don't understand that thinking.
So we are interested in a long-term fix, we are interested
in it being budget-neutral, and look forward to continued
conversations with you and others to try and find some common
ground.
Chairman Kline. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I hope we can
continue to work together as we bang this thing through the
legislative process over the next couple of weeks.
I mentioned this briefly to you earlier today so I am going
to ask that you give me some information for the record, but as
you know, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980--that is how
long this law has been around--requires federal agencies to
publish in April and in October semiannual regulatory agendas
in the Federal Register describing economically significant
regulatory actions that are being developed. Further, Executive
Order 12866--you may win this thing yet--requires agencies to
publish every 6 months a regulatory agenda, including all
regulations under development or review during the 12 months
following publication.
Let me cut to the chase. Last year, for the first time
since 1980, we had an administration that didn't publish the
spring agenda at all--just skipped it. And when the fall agenda
came due, well, they just let that go past, too, until they
published it on December 21st.
We are in a new year. April has passed us; we haven't seen
such an agenda.
So my question for you, Mr. Secretary, for the record is,
can you tell us when the Department of Education submitted its
input to OMB?
Secretary Duncan. Yes, sir. On May 8th.
Chairman Kline. There you go. Thank you very much.
Well done, Gabby.
I know. That is why you bring them. I know----
Secretary Duncan. They are a lot smarter than I.
Chairman Kline. Yes. Well, they are all smarter than us.
All right, I am--my time is about to run out. I just want
to make the point again about the administration has brought
forward a very, very big new proposal. You explained it, you
talked about early education for 4-year-olds in the country. It
is a cost of over $70 billion over a 10-year period, and you
really didn't do anything for IDEA.
And when I go and sit down with principals and teachers and
superintendents and parents at roundtables in my district and I
ask them, ``What is the most--single most important thing the
federal government can do for you?'' it is to step up and meet
the federal government's obligation--obligation to fund special
ed.
Once again, I am just disappointed, Mr. Secretary. My time
is expired.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your comments on the
302(b) allocations. I think this is just a dagger that is aimed
at the heart of the federal role in education and has huge
ramifications for local schools.
I would also say, there is a big difference between your
plan and the President's plan in the fact that you lock
students in to get the long-term benefit of the low interest
rates today as opposed to the variable rates, which locks them
in at a much higher rate later on and they don't know what the
cost of college is going to be.
I want to go back to the point I was making with respect to
the waivers, and I want to make very clear that there is an
understanding between us that No Child Left Behind, as was
ESEA--perhaps No Child Left Behind more successfully than the
ESEA in many ways--that this a fundamental civil rights law of
this country. That is how President Bush saw it. You may
remember the anger when President Bush said that the system had
the soft bigotry of low expectations for many students inside
the American education system, but the fact was that these
students were hidden, their performance was washed out by
averages and a constant changing of the benchmarks, and we
can't go back there.
And I am glad to see what is happening on graduation rates
but we have got to understand that the graduation rate has to
be real, and we now see some states suggesting that they want
to do something that is sort of sub-GED, and maybe graduating
students over 6 years or what have you. I have no problem
trying to recover students who didn't make the 4-year cycle,
and we have seen successful efforts in New York State to do
that and elsewhere in some of the larger cities, with really
successful recoveries to a regular diploma.
But, you know, we lamented before No Child Left Behind that
students couldn't read the diploma that they were granted. Now
the question is, what does the diploma mean to an employer, to
a college, and others?
And we have got to maintain that integrity in this system
as you go through the renewals on waivers--around this
question, because as we know, we had dropout factories that
were making AYP; they just happened to be losing 50 percent of
the students on the way to graduation. And we cannot let states
start to construct some semblance of that system as they seek
relief from the tough chore of getting excellence on behalf of
our students and getting proficiency on behalf of our students,
so point made.
Finally, I just want to thank you so much, and the
administration and the President, for emphasizing early
childhood education. It is very clear the benefits of early
childhood education.
I realize there is sort of a fad among the education elites
now sort of suggesting that perhaps it makes no difference,
that really it doesn't make any difference. I always find that
interesting when you know how much rich people are prepared to
pay for the early childhood education and development
opportunities for their children. People pay $30,000, $40,000,
$50,000, $60,000 a year for that experience in Washington,
D.C., major metropolitan areas, and elsewhere, seeking to have
their child have that advantage starting school.
The difference they make is they then take their child from
that early childhood high-quality environment and they put them
in a good school. So we put them into a terrible school and we
say, ``Oh, it didn't work.'' I would lose grade year competency
if I was in some of these schools.
And so I think that we have got to understand that this is
a continuum. All of the science that we have learned about
brain development, about skills development, about vocabulary
acquisition, and all of those fundamental skills tell us that
this is a very wise investment.
As I understand--and I know we are still in the drafting
stage there on the President's program--basically, he is
providing money to states for states to make the decisions
about; all they have to do is be willing to invest in high
quality--to improve the quality of the existing system and to
expand the participation, and that is what the money is. They
decide how they want to allocate this in the earliest drafts
that I have seen.
So this isn't about us telling the states what to do; it is
about us providing resources to help them meet the demand and
the quality issues.
Secretary Duncan. I will try and respond to each of your
points. So on the first point of maintaining a high bar and the
civil rights commitment through waivers and going forward,
hopefully, with reauthorization, please know that you have my
commitment and you have been an absolute champion here, and I
appreciate your leadership so much.
One of the biggest benefits of the waivers, which I think
people still don't fully understand, is again, there are
literally hundreds of thousands of children with special needs,
minority children who were invisible under No Child Left
Behind--was not the intent, but that is what happened.
And states are now holding themselves accountable for
children who didn't exist under the previous accountability
system. That is a huge step in the right direction. We need to
maintain that bar as we go forward.
On the House budget, just to be very, very clear--I
appreciate your commitment to try to fund more for special
needs children. With the House Appropriations' 302(b)
allocation there would be a cut in IDEA funding of over $2
billion--$2.04 billion. So it is clearly not going the
direction that you propose.
And the investment in early childhood education would
actually lead to a reduction in young people being labeled
``special education'' and would, you know, reduce those costs
over time.
But this is the best--Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller,
this is the best investment we can make. Again, when you have a
Nobel Prize-winning economist who comes to this very
skeptically, frankly, and talks about a minimum of a seven-to-
one return on investment, how many investments does this body
make where you get a seven-to-one return on investment?
And we just have to get out of the dysfunction. We have to
stop thinking short-term. This is a long-term play. The
benefits are 10, 15, 20, 30 years out.
Politicians too often are wired to think about short term--
the next election cycle. But if we invest in high-quality early
childhood education--today less than 3 in 10 of our children
have access to high-quality pre-K, and then we wonder why we
have achievement gaps. We wonder why we are always playing
catch up.
We can fix this at the front end, make the right
investment, make sure it is high-quality. It is not a mandate
to states; it is an option.
And the reason, again, for all the dysfunction here in
Washington, I am actually hopeful about this because we see
governors in a bipartisan way, Republican and Democrat, who are
investing very significantly in early childhood because they
get it. They understand it. We just want to partner with states
that are interested in investing themselves.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time has expired.
Just a comment, Mr. Secretary, before I recognize Ms. Foxx.
I do battle with my own party on special ed, as well, but
whatever those issues are doesn't change the fact that once
again, the President has, in my judgment, ignored that--what
should be a commitment and obligation of the federal
government.
Ms. Foxx?
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Mr. Secretary, the program integrity regulations have been
the center of intense scrutiny from the higher education
community and Members on both sides of the aisle in Congress.
As you know, the courts have invalidated several of these
regulations, yet you recently announced the Department plans to
reregulate both gainful employment and the distance education
piece with state authorization.
The House has had strong bipartisan votes opposing both of
these regulations. Why do you continue to pursue flawed
regulations and what changes to the regulations are you
considering?
Secretary Duncan. Well, obviously part of what we are doing
to go up through negotiated rulemaking is to hear public
comments and to get good feedback, and we welcome your
feedback, your staff's feedback. And all we are going to do,
very simply, is where you have, you know, on the gainful side,
we have--if we are going to hit the President's goal of leading
the world in college graduation rates we need everybody
producing students who are graduating with real skills. We----
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Secretary, are you willing to make the
gainful employment apply to everybody in higher education?
Secretary Duncan. Well, we need to sort of talk through a
number of issues here. My point is, what we want to do is we
want to make sure that real training is leading to real jobs,
and where that is happening we want to see that happen more
often.
Where you have folks who are already struggling financially
going in greater debt and not having an opportunity to get a
good-paying job, they will be in a worse financial position
when they started. I think that is a poor use of taxpayer
dollars.
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Secretary, my colleagues will tell you, I am
very sensitive about the word ``training'' as opposed to
``education.'' I think we educate people and we train animals.
I remain concerned, Mr. Secretary, about the current state
authorization regulation and newly announced rulemaking
session. It is one thing to say that states must authorize
institutions that operate within their states; it is entirely
another to dictate precisely how these states are to do it, and
then if you don't agree with it, punish the students who are
attending the institutions within the state.
Aren't you using the federal regulatory process to push
states into regulating institutions according to a federal
prescription?
Secretary Duncan. No, I don't think so. Again, we just want
to make sure that--we want to lead the world in college
graduation rates. We used to lead the world; today we are 12th.
You should be ashamed of that. I should be ashamed of that.
Everyone here should be ashamed of that.
We want to get better and we want to make sure that where
significant taxpayer dollars are going to institutions, they
are doing a good job of educating young people.
Ms. Foxx. One more thing on the state authorization: You
have issued a ``dear colleague'' letter in March 2011, but
how--about how the states can come in compliance. You have
extended the deadline twice. Can you identify which states
still need to come into compliance and what notice is being
given to them?
Secretary Duncan. I don't have that here but we are happy
to get you that information right away.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have noted the charts that the Secretary
brought today, and I simply must make a couple of comments
about them. You know, I don't know who it was who said, ``There
are lies, damned lies, and then statistics.''
Having dealt with that all my life, I was very curious on
this high-quality preschool issue, that it is given to us as a
percentage of GDP and that number one is Denmark, which has
5,000,574 people in 2011, and they, indeed, spent $10,429; they
are number one. Iceland is number two; their population is
319,000 and they spent $9,745 per student.
And number three is the Russian Federation. I am not sure
that we want to compare the United States of America to these
other places, especially the Russian Federation.
But I would like to point out that the United States spent
more per student than any of these places that are highlighted.
We spent $10,995.
So if you want to look at it as a percentage of GDP, but we
are really not comparing apples and apples. We are comparing
apples and tangerines, I guess, I am not sure, if you look at
Iceland and Denmark in comparison to us, in terms of numbers,
with 320 million people.
Secretary Duncan. Let me be really clear here: children in
your congressional district aren't competing for jobs in your
district or in your state; they are competing for jobs with
children in Singapore, in South Korea, in India, in China, in
Russia, in Denmark, in Iceland. And we either want our children
to be able to compete for those high-wage, high-skill jobs and
keep those companies in our country, or we are going to see
those companies migrate to where the most skilled workers are.
That is the choice we have to make.
Ms. Foxx. And we are spending more per student than those
places, so----
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Hinojosa?
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Duncan, it is always a pleasure to have you
testify before this committee, and thank you for your
outstanding leadership and perseverance for joining us on the
Education and Workforce Committee, as I said.
I am pleased that President Obama's proposed 2014 budget
makes strategic investment in early learning and also on K-12
and higher education. I have been a strong champion for
education K-20, and I have a daughter out of--the second out of
four girls--specialized in early learning preschool education
for pre-kindergarten programs, 3-and 4-year-olds.
She was chosen as the outstanding teacher in that category
in about 38 school districts and she oftentimes reads what we
are doing in Congress and makes the comment that not enough
children are being given that opportunity with 3-and 4-year-
olds. And certainly, one of the charts that is in the material
you gave us, high-quality preschool, the U.S. ranks 25th in
public funding for early learning out of 36 countries,
certainly is in line with what she is telling me going on in
Texas.
So let me say, Secretary Duncan, that in your testimony you
highlight that the graduation rate for Latino students has
improved from 2008 to 2011, with an additional 164,000 Latino
students graduating on time, and I understand that high school
graduation rates for African American students also improved,
so that today two in three African American students are
graduating on time, and to me that is progress. So I
congratulate you.
And I am glad to see that we are making this progress in
closing the achievement gaps for those students. Looking at the
chart that shows the number of students in dropout factories in
2008, 2.25 million, dropped down considerably in 2011. And the
number of those school districts known as dropout factories
dropped from 1,746 to 1,400 in 2011, again showing great
progress.
So I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, looking at the
Republican party's Paul Ryan proposed budget would most likely
result in significant cuts to federal education programs that I
am talking about. Question is, what impact is sequestration
having on disadvantaged children and youth, and can you discuss
the effects of this Ryan budget on President Obama's college
completion goals?
Secretary Duncan. And let me just--I will address that
directly, I just want to go back to while we are very pleased
to have 700,000 fewer children enrolled in quote-unquote
``dropout factories,'' the fact is, we still have about 1.5
million young people in dropout factories. So this is not, you
know, ``mission accomplished.'' This is not ``we are there
yet.''
We have to get better faster. We can't, you know, get that
rate down to zero fast enough--that number down to zero. And so
we have a lot of hard work ahead of us.
So we need to invest. We need to not invest in the status
quo and in vision of reform, but any time you have a budget
that would see $2.5 billion taken away from poor children,
Title I money, $228 million taken away Impact Aid, children
from military families, children on Native American
reservations, we talked about over $2 billion cut in IDEA
programs, $4 billion cut in Pell Grants--you know, we are
trying to get more young people going on to college, not less--
it is devastating. And again, we just cut off our nose to spite
our face. I just don't understand.
Let me be really, really clear: our competitors--our
international competitors--Japan, India, China, Singapore--they
are not managing their education strategy by a sequester. That
is not how they are doing this.
They are investing, they are innovating, they are putting
more money in. South Korea has increased its investment over
the past decade by about a third. They know what it takes to
get good jobs to come to their country and stay.
I just worry that we are poorly serving our nation's
children and our nation's economy if we fail to invest and fail
to give our children an opportunity to compete in a global
marketplace. The world has fundamentally changed and we keep
acting like we are in an era that has been gone for, you know,
30, 40, 50 years.
Mr. Hinojosa. Secretary, I would like to hear your views on
H.R. 1911, the Republican bill that would make college more
expensive and out of reach. In particular, how does this
proposal affect students of color?
Secretary Duncan. So again, I think and I hope--maybe I am
wrong--I desperately hope, fervently hope that we could all
agree that our goal should be to lead the world in college
graduation rates again. That is the right thing for young
people, right thing for the country, right thing for our
country's economy.
I talked earlier in my testimony about the return on
investment of a college degree of being about 15.2 percent a
year. That is a huge return on investment. The long-term
benefits are indisputable.
So anything that makes college less accessible, less
affordable, more distant for first-generation college goers, we
do ourselves a grave disservice.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. I thank the Chairman for yielding.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Before I start, I have got a special guest today, Christina
Everett from Tennessee, who is a foster youth shadow day, so
she is my shadow.
Christina, would you stand up and be recognized here to
this group? Thank you for being here.
I also want to send my sympathy. Two years ago my district
had a terrible tornado and I understand exactly what those
folks are going through right--it is indescribable what you see
on television compared to what is actually there on the ground.
So, Mr. Secretary, I share your enthusiasm for education.
The week before the election I got tired of talking to adults
and I went to seven schools and talked to young people--
elementary schools up to middle schools. That is the future of
the country and I agree with what most of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle have said.
I do want to get some reality. A year ago we were in--the
Chairman and I were in India, along with Dr. Foxx, and in India
we went to the department of education. They have a million
schools in India; 700,000 of them don't have electricity.
When you compare that, I think most people can't comprehend
that you would have a school without electric power but those
are the facts. We were there just a year ago. So it is a
different standard.
I want to go to the early childhood and what studies--and
certainly it sounds intuitively like if you spend more money
there you will ultimately, down the road, get a better outcome.
What studies are you citing? Because I have looked at this
very----
Secretary Duncan. There are many, many studies, and we can
get you a whole series of studies, but the one I cited
specifically here, and there are others, is the preschool
project that Dr. Heckman studied for--it has been a
longitudinal study for more than 4 decades and approaching the
5th----
Mr. Roe. That is what I wanted to know. Let's go over that
study.
That study--those two that are--that are quoted--that the
President quoted--rests on two academic studies: and I may be
pronouncing this wrong, but Abecedarian study----
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Roe [continuing]. And the Perry study. These are 4-and
5-decade studies. These studies actually started in 1972 and
with 111 infants in North Carolina, and the Perry Project
started in 1962 with 123 poor children and their families in
Ypsilanti, Michigan.
And what it showed was--we have mentioned the $7--the
studies cost between $16,000 and $41,000 per child in current
dollars, and also, the money was spent on very intensive
interventions--home visits, parent counseling, nutrition,
health care. I mean, it was incredibly complicated. And that is
what we are basing this on, these two decades-old studies that
were only about 150 people total.
Secretary Duncan. No. Those are important studies; they are
by no means the only ones, and we will get you all this data,
Congressman Roe. But recent short-term studies in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, which has done a great job, preschool led to gains of
6 to 7 months in literacy skills and 4 months in math skills,
particularly high jumps for Hispanic students.
Very recent study coming out of Boston, preschools led to
7-month gains in literacy and math and significant gains in
basic cognitive skills like inhibition and attention----
Mr. Roe. Well, I will get those. And I did want to tell you
that I had to peel this onion back pretty far, and let's look
at the Head Start program----
Secretary Duncan. And just quickly, some interesting
studies coming out of Tennessee that talk about the benefits. I
want to make sure you are aware of those.
Mr. Roe. I am very aware of those.
Secretary Duncan. Okay.
Mr. Roe. In December of last year the HHS released a very
comprehensive Head Start data, which took years--346-page
study, and it said that the Head Start, several states and
those who didn't through the third grade. Some got in; some did
not.
There were no measurable differences between two groups
across 47 outcome measures. In other words, the Head Start
impact was no better than just a random--how do you explain
that?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. So again, it is really important you
look at the details of the study. And, Congressman Roe, what
that study did is looked at children who had access to Head
Start, not who actually attended Head Start, and 20 percent of
the children in that study actually didn't attend. So it is
very important that we have rigorous----
Mr. Roe. But if you did or didn't, you didn't turn any
different. It wouldn't matter.
Secretary Duncan. No. Again, you had children who were in
that study who were part of the Head Start cohort, 20 percent
of whom didn't attend. So again, happy to sit down with you and
sort of walk through, you know, the facts. It is important this
be high-quality----
Mr. Roe. The group that didn't attend did just the same as
the group that did, whether they dropped out or not.
Secretary Duncan. No. Again, the cohort----
Mr. Roe. We can discuss. A couple things I want to--I will
get over is I do want to work with you with--and I am very
committed to this--is the number of dropout factories. I think
that is a travesty in this country. And we should concentrate
on those 1,400 schools where those children are being failed
today.
And secondly, I want to work with you on the Pell Grant
program, where we invest that money more wisely. I would be
willing to look at a higher number if we knew what the outcomes
would be. In other words, get it to the students who really are
effectively using it, because a lot of my community colleges
that I talk to, they see kids who get the grant drop out and
then basically it is lost and wasted. I want to see that money
invested in kids who are being successful.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. McCarthy?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome again, Secretary Duncan.
I just want to go back on--in September of 2011 the
department offered states the opportunity to waive the
requirement of providing supplemental education service, SES,
to students despite assurances proposed in the waivers, like in
my home state of New York, that it will not shrug off
responsibilities to provide support services to students and
give districts the opportunity to still offer SES. I am
concerned with the post-waiver realities.
I know you have a lot of data, but could you tell me what
the criteria the department is using to evaluate state
compliance with its commitment to ensure critical services that
are being delivered to the students?
Secretary Duncan. Yes, well again, at the end of the day,
while we have approved 37 states' plans--plans are important--I
want to look at outcomes for children, and so are those
achievement gaps being closed? Are children who have been
disadvantaged, you know, improving or not?
Plans on paper tell you some things that are important.
What is more important to me is what is actually happening to
real students.
Let me tell you why we did it. One of the things I really
resented about Washington, quite frankly, when I led the
Chicago Public Schools, was that despite the very limited
funding coming from Washington, Washington tied my hands as to
how I could spend that money. And I wanted to be held
accountable for results, but I wanted the flexibility to spend
that money as I saw fit.
And I almost had to sue my current Department of Education
when I was in Chicago for the right to tutor about 25,000
children after school, and my Department of Education was
telling me in Chicago I couldn't do that. That, to me, was
absolutely crazy. It was backwards.
And so with limited dollars, with education being
underfunded, we thought it was very important not to dictate to
districts and to superintendents and to school boards that you
have to use 20 percent of your Title I money around SES, and we
are going to hold you accountable for results.
They are good providers. Use them. Have them grow. Do some
things yourselves. But to say you have to spend money in this
way, that prices are fixed, just simply didn't make sense.
So again, my fundamental thinking about this is to hold
people accountable to a high bar, be tight on goals, but be
loose on means--give people flexibility in terms of how they
hit that higher bar. That is why we provided flexibility.
Mrs. McCarthy. Well, I don't mind the flexibility. What I
mind is, are we making sure that the students are getting the
programs that they want, and how do we know that they--the
states are doing that?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. So again, we will monitor their
plans. And again, but to be very clear, beyond monitoring
plans, we will have ongoing checks here, we will have a renewal
process. But I want to look at, is student achievements
improving?
Mrs. McCarthy. Have you seen any information coming in
since 2011?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. It is very early. Again, you--I saw
some data. I saw graduation rates are up, dropout factories are
down.
So there is early data, but again, we need to be looking at
it state by state, and I will look at 50 states and who is
moving the needle faster, create a little healthy competition
there.
Mrs. McCarthy. And I agree with that, you know, because I
am looking at the--certainly the dropout data, which is one of
the biggest factors that, you know, many of us care about,
because once we get those kids that drop out very rarely do
they ever come back into the system, and those are the kids
that, unfortunately, sometimes end up in prison.
So those are the factors that I have, that we have the
opportunity to reach these kids and we have an opportunity to
change their lives, and I just want to make sure that the
states and the local districts flexibility are using it,
especially the underserved schools, because that is who we are
really targeting.
Secretary Duncan. Just one other added point on the--I
think, again, all of us, I think, have to be united in getting
that dropout rate down to zero. A lot of students leave high
school not because it is too hard but it is too easy, it is
boring for them. And one of the things in the President's
budget proposal is a $300 million request to redesign high
schools to focus both on college and careers and more hands-on,
engaged learning and relevance to the workforce.
I have been in a couple high schools, including one in New
York recently, that did an amazing job of students seeing that
bridge between what they are doing in the classroom and what is
going on in the real community. For far too many kids that is a
huge divide and they feel they are wasting their time, so we
want to really invest in states and districts that are serious
about helping students understand how, what I am learning in
class is relevant to the jobs in my community.
Mrs. McCarthy. Absolutely. We have a BOCES program out on
Long Island. It is absolutely fabulous working with students.
Anyone that would meet these students, certainly they are
college material, but this is not what they choose. So they--a
lot of them do go on to college, and I think that is important.
Not every student wants to go to college.
Secretary Duncan. And to be really clear, because I think
what other countries do which I don't like--some countries
track students: you are on the college track or career. I never
want to do that. To me it has got to be both-and, not either-
or.
And to your point, let students figure out what they want
to do with their lives at different points. We need to give
them options, not limit those opportunities.
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Walberg?
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
Last week I had the opportunity to meet with more than a
dozen college and university presidents from my district and
surrounding districts to discuss primarily the issue of the
high cost of tuition, high cost of higher education, and
ultimately, then, the cost to students with, as we have
discussed here numerous times, the cost of loan debt. We know
that the Department of Education requires these colleges and
universities to collect a great deal of information and then to
report that information to the Department. That level of
reporting, according to them, continues to grow.
And so I would ask, Mr. Secretary, since the--it ultimately
comes back to the student paying the freight for all that goes
on education, including excessive reporting, if that be the
case. Has anyone in your Department looked at the financial
impact of all of this record-keeping and what it is costing not
only the universities and colleges but the students?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. No, that is a great question. We
look at that very closely, and I would encourage you--I do this
all the time when I meet with college presidents--where we have
regulations that are redundant or burdensome or, you know,
compliance-orientated, not adding any value, please let me
personally know that very directly, and those are the kinds of
things we don't want to continue to impose on folks.
And so where it is helpful, you know, where it is useful
information, we want to do that. But where there is unneeded
burden there, please hold me personally accountable for
challenging that.
So dollars are scarce. We don't want to waste time. We
don't want to waste resources. We want them focused on
increasing completion rates, not on paperwork that doesn't make
sense, so----
Mr. Walberg. I would be glad to do that. Appreciate that
offer and I will share that, certainly, but----
Secretary Duncan. It is hard----
Mr. Walberg [continuing]. Do you have any illustrations of
what you are doing right now to reduce some of that?
Secretary Duncan. We can walk through a series of things.
My challenge is, often when I ask this question I don't get
back concrete, specific to-dos, and so again, the more specific
you can be the--you know, this piece of data or this whatever--
we are asking it three times or doing it in a wrong way. So the
more concrete you can be, that would be helpful.
A bigger issue is obviously this idea of college costs. And
frankly, we can reduce paperwork; that is not the driver of
college costs there.
We have done a lot with FAFSA simplification to make it
easier for folks to apply for financial aid. Part of the
President's proposal is a Race to the Top for higher education
that would incentivize three things: incentivize states to
continue to invest--this has to be about shared responsibility;
incentivize universities to keep down their own costs--some are
doing it really well, others, frankly, aren't; and to
incentivize universities to build cultures not just around
access but around completion. The goal can't be to go to
college; the goal has to be to help people graduate the back
end.
So we want to be a partner and that is what--you know, part
of what we are proposing to Congress.
Mr. Walberg. Let me go on to Pell, since we talked--
mentioned FAFSA and the programs to help students with tuition
costs. I recently heard from several financial aid officers in
my district that they are concerned about fraud in the Pell
Grant program. This isn't new to you information, I am certain.
Either people are enrolling in community colleges simply to
get access to student aid dollars with no intention of ever
trying to complete an academic program or they are fraudulently
enrolling to simply take the money and run. Can you point to
some specific actions that this administration has done to
clamp down on fraud within the Pell Grant programs?
Secretary Duncan. So fraud rings are a real concern and it
is real money out there, so I have a list of 10. I won't read
them all to you, but in October 2011 we issued a ``dear
colleague'' letter to the school community addressing the
findings that came from the OIG. We have established an anti-
fraud ring task force, chaired by Jeff Baker, to address the
issues raised in that report.
We have created a mailbox and a call line that folks have
information there. We are developing a process for schools to
review and flag unusual enrollment activities that lead to, you
know, often are early indicators of potential fraud rings.
I can go through a series of things. So we take this very,
very seriously. If there are additional ideas or actions we
should be taking, happy to consider----
Mr. Walberg. Is there any move to tie FAFSA reporting to
the IRS records, the tax records, so that we don't have
redundancies, we don't have mistakes--unintentional or
intentional fraud in the applications?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. So the IRS can pre-populate those
things. So that is a piece of it but it goes beyond that.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I would hope that we would get to ways
that we can really reduce the subjectivity of reporting and
make sure that students, parents, and otherwise know that what
they give is accurate information.
Secretary Duncan. We will share with you and your staff
what we are doing, and if you have suggestions on how--ways we
can do it better, I would be very happy to hear those.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Grijalva?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I have some pre-K initiative questions. Very, very happy to
see that in the budget. I don't know how many times we have to
go over study after study that the sooner you get these babies
ready the better they are going to do and the outcomes are
going to be better. And so I appreciate the President's and
your initiative on that.
Earlier question, just for my clarification, maybe
something you can answer now or certainly provide the committee
information on: the regulatory question around gainful
employment--looking at that outcome. Is it possible to provide
the committee--and as I understand, it was inclusive but there
was a section that dealt--the reaction at least that I
received, and maybe it was unusual, from the for-profit
colleges relative to that regulation.
What is the percentage of federal funds that go into for-
profits versus the student enrollment versus the outcome?
Because I believe that if not today, certainly that information
would be important for the committee because this question
keeps coming up.
Secretary Duncan. Yes. I don't have those exact numbers in
front of me. The percent of money over time has gone up
significantly to the for-profits.
And let me be really clear: I am not anti-for-profit, where
for-profits are helping young people or 58-year-olds gain
skills to get them real jobs and a real living wage, we want to
see them grow and prosper.
Where for-profits or other folks are putting people in a
worse financial situation than when they started and using
taxpayer money to do that, we think that is a poor use of
taxpayer resources.
Mr. Grijalva. And I agree. Because if the mantra is the tax
dollar and the waste thereof, then certainly that information
would be important to the committee.
What happens with Head Start, Mr. Secretary, once the Pre-K
initiative is fully implemented, given the cuts that are coming
and given the re-competition, which I thought was necessary and
proper in some of the instances where those agencies weren't
working well? What happens to Head Start?
Secretary Duncan. We have a great, great partnership with
Kathleen Sebelius, who runs HHS. She is a good friend. We, you
know, travel all the time together.
To be really clear, this is a 0 to 5 initiative. Again,
this is a goal to try and end achievement gaps and stop playing
catch up and stop admiring the problem. So over time HHS would
focus on the 0 to 3 space--more home visiting, and again,
working with those struggling families to help those parents
gain the skills they need, focus on Head Start and Early Head
Start, and then over time the transition of 4-year-olds would
be into the pre-K program.
But really, it is a 0 to 5. And the goal, again, I have
just got to reiterate, the average--the average child coming
from a disadvantaged background starts kindergarten at 5 years
old 12 to 14 months behind.
That should be untenable to all of us here. That has been
true for far too long, and the goal is to level the playing
field, to have young children start at the same starting line
at 5-year-olds in kindergarten. It is as simple as that.
If I could add one more thing that is really important from
the research--research, part of the benefits are academic--
clearly, you know, language and literacy and math skills--but a
big part of these benefits that these long-term studies are
showing are what is called non-cognitive skills--the ability to
sit in a room like this and to participate, the ability to have
resilience and grit. And those non-cognitive skills play huge
dividends, and you guys couldn't be as successful as you are if
you didn't have those.
Not every child grows up in a family or household that has
those kinds of opportunities. So it is the academic dividend
benefit plus the non-cognitive side that seems to have these
lifetime, huge impacts on young people's ability to enter into
middle class and be successful.
Mr. Grijalva. Two quick questions: In the pre-K initiative,
the English learner component, is--I read it quickly, but I
don't know, is it--does that include it in the initiative so
that we are--we make sure that all families and kids are going
to be able to fully participate?
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. The young kids who are, you
know, low-income and then sort of work your way up, and where
states wanted to do more, in the middle class--middle-income
families they would have the right to do that.
And if states were doing a lot in the pre-K space they
could use our resources to do more full-day kindergarten, which
we think is the right step. So we are going to provide lots of
flexibility to partner with states, build upon their strengths,
and fill in gaps where there are holes.
Mr. Grijalva. And related, one of the first hits, in terms
of sequestration, was in Indian Country, and in particular, in
education on the reservation and in those nations. As you see
that question and as you see it in reflection in the
President's budget to address what I think was not only a
shortfall but----
Secretary Duncan. Well, there is a desperate----
Chairman Kline. Excuse me. The gentleman's time has
expired. We are trying to give all members a chance.
Dr. Heck?
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to Mr. Duncan.
Good to see you again. Appreciate you taking time to be
here.
Just first a quick observation on the average increase of
graduation rates, and going back to what Dr. Foxx had said
earlier about statistics, I think it is great that the average
rate is 78 percent, and as you mentioned, on track to hit 90
percent, but I think we have got to be real careful about using
the average because that always implies a high and a low, and
we know that the top five largest school districts, of which
mine is number five in the Clark County school district, the
average of those five come out to 69 percent. So maybe we would
better start using the median or something a little bit
different to make sure we are tracking all school districts.
One issue very important to me is the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act, and I have always been a
strong supporter of CTE ever since my days in the state house
and maintain the philosophy that high school seniors should be
college or career ready when they graduate. We have talked a
lot here today about access and affordability of college, but
not everyone is meant to go to college. And those who choose to
forego college in order to enter the workforce directly after
high school need options and necessary training.
I appreciate the administration's proposal to reauthorize
the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act but do have some
concerns with this proposal to designate $100 million to create
a new competitive CTE innovation fund. As I know you are aware,
CTE funding is allocated based on demographics, and because CTE
is discretionary funding there can be fluctuations from year to
year so the hold harmless provision was put into place back in
1998 to prevent states from ever receiving less than they were
allocated in 1998.
And it obviously was established to prevent states from
being disproportionately affected. And while well-intentioned,
states like my home state of Nevada have had significant
population growth since 1998, and if we use the 1998 hold
harmless provision in combination with the diversion of $100
million for the innovation fund, it puts Nevada at a
significant disadvantage that can potentially result in a
funding reduction of 42 percent.
With that in mind, did the Department of Education take
these potentially devastating cuts to states like Nevada, which
would receive a 42 percent cut, into account? Should this
proposal go into effect? And does the Department have a
proposal to revise the funding formula allocation for CTE
funding to provide for a more equitable distribution of funds
amongst the states?
Secretary Duncan. So happy to work through those specific
issues with you and the governor and, you know, we put out a
blueprint for Perkins reauthorization, as you said. Happy to
get comments, feedback from anybody. Our goal is not to
devastate any state, clearly, so I don't know all the details
and intricacies there, but more than happy to look at it.
But I think the fundamental point we are trying to make is,
again, as a country I think we did better--whether you call it
Voc-Ed, or CTE, honestly, as a country I think we did this
better 20 or 30 or 40 years ago and have gotten away from this.
We want to see this become much more part of the norm of what
high schools are offering. We want to spur innovation, spur
creativity.
Some places are doing it; other places it doesn't exist.
Some high schools are still training people for jobs that
disappeared a couple decades ago. We want to find ways to
increase the access to quality CTE programs at the high school
and even having some feeder programs in the middle school.
So that is the goal. Happy to talk through any details with
you and your team.
Mr. Heck. Certainly, and I appreciate your efforts to work
together to try to prevent significant cuts to CTE funding by
some states. In addition, states like Arizona, Florida, North
Carolina also would see significant cuts based on the hold
harmless from 1998 as we move forward, so I appreciate your
help in trying to avoid that.
And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Duncan. Happy to look at it. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for
your leadership.
I am very worried about the federal campus-based student
financial aid programs. I think sequestration has had, as you
know, a significant impact on programs like college Work Study
and SEOG. A 22 percent cut in appropriations will do even
further damage to those programs.
And I am particularly worried about Perkins. As you know,
current law has the Perkins Loan fund returning to the Treasury
October 1, 2015, so that means we have two more academic years
left of a program we have had since I think 1958.
The Department has made a proposal--or the President has
made a proposal--a couple of years now to dramatically expand
Perkins, basically turn it into campus-based direct lending, to
help, you know, significant numbers of additional students. But
let's be honest. I don't think that program has much of a
chance in this Congress. In fact, I think probably the acting
commissioner of the IRS has a better shot of being named
Government Man of the Year than we have getting that program
through.
So I guess my question is, does the Department have a plan
B? I mean, I would--that is $1.4 billion worth of student
financial aid that could disappear overnight unless we are able
to either keep the program as it currently exists or extend it
in some form or fashion.
Secretary Duncan. Obviously your long history makes you an
absolute expert in this area, so I would love to further the
conversations beyond today. But sort of stepping back big
picture, we have a huge challenge of keeping college
affordable--and not just in disadvantaged communities, in the
middle class. And whether I go to the grocery store or to the
dry cleaners or fly on an airplane, everywhere I go people are
telling me that the cost of college is crushing them.
And so the question is, again, as a country, do we want to
have the best-educated workforce in the world or do we want to
continue to be 12th or 14th or 16th? And so looking at all of
these things in a holistic way, figuring out how we make
college more affordable has to be our collective goal.
Our proposal on the table is a race to the top for higher
education. Played significantly in the early childhood space;
think we have had dramatic impact on K-12. Haven't played in
higher ed.
We at the federal level, as you know so well, can't do it
by ourselves. It has to be shared responsibility.
But if we can get states to invest and reinvest--40 states
recently have cut funding for higher education, Republican and
Democratic, so 80 percent of the country. There is no upside
there. Not enough universities are using technology to reduce
costs and to increase, you know, graduation rates and pass
rates.
So we want to try and put some significant carrots out
there to incentivize different behavior. So I would love to get
your insight as to, you know, our--whether our proposal makes
sense or better ideas you have.
But the debt burden is staggering. The cost is far too
high. And none of this is good for young people, their
families, or for the country.
Mr. Bishop. Yes. Well, thank you for that. I would be
delighted to work with you and your colleagues in the
Department.
I guess I want to emphasize the importance of the campus-
based financial aid programs. As someone who used to administer
those programs, they are often the difference between whether a
student enters or doesn't enter, and most often, a difference--
makes the difference between whether a student stays.
Secretary Duncan. Whether they stay or whether they have to
leave. Absolutely.
Mr. Bishop. Second question quickly: You talked about a
culture of completion. Again, I am in full agreement, and there
is a lot of pieces to that.
But one piece that I would hope we could resurrect is
cooperative education. Cooperative education is, as you know--
you and I have talked about this; this is something that I
think is one of the best things that colleges can do for
students, but it also--it correlates very positively with
completion.
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. So students not only stay enrolled, they finish
and then they have a--they generally--70 percent of them have a
job waiting for them. So if we want a culture of completion, if
we want students to enter a job market that isn't as hospitable
as we would like it to be, cooperative education really can be
a part of that solution. And I would hope that we could move
towards resurrecting the federal role in cooperative education.
Secretary Duncan. Again, thank you. Please push us to think
about that and other thoughts and ideas you have on this topic,
which again, I think is an issue of national security and
economic competitiveness. We need to be bold; we need to be
thoughtful; and we need to work together.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Salmon?
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Duncan, the proposed budget contains several new
and costly programs to address college affordability and
innovation, including $1 billion for the Race to the Top, $260
million for the first in the world, reformed campus-based aid
to prevent the expiration of Perkins Loans.
What is the Department doing to remove existing regulatory
barriers that prevent colleges from sharing innovative
practices and reducing costs before spending billions more on
new, untested programs?
More specifically, I know you are aware your department
implemented new incentive compensation regulations. In doing
so, you eliminated the so-called ``safe harbors'' that had been
put in place over multiple administrations. In response to
advocates from the Democrat side of the aisle, your department
maintained one of the safe harbors by expressly permitting
revenue-sharing between colleges and third parties to innovate
and share expertise.
But instead of applying the regulation fairly, your
department prohibited any entity or institution that is
affiliated with another institution of higher education from
participating in this market. I have a letter sent to you by
Chairman Kline and Ranking Miller--Ranking Member Miller saying
that you were looking to fix this unfair rule in the negotiated
rulemaking process. However, it is not on the agenda of issues
to be addressed and the Federal Register notice states that the
process will take years.
There is bipartisan support to fix this problem
immediately--to expand innovation, help colleges reduce costs
for students--something you say you care deeply about. Simple,
straightforward legislative language has been drafted that
keeps in place ample protections. Would you commit today to
support these--this legislation and work constructively with
those of us on both sides of the aisle?
Secretary Duncan. Happy to look at that, and if there is
bipartisan support for anything these days we ought to look at
that very seriously.
Mr. Salmon. Well, I appreciate your commitment to do so.
One final question dealing with Common Core standards. I
have always been kind of a states' rights guy and I believe
that the top quality of education really is affected at the
state level, and more specifically, by the local school
districts.
I don't see anything in the Constitution that really deals
with education. In fact, I think conversely, the 10th Amendment
gives the states the lion's share of the responsibility if not
all the share of the responsibility for education.
Also, the General Education--Educational Provisions Act
prohibits the federal government from directing education.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act--ESEA--prohibits the
establishment of a national curriculum.
So I have a lot of constituents on the education front that
are very, very concerned about a federal takeover of
curriculum. They see it as a bribe to the states and a bait-
and-switch. It is a promise of money that if the states go
along with this federal curriculum then they will get the
money.
Many states have taken the bait, but a lot of the students
and parents are really not very happy with this. What are we
doing to make sure that we maintain local control of
curriculum?
Secretary Duncan. Well, sir, facts matter, and as a matter
of fact, we are prohibited by law from touching curriculum.
Never have, never will, no intent. So it is not a black
helicopter ploy and we are not trying to get inside people's
minds and brains, which I have been reading about.
Let me be really clear: what many states on a voluntary
basis have done, including your state, is raise standards, so
you want our children competing to high standards
internationally benchmarked, so again, they are not at a
disadvantage relative to children in India and China and
Singapore. How you teach to those higher standards--the
curriculum--is absolutely controlled at the local level. Always
has been, always will be. You have never heard me once in 4-
whatever years talk about that.
So let's not get caught in the hysteria and the drama.
Let's look at the facts. If Arizona wants to raise their
standards tomorrow, Arizona wants to lower their standards
tomorrow, you have the absolute right to do that. I would
encourage you not to----
Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Secretary Duncan.
Secretary Duncan. I would encourage you not to lower your
standards----
Mr. Salmon. I don't believe anybody is caught up in any
kind of hysteria whatsoever. I just had a straightforward
question and you have answered it. I appreciate it. You have
said that the federal government has no intention of getting
involved in directing what the states do for curriculum and I
appreciate it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Secretary Duncan. And to be very clear, we are prohibited
by law from doing that.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Ms. Fudge?
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I, too, have a guest with me today. Jenny Corvath, from
Dayton, Ohio, who is one of our foster care advocates. Thank
you for being here.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony, and thank
you for your focus on children, which sometimes, I think, gets
lost in this very committee.
Before I begin, though, I do want to make a comment about
the Smart Solutions piece that they talked to you about
earlier. Let me just for the record say that it is not smart
and it is not a solution. All it does is just--it is just
another vote that is going to try to balance the budget or make
cuts on the backs of those who can least afford it.
And for those who are concerned about IDEA, I know that I
don't think I have a colleague on the other side who voted for
the stimulus. Even though it is not enough, there were
significant resources in the stimulus bill for IDEA----
Secretary Duncan. $11.3 billion. I think the----
Ms. Fudge. $11.3 billion.
Secretary Duncan [continuing]. The largest increase, I
think, in the history--it has to be--in the history of IDEA.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much.
Now let me just ask you a couple of questions. Recently I
worked with the National Urban League to introduce H.R. 1343,
the Project Ready STEM Act, and I see that in your budget your
are asking for an additional or--$150 million for STEM
innovation. Now, if these funds are appropriated, what emphasis
will the Department place on ensuring that a portion of these
funds are specifically used to expose low-income and minority
youth to STEM education?
Secretary Duncan. And thanks. We haven't talked enough
about STEM today so I really appreciate you raising it. So this
is clearly an area of tremendous interest amongst young people.
This is clearly an area where so many of the jobs of today and,
even more importantly, the jobs of the future are going to be
in the STEM fields, so equipping our students with the skills
to successfully compete for those jobs is hugely important.
This is not just a Department of Education initiative. The
President has really challenged us as an administration to do
more in this area. He is personally very passionate about this.
There have been lots of disparate programs across the
administration--many really good ones, but maybe the collective
impact hasn't been as strong as it should be. So he has asked
us to lead an effort to help bring together all the resources
behind STEM to make sure that we are doing a couple different
things: one, that we are creating a master teacher core of STEM
teachers who can be, you know, mentors and leaders and help
keep those teachers in the field and help grow the next
generation of STEM teachers. We need about another 100,000 STEM
teachers going forward.
And then we want to invest in communities, again, whether
they be inner city or, you know, wherever they might be, where
there are real strong public-private partnerships around STEM,
where the business community, where the higher education, where
K-12 are all working together, so these STEM innovation hubs to
help increase that pipeline and make sure that real training is
leading to real jobs. So there is a chance, I think, to do some
really creative things, and we, as we always do, we will ensure
that disadvantaged communities have access to these kinds of
opportunities.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
And secondly, I will soon be introducing the Promoting
Health for Youth Skills In Classroom And Life, it means
PHYSICAL Act. This bill recognizes physical and health
education as core subjects, ensuring that schools have the
option to use Title I and Title II funds for physical and
health education programs.
We know about the epidemic of obesity in this country, and
I am just curious, as this committee moves toward the
reauthorization of ESEA, what are your thoughts on recognizing
physical and health education as core subjects through the
reauthorization process?
Secretary Duncan. You and I were both--and I think both
still trying to be athletes, and the chance to run around, to
burn off a little steam, I always say that for me to do well
academically, I needed those opportunities. And that is--what
is true for me I think is true for so many young children
today.
So my wife is a former phys ed teacher, and whatever we can
do to make sure, whether it is P.E., I am a huge proponent of
recess--we need more recess. These have to be a normal part of
the day.
And again, we have all these false fights in education, and
somehow some people believe if you are doing more of that you
are hurting yourself academically. It is quite the opposite.
When students are active physically it helps their brain
development. There is all kinds of research. They can sit and
concentrate and not be, you know, jumping up and down.
And so whatever we can do to bring P.E. back into the norm,
whatever we can do to encourage recess--the nutrition part of
this is really important, but so are those healthy skills,
healthy lifestyles that if we instill them early in life will
stay with students hopefully for a lifetime. I can't overstate
how important that is--a chance to run around, a chance to
play, a chance to be part of a team.
That should just be a normal, healthy part of growing up,
as it was for so many of us, and unfortunately, it is not
always today. Again, I think there is a real--a tremendous
downside to not having that there.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Messer?
Mr. Messer. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. First, I just want to
thank you for your work. We agree on many topics, disagree on
some, but I know of no one who questions your commitment to the
young people of this country and their efforts to have better
opportunities, and so thank you.
Get three quick topics. There is a lot to cover, but
hopefully we can touch on all three.
First, want to make you aware, if you are not--I think you
may well be, but of the Improving Postsecondary Education Data
for Students Act, the bill that passed out of this committee in
a bipartisan way last week. It is not the sexiest of topics but
it is designed to make sure that families, as they go through
this most important investment of higher education, have good
data.
There is a lot of data out there. I think our hope is that
we can try to streamline that data and also improve reporting
burdens for colleges, and any comments or thoughts you have
on----
Secretary Duncan. Yes. I don't know all the details of the
bill, but I love the direction you are trying to go and just
having greater transparency. We haven't talked about this,
having young people and families choose the right colleges for
them for the right reasons and have full information--what is a
grant, what is a loan, what are graduation rates. These things
can be almost impenetrable for far too many families, and
whatever we can do to add transparency, to add clarity.
Not to go on too long, but we have the best system of
higher education in the world unquestionably, but we are--the
marketplace for choosing the right school is wildly
inefficient. Too many people choose the wrong school for the
wrong reasons. So whatever we can do--and again, anything
bipartisan I would love to work on----
Mr. Messer. Yes, well great. We were glad to work with the
folks in this committee, certainly committed to working with
you and hopefully can----
Secretary Duncan. And it doesn't have to be sexy. If it
makes a difference for young people, if it helps those
graduation rates climb, that is really important. So don't
discount the importance of what you are doing.
Mr. Messer. Oh, no. Information matters, no question about
it.
The second question: several different questioners
addressed Pell Grants. I am a product of Pell Grants. I think
it is an incredibly important program. I am glad we have got
more students who have access to that.
As you are probably well aware, we spent $36 billion on
that last year, hundreds of billions over a period of years.
And yet, it is my understanding we don't really report or
measure as a society what the outcomes of Pell Grants are. What
are your thoughts on whether we ought to report and measure
those outcomes?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Again, part of the
transparency we want to look at is what are universities do to,
again, not just have cultures of access but around cultures of
completion, and looking at apples versus apples, Pell Grant
recipients versus non-Pell Grant recipients, seeing which
universities are taking this part of the mission seriously and
not. We want to provide maximum transparency there, and so it
is the right investment.
It is one of the things I am most proud of, frankly, that
we have gone from about 6 million Pell recipients to about 9.4
million, but there is still tremendous unmet need.
And then again, I just have to reiterate, the proposed
budget coming out of the House Approps would be--would lead to
a reduction in access to Pell Grants by over $4 billion. How is
that in our nation's best interest?
Mr. Messer. Yes. And again, the point I would make--sounds
like you agree--is when you start to measure what the outcomes
are it gives you the opportunity to shape policy.
Secretary Duncan. Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mr. Messer. The third issue--and understandably, these are
tight budget times. I have heard a lot of comments today about
tight budgets in both K-12 and in higher education, as well.
I want to raise a concern with you that was raised to me by
my local school superintendent. Shelbyville Central School
System has about 3,800 students. Our annual budget is about $40
million. About $3.6 million of that is provided by federal
funding.
And the superintendent has raised the issue of the impact
of Obamacare on our local budget. As you are probably well
aware, the provisions of Obamacare require health insurance for
any employee that works more than 30 hours a week. And the
question is with certain teacher's aides and other employees,
they now will be required to cover them with Obamacare or cut
back the hours for these teacher's aides and have impacts on
student learning.
The local superintendent has estimated it is about an
$800,000 impact on this school, about a 2 percent cut on a $40
billion--$40 million budget. But if you look at the federal
impact of 3.6 in funding, it is about a 20 percent reduction in
the federal benefit.
I would like to hear, one, are you aware of this issue? And
secondly, would you support the idea of exempting K-12 and
higher education institutions from the requirements of
Obamacare?
Secretary Duncan. I don't know those specific details. What
I would be happy to do is if you give me his name and number,
happy to reach out. We actually have a team in our department
working on implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
Happy to talk to him, hear his concerns, see if there is
anything we can do to be helpful. So if you could leave me his
contact information we will follow up directly.
Mr. Messer. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your help.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Ms. Bonamici?
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony and your years
of service and your obvious dedication to the students.
When I review the blueprint for reform and the budget
summary I see a lot of discussion about accountability and
assessment. Reminds me of the time a few years ago--your
comment about P.E.--when I toured an elementary school in my
district and they bragged about how great their third grade
test scores were and I said, ``How did you do that?'' They
said, ``We cut P.E.'' Big concern.
And I see competitive funding proposals. And, Mr.
Secretary, in your testimony you say budgets entail value
choices, and what I am looking for is a value choice that
furthers development of innovative, creative critical thinkers.
You talk about long-term vision, about global
competitiveness, and frankly, I don't think businesses and
employers are looking for good test-takers. They are looking
for people who are inquisitive, collaborative, good
communicators, people who are creative and innovative, who
aren't afraid to take risks. And that comes from using both
halves of the brain, from a well-rounded education that
especially includes the arts, music, P.E.
We need to stimulate intellectual curiosity. You talked
about the kids who drop out because they are bored.
So in the proposed budget there is $75 million to develop
and expand innovative practices for improving teaching and
learning and the arts, health education, foreign languages,
civics and government, history, geography, environmental
education, economics and financial literacy, and other
subjects. $75 million.
So in light of the fact that a lot of students today will
be doing jobs that don't exist now and making things that
haven't been invested yet, what policies will lead to schools
that really cultivate creative, entrepreneurial students--
excuse me--and how can $75 million possibly be adequate for
something that is so critical?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. No, it is a huge, important topic,
and I appreciate you raising it. So that is obviously a funding
source. I would argue to you that when you see states raising
standards, college and career ready and critical thinking
skills and all those things that you need to be successful with
higher standards, that is a part of what you are getting at.
But please challenge me and challenge our team. I can't
overstate how all those things you talked about need to be the
norm for public schools, not the exception--and to be really
clear, not the norm just of high school, but for first and
second and third and fourth graders who then start to get these
skills and self esteem and develop a passion or a love for
something beyond just the traditional academic subjects.
So there are lots of other ways we are--STEM we, you know,
haven't talked enough about, huge proposals around STEM, which
gets to much of what you are asking. But please challenge us to
do more.
The other thing that is so important in the waiver
process--what I hated about No Child Left Behind was there was
a fixation just on an absolute test score, and I do want to
look at growth and gain and how much students are improving.
Obviously if you have a, you know, great third grade test score
and a 50 percent dropout rate you are not helping kids.
And what you have seen in many states through the waiver
process is real creativity here, moving away from a focus on
one test score, looking at graduation rates; looking at
reductions in dropouts rates; looking at college-going rates;
looking at what percent of students are staying in college--
perseverance; looking at what percent of kids are going to
college but need remedial classes, meaning they are really not
ready. So just in our fundamental accountability system we have
tried to move away from a focus just on a test score to a more
holistic, comprehensive set of indicators that, if you are
going to reduce dropout rates, I think you have to attack all
the things you are talking about and engage kids in different
ways.
So we are trying to change the incentive structure. Happy
to share what different states are doing. But those kinds of
opportunities and learning experiences need to be the norm, not
the exception. If you have thoughts on how we can do that
better I would love to hear them.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Well, I am going to be introducing
a resolution supporting the ASCD's Whole Child Initiative, also
working on the STEM to STEAM Caucus.
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. There is a lot of great brain research on how
the arts and design actually improve and enhance the STEM
disciplines.
And in my remaining time I just want to make a comment
about the importance of early childhood education. Last weekend
I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Donna Beegle in Oregon, who
spoke about rising up out of poverty.
She is the only person in her family who has not been
incarcerated. She came from very poor circumstances. Tough,
tough life growing up.
And I kept waiting for her to say how she broke out of this
cycle of poverty, and finally she did at the end. It was a Head
Start teacher who got her on the right path. And what she is
doing now compared to where she came from was really
remarkable.
And it is anecdotal but it just goes to support the
importance of that early learning. It is a great investment in
early childhood education. If we want to get to the issues of
income and equality we give every child an equal opportunity
for that early learning.
So thank you and the administration for that priority. I
really----
Secretary Duncan. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, if I can,
just on the arts piece quickly, another place where we are
emphasizing the arts is in the turnaround space, these
chronically underperforming schools. We have a set of schools
that are using the arts curriculum to turn it around.
I was literally in one yesterday morning here in D.C.,
Savoy Elementary. I would encourage you to go visit--pretty
amazing. I saw 3-and 4-year-olds working on an opera. That is
not what I was doing when I was 3 and 4.
Ms. Bonamici. And Orchard Garden--as well.
Secretary Duncan. That principal was with us yesterday. He
is amazing.
So that is another funding stream where you have seen some
really creative work to engage kids in their own learning.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Gentlelady's time has expired, and the
world is a much better place because I never worked on opera.
Mr. Rokita?
Secretary Duncan. You and I both.
Mr. Rokita. Yes. I thank the Chairman for not working on
opera.
Secretary Duncan, thanks for being here today. I would say
that I just saw the Joffrey Ballet, though, in Chicago a few
weeks ago. I know you are probably familiar with that, and
these kids in Chicago who are learning that, as well, is
absolutely fascinating--one of the most athletic experiences I
have witnessed, actually. Never thought I would see that in a
ballet.
Talk to me a little bit about the waiver process. How much
time do you spend--or did you spend--personally involved in
that process, reviewing it, deciding who gets a waiver and who
doesn't?
Secretary Duncan. Not a lot of personal time state by
state--some. Where there were tough calls staff would bring
that, you know, when things were on the fence. But where there
is a pretty clear yes or no I spent less time. I spent a lot of
personal time trying to think about what were the tenets, what
was the philosophy behind the waivers, what we were trying to
accomplish, what we were trying to move away from----
Mr. Rokita. Okay. I appreciate that.
And the reason for my question is because in--you and I
have had now two personal phone calls, and--which I, as I said
on the phone calls and I will say on the record here, I greatly
appreciate it. And regarding this administration, you are one
of the ones that I think I can really communicate with and
reason with and have a relationship with, and I appreciate that
and I thank you for it.
But now I am seeing some letters that are coming, and I
doubt you are writing them, that are--but--you know, if you are
the head of an organization you are creating the culture. We
are finding that out all around this country now in different
places, especially the federal government. And the letters
don't track our personal phone conversations in this respect.
Back in 2012 we asked to see your schedule for the purpose
of determining--because we have oversight over No Child Left
Behind and the waivers circumvent No Child Left Behind. You can
argue if that is good or bad; that is not the point of my
question. But we have a duty here to see what the Department is
spending its time on and what you are spending your time on
with regard to these waivers which, again, circumvent federal
law.
And we couldn't--we got an objection to that looking at
your schedule. Then I see a letter that--where you sent a
letter to the states that received waivers asking about the
implementation process, and that is the letter we sent. Then
you felt the need to send a letter instructing the states so
the Department has been transparent and assumed every other
state would check with their legal counsel in responding to
our--this committee's letter just like you did when you
responded to our letter.
Now there are different ways--you can't read in the context
of letters, but you could take that to mean it was almost like
a subtle threat. ``Check with your counsel. Don't have to
respond to these people here until you have checked with your
counsel and determined what is appropriate or not.'' Can you
clear that up?
Secretary Duncan. Yes, absolutely, on both. So to be clear,
I don't--wasn't even aware of the request of my schedule, but I
think it would be hard to look at my schedule and know what
time is spent----
Mr. Rokita. It was a June 25, 2012 letter, and I will
reintroduce it to the record----
[The information follows:]
------
Secretary Duncan. That is fine.
Mr. Rokita [continuing]. Without objection.
Secretary Duncan. Happy to give information that is
helpful. My point is, looking at my schedule would not--it is a
difficult way to figure out how much time, whether it is in
meetings, doesn't know what the title of the meeting is, how
much time at night I am spending thinking about this. To me it
seems like a ham-handed way, frankly, to try and get at the
issue.
If you have a direct question, happy to answer any
question----
Mr. Rokita. Well, okay. Would you send your schedule and
then add to it a narrative about, ``Hey, I am spending this''--
round figures--``this kind of time, this much time.''
Secretary Duncan. It would be a wild guess. We have spent a
lot of time--lot of time thinking about it.
Mr. Rokita. Could you try to re-answer the question then
and give a date certain when you give us an answer?
Secretary Duncan. Happy to look again. Don't know the
details. Not quite sure----
Mr. Rokita. How much time do you need?
Secretary Duncan. Not quite sure what the intent of the
question, what is the----
Mr. Rokita. Anything you can ask, you can look at your
schedule yourself, refresh your memory, and just give us a
ballpark figure how much personal time you have spent or are
spending on these waivers.
Secretary Duncan. Okay. And again, just to be clear, I have
spent a lot of time thinking about the philosophy behind them;
I have spent less time on individual waivers, just to be real
clear.
Mr. Rokita. What date might we expect something?
Secretary Duncan. I will check. Not sure. Happy to look----
Mr. Rokita. You can't give us a date?
Secretary Duncan. No, I can't----
Mr. Rokita. A month?
Secretary Duncan. I can't give you a date because it is a--
--
Mr. Rokita. Two months?
Secretary Duncan [continuing]. It is an odd request, sir. I
don't quite understand----
Mr. Rokita. It shouldn't be that odd of a request to
understand, when we are circumventing federal law, how much
time you are personally spending on these decisions. I don't
think that is a crazy question.
Secretary Duncan. It is the first time I have had that
question in 4-something years, so that is why I am a little
taken aback. Never had that question before in any--in any
setting.
Mr. Rokita. Okay, well it was asked first in--in June of
2012. Since we are running out of time, let me move on. On----
Secretary Duncan. I mean, the other one, just to be clear,
obviously zero intent to do it ever. Frankly, states were a
little worried when they received that letter and we have good
relationships with virtually every state and we were trying to
say, sort of, actually to mitigate, to--to knock down the
worry. And the Chairman asked me lots of questions; I try and
give lots of answers. He asked me some questions a couple days
ago; got him some answers today. And we have a good, trusting
relationship.
But frankly, it was scary to some states and we were trying
to----
Mr. Rokita. I appreciate that.
On Common Core--I know you got one question there today on
that--the standard is for--for you to adopt college- and
career-ready standards that are common to a significant number
of states. That is the language.
Is there any other standard other than Common Core that
would suffice in order----
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time is expired----
Secretary Duncan. No, no, no. This is an important one. I
am sorry. Just really quickly, because it is----
Chairman Kline. I am sorry. The gentleman's time has
expired. We will take it for the record, or I will give you a
chance later, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Duncan. I need to take the chance because that is
factually incorrect, so I need to be really clear.
Chairman Kline. Noted.
Ms. Wilson?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At a time when Congress is disinvesting from children I
want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank the President for
putting forward a budget proposal that upholds our sacred
obligation to educate our young people. In particular, I
applaud your focus on funding early education at a time when
sequester cuts are decimating programs like Head Start and
research in STEM education.
Robust funding for education is essential for ensuring that
young people can live out their fullest potential and that this
nation's economy can reach its long-term potential. The earlier
we begin teaching our children in the field of science,
technology,--engineering, and math, I know it works. I served
as an educational coordinator for Head Start for 3 years. We
must start early.
I have one foster care advocate from Florida here today,
Otto Phillips.
Raise your hand, Otto.
Research over the last decade shows how important rates of
teacher qualification and retention are in ensuring that pre-K
is high-quality and produces all the benefits for children we
want to see. The findings of the National Institutes for
Education Research demonstrate that low levels of compensation
diminish the ability to retain the highly trained workforce
necessary for high-quality early childhood education.
How can the Administration ensure that the workforce is
adequately compensated and positioned to provide high-quality
education that produces the desired benefits for children,
especially in beginning science curiosity and math? They
already are energized with technology by 2 years old; they can
use the iPad. So what do you see as what the administration can
do to hold that interest?
Secretary Duncan. Two-and three-year-olds are sometimes
ahead of us, quite frankly----
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Yes.
Secretary Duncan [continuing]. And we have to start early,
so it is a great point.
And again, this is a--I just want to--people to understand,
this is a $75 billion proposal. This is--eclipses anything else
we have done. This is a really, really big deal. We think it is
an absolute game-changer.
And part of those resources can be used to better
compensate teachers who will work in this space. Part of it can
be to make sure they have the training and the professional
development to work in these areas.
We have to upgrade--you know, again, to raise quality, the
only way to do that is to raise the quality in the training of
folks who actually participate in these programs, so there is a
huge emphasis there. Happy to follow up.
But if this is just sort of--you know, mediocre
programming, that doesn't change kids' lives. It has to be
about high quality, and the adults teaching those children
every single day, their skills, their capacity, their ability
to continue to learn and adjust as the world changes is hugely,
hugely important to making sure we hit that quality benchmark.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Okay. According to the Committee for
Education Funding, the Republican budget--the Ryan budget--
would cut Head Start by an additional $900 million on top of
the $401 million in cuts from the sequester. What impact do you
think this would have on our efforts to ensure all children
have the skills they need to succeed in school?
Secretary Duncan. So I appreciate the question. And again,
the facts are today--today--less than 3 in 10 young people have
access to high-quality pre-K. Less than 3 in 10 4-year-olds. To
me that is crazy.
So if we were to cut--and my numbers are the cut to Head
Start would be about $1.4 billion--there would be, you know,
thousands, tens of thousands fewer children would have the
chance to go. And what we are already seeing right now due to
sequester, right now you see Head Start programs ending early
this year because they are running out of money due to
sequester. And so a week or 2 weeks are being knocked off the
end of these schedules.
Children need longer days, longer weeks, longer years, not
less time. So again, why we do these things that are not in our
nation's interest, I just--it is mind-boggling to me. It is
just so disappointing.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. What do you think the administration
can do to fill that gap, to make sure--do we plan to do any
marketing or outreach to people to----
Secretary Duncan. I am traveling the country talking to
everyone--and again, outside of Washington, frankly, there is a
huge amount of interest. Republican and Democratic governors
are investing very--you know, Michigan, you know, Nevada,
Mississippi, Alabama--I can go right down the list of
Republican Governors who are putting huge resources behind
this.
So I think we can build an interesting coalition of
bipartisan Governors; of CEOs who understand the return on
investment--that is a language they get; of parents and Head
Start communities; of the faith-based community; of military
generals who like this; of states attorneys and police chiefs
who know the reductions in crime and support this. So I think
we can build a really interesting coalition. I was in Michigan
recently with Governor Snyder, a Republican governor, who was
very supportive--went to Ypsilanti, which is one of the, you
know, sort of birthplaces of this work.
So for all the dysfunction here in Washington, in the real
world there is a real chance, I think, to try and move this
thing, and I am going to spend a huge amount of my time and
energy traveling the country trying to build that coalition.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Guthrie?
Mr. Guthrie. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hey, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming here today. And I
was on the committee my first 2 years here, left, and just came
back, and part of the stuff I enjoyed was how we worked
together and tried to work together, and your honesty in these
meetings and moving forward.
The one thing, I was ranking member on Higher Ed at the
time, so I got involved in the gainful employment part of--that
was being discussed, and one thing that was bipartisan--I think
it was kind of the--well, what was bipartisan was an agreement
that we don't want kids graduating from school with too much
debt, and whether they are at a for-profit school or whatever.
I think the frustrating part was how that process went forward.
I was in some meetings that was bipartisan, and some of the
more frustrating people were actually not of my party in the
meeting with members of your organization, or the Department,
and I just want to talk about the--you had an I.G. report about
that.
And then just last week, as you know, there was a report in
the Wall Street Journal that a member of the Department is
being investigated for leaking information around the Program
Integrity. And then your own I.G. I think was asked by some--to
come in and had some issues with the negotiated rulemaking
process and I know they gave recommendations.
Can you kind of go through those--how this, maybe,
particular individual affects where you are going forward with
this?
Secretary Duncan. Doesn't affect it whatsoever. As you
know, the I.G. is taking a thorough look there. We have a great
relationship with the I.G. and I will, you know, obviously
suspend, you know, judgment or opinion until that report comes
back from the I.G.
Mr. Guthrie. So you don't have any recommendations as
your--there are no recommendations yet from the I.G. to
implement from this report?
Secretary Duncan. No. That is an ongoing investigation.
Mr. Guthrie. Okay, so moving forward with this----
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Guthrie. Okay. Well, thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Tierney?
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you.
First I just have to make a comment on the IDEA issue. I go
over and over this. You know and I know, and most people know,
that this was a judicial mandate back in the 1970s that
communities educate all children fairly on that and that the
communities, states went apoplectic, the federal government
stepped in with IDEA, which states could voluntarily accept or
not on that basis.
We authorized a certain amount of money per child's
additional education needed on that but we never appropriated
that full amount. But during the Gingrich years, when it was
one of the 10 points, the Republicans on that--Ron Kind and I
in this committee put forward an amendment to fully fund it and
not a single one of our Republican friends voted for it on that
basis, so I am really glad to hear----
Mr. Miller. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Tierney. Yes, I will.
Mr. Miller. Yes. I think there were 320 members of Congress
that signed a petition to the Committee to fully authorize it.
Mr. Tierney. And so I am really glad to hear Mr. Kline and
others here saying that they are behind more money for IDEA. I
just contrast that with the fact that the Republican budget, as
you mentioned, cuts it by over $2 billion. So it is--we will
put the rhetoric and the reality on a plane here.
We also hear people talking about not wanting to give the
burden on our children for a deficit, but they apparently don't
have the same concern about loading up student debt on them
going forward. You know, given the fact that the Congressional
Budget Office projects interest rate savings for students and
parents between 2013 and 2018 to be over $30 billion of savings
under the administration's proposal and a loss of at least $1
billion under the Republican proposal that passed in this
committee recently, can I assume that you don't favor that
Republican proposal, you do favor the Administration's plan?
Secretary Duncan. Obviously I favor the Administration's
proposal. What I am interested in, ideally, is a long-term fix.
Again, I just want us to take on tough issues, take them on,
take them on for the long haul, and then frankly, move to all
the other issues. There is so much, and I don't want to just
keep coming back year after year on the same stuff.
So that is my strong, strong personal preference.
Mr. Tierney. So I would hope that we would think about
keeping that 3.4 percent rate for the subsidized Stafford
Loans, and in the context of the Higher Education
reauthorization bill, look at that long-range proposal. That
sound about right?
Secretary Duncan. I would love to figure out a long-term
fix sooner than later.
Mr. Tierney. Yes. All right.
Tell me a little bit about the Administration's feelings on
the income-based repayment plan and its importance in this
process.
Secretary Duncan. Yes. Income-based repayment, I think, is
an extraordinarily important opportunity. It is a terrible
name; we need to come up with a better name. People don't
understand it well enough and we have got to market it better.
But the chance to have--the short answer, to have
people's--their repayments indexed to their income, so if you
are making more money, a higher-paying job you pay more, if you
are making less you pay less. That makes absolute sense. And
the big bang for me that after 10 years of public service--
being a teacher, other things--all that debt is forgiven, it is
a remarkable opportunity.
So I think it is a great chance. We need to do a better job
in terms of marketing, getting the word, out, naming. There are
more young people out there who would take advantage who
haven't yet, but I am thrilled that we were able to get that
done.
Mr. Tierney. Let me also ask you a question--any number of
millions of students that have graduated are out there carrying
around a tremendous burden of debt on student loans at some
really high interest rates. What are the administration's
thoughts on getting some relief for that population?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. So happy to have, you know,
conversation on any of these areas, whether it is folks coming
out of school now, whether it is prospective students, or
whether it is students who are, you know, 25, 30, 35 who are
already out.
Again, let's work. Let's work in a bipartisan way. The fact
that that debt surpasses $1 trillion, there is no upside there,
and the more we think about these things, again,
comprehensively in a bipartisan way, welcome that conversation.
Mr. Tierney. Well, our economists tell us that we could put
$17 billion back in the economy, which would be a tremendous
boost on that, and help all these families out on that, and I
hope that we will look on that direction.
Secretary Duncan. You worry about people trying to buy a
home, other things like that----
Mr. Tierney. To buy a home, try to buy a car, you know, try
to start a life. We always joke, but it is not really that
funny, most families, try to get them out of their parents'
house, you know, and move forward on that. So----
Secretary Duncan. That is real. That is real.
Mr. Tierney. We have a bill in the House here; Senators
Reid and Durbin have one in the Senate that addresses that and
a long-term fix, and we will look forward to working with you
on that.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Dr. DesJarlais?
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Secretary.
I continue to be concerned about the runaway cost of the
Pell Grant program. Just last week we received the figures from
the CBO demonstrating that we are looking at another $5 billion
funding gap for fiscal year 2015, and we must stop infusing the
one-time mandatory funds into this program.
A minute ago you talked about the fact that we now have 9
million participants in the Pell Grant program. That is up from
5 million just 6 years ago. The cost 6 years ago was about $12
billion; now the cost is $42 billion. So yes, we have not quite
doubled the number of participants, but we have tripled the
cost.
What reforms do you have available or what ideas do you
have to help lower this cost? And I will just mention, Dr. Roe,
I know, before I got here asked you a question and I don't
think you got to answer about community college students who
are dropping out after receiving Pell Grant money. What can we
do to bring the cost down rather than just keep infusing more
money?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. I am going to be really clear. I
don't think the goal should be to bring the cost down. I think
this is the best investment we can make, and you are sitting
next to a colleague who talked about Pell Grants enabling him
to go to college----
Mr. DesJarlais. I am another one.
Secretary Duncan. So the real question should be, how do we
make it more efficient, not to bring down the cost down? I
would like to invest more to make higher education more
affordable. And so where there are thoughtful ways that we can
make it more efficient to make sure the program isn't being
abused somehow or that people aren't taking the money and doing
other things, let's have that conversation. Let's think about
that.
But I would like to see more--to be really clear, I would
like to see more young people have access to Pell Grants, not
less.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, I think being more efficient
and infusing more money is not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I agree that we need to be more efficient. That is my whole
point.
How do we be more efficient? Because right now the answer
is just to throw more money at it. Again, we have doubled the
number of students but we have tripled the cost.
We can't sustain that path or everyone is going to lose out
on this. He won't have it; I won't have it; our kids won't have
it.
Secretary Duncan. No, I understand. So I have talked a lot
about a proposal to have a Race to the Top for higher
education.
So at the end of the day what we have to do is we have to
find ways to get states to invest. Forty states have cut their
investment to higher education, Republican and Democrat. That
is not good for the country.
We have to get universities to become more efficient--often
use technology in different ways to get better results--and
encourage universities to build cultures not just around access
but around completion. And we think if we could provide some
incentives--not sticks but carrots--get states and universities
to behave differently, that might help on the runaway cost of
higher ed, might bring down the cost for young people and
make----
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, I would agree, there is no incentive
for universities and colleges right now to be more efficient
because we just continue to throw more money at them.
Secretary Duncan. Well, it is actually not true. Again, 40
states have cut funding to higher education, so universities
are out there hurting. And for me it is not about pointing
fingers, laying blame; it is about shared responsibility.
What is the appropriate federal role? What is the role of
states? What is the role of universities? We need to not blame
each other and sort of come together and see if we behave in a
more productive way. That is what we are trying to----
Mr. DesJarlais. I will look forward to working with you.
And again, I also, like my colleague, Mr. Rokita, appreciate
your willingness to reach out. I think you are the only
Secretary that came to my office and sat down and met with me
and I think that we all appreciate that very much. So I do look
forward to working on these issues with you----
Secretary Duncan. Put that on my time sheet for----
Mr. DesJarlais. Yes. Yes, we will add that----
[Laughter.]
It was a good hour, at least, wasn't it?
Secretary Duncan. Billable hour.
Mr. DesJarlais. But with that, let me yield the balance of
my time to Mr. Rokita.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields----
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
How much time do we have left, Mr. Chairman, in this----
Chairman Kline. One minute and 24 seconds.
Mr. Rokita. Perfect. Thank you very much.
I would like to pick up the conversation where we left off,
Secretary. And we have enough time now. And I apologize. I was
rushed in asking the question; maybe you were rushed in hearing
it, but let me set it up again.
In your proposed budget request, as I understand it, you
are saying that you are going to limit funding to states that
have adopted, quote--``college and career ready standards that
are common to a significant number of states.'' So is there any
set of standards other than Common Core that fit that quote?
Secretary Duncan. Yes, absolutely. To be clear, in
everything----
Mr. Rokita. Which ones?
Secretary Duncan. Just to be really clear, in everything we
have done, including the waiver package, our goal is not
common, our goal is high standards--college and career ready.
And we have provided waivers to states like Virginia and states
like Minnesota that are not a part of the Common Core----
Mr. Rokita. It is not really a waiver question. This is
funding to states----
Secretary Duncan. In everything we do, let me just be
really clear, obviously we----
Mr. Rokita. The Assessment Grant program, excuse me.
Secretary Duncan. So which, just to be really clear----
Mr. Rokita. Are the Assessment Grant program--and the
recent proposal in the budget was about the Assessment Grant
program, to limit those funds to states that have adopted
college and career ready standards?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. Yes. So again, that is not common;
it is high standards. In everything we have done--I am trying
to be very, very clear--the goal is not common; the goal is
high. And so we would not want to provide, you know----
Mr. Rokita. But from a practical standpoint, is there
anything but Common Core?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. Yes. Virginia, Minnesota are two
examples.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you. My time is expired.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Yarmuth?
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. And I would like to echo some of
the comments. I don't know another person in government who
shows as much passion for the people he serves as you do, and I
appreciate that greatly.
Scattered throughout the hearing have been kind of
discussions of how some non-necessarily educational factors
affect education, and the Affordable Care Act has already been
raised once today. So I want to ask you how important--and if
there is any way to quantify, and there probably isn't--how
important the expansion of Medicaid services, Medicaid
eligibility under ACA and the availability of expanded coverage
is going to be to educational achievement.
Secretary Duncan. Yes. I just think, again, there is a
series of foundational things that, if we are serious about
students begin academics and--academically successful they have
to be in place.
So students' physical needs need to be met, their health
care needs. They need to be safe. Their dental needs need to be
met. If they can't see the blackboard they need eyeglasses.
They need to be safe to and from school.
And so there is physical, there is social, and emotional
needs. To me, I would say those are foundational.
When we meet them, then let's talk about A.P. calculus and
physics and, you know, going to college and those kinds of
things. But where children have aching cavities, where they
can't see the blackboard, where they have health issues--
diabetes, asthma--that aren't being addressed, it is pretty
difficult to concentrate in class.
Mr. Yarmuth. And there is no question that those failing to
do that severely impedes academic achievement and ultimately,
long-term success, is there?
Secretary Duncan. No question. And I have worked in
communities all my life where children didn't have those kinds
of opportunities and the consequences--the loss of social
potential, loss of human potential was pretty staggering. That
is why I do what I do.
Mr. Yarmuth. A related figure--issue, we talked about STEM
education, and that seems to be a national goal to entice
people into those areas. How much difficulty is it to entice
people into STEM and to generate enthusiasm for them when at
the other end the country is cutting funding for research so
that the jobs that those people might fill don't seem
particularly appealing?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. No, that presents a real challenge,
and not everyone agrees with me on this, but I think in areas
like math and science, particularly in disadvantaged
communities, be it inner city urban, or rural, or remote, or
Native American reservations, I argue that we should pay math
and science teachers more money. We have to find ways to
compete with the private sector and to bring them in, again,
particularly to help those kids that don't have those
opportunities traditionally.
We haven't talked a lot today about technology. I think
technology can also help to be a real equalizer here and game-
changer. But this is where the world is going, and when our
students don't have access to teachers who are comfortable and
confident with the content in second and third and fourth
grade, again, we limit--we put a cap on what they can
accomplish.
Mr. Yarmuth. I was going to get to technology. I was a
sponsor back in the 110th Congress of Digital Promise and very
supportive of that effort.
I was in a middle school not too long ago in a very, very
economically challenged area of my district and asked the
principal if she could estimate how--what percentage of her
students had access to the Internet at home.
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Yarmuth. She said 10 percent.
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Yarmuth. Is there anything that we can do on the
federal level or on any level to try and correct that
situation?
Secretary Duncan. We have to, and I just appreciate your
interest and leadership so much. And technology can either be
this great equalizer of opportunity or, frankly, it can create
a greater divide. You know, we know a lot about the digital
divide.
So I think the upside is so high and the downside is so low
we have to take this on, but how we increase access, how we
make sure, again, in rural areas where, you know, it is a tough
issue sometimes, Native American reservations--how do we make
sure children who traditionally have the least have a chance to
play on a level playing field is hugely important.
I think we should all challenge ourselves across, you know,
the federal government, across agencies. We work very hard with
the FCC. You know, we need to find ways to make sure that
children who should be able to learn anything anytime anywhere
24/7 have those chances.
Mr. Yarmuth. Got a few seconds left. Just a quick question:
What does the President's budget do in relation to literacy
programs, and I know you are trying to reshape them? Could you
address that?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. I don't have the exact number in
front of me but there is a significant investment there. And
again, I--our hope is that where so many states are raising
standards with a focus on being able to, you know, talk and
express your ideas around complex issues--express yourself
verbally and in writing--we hope that we can, over time,
significantly improve the literacy rates in this country.
Mr. Yarmuth. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Polis?
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First I do want to, in response to some of what Mr. Rokita
was asking about, I want to acknowledge that many of us here,
certainly myself included, feel whatever time you spent on the
waiver process is time well spent. We appreciate that in the
failure of this Congress to reauthorize, you used the process
that was contemplated in No Child Left Behind rather than
enforce criteria that education experts on the left and right
agree is flawed. So thank you for whatever time was well spent.
We appreciate it.
I also want to compliment you for your focus in your
opening remarks on early childhood education. Seldom do we see
as good an investment in our future.
Beyond the human factor, simply looking at the numbers, you
cited the seven-to-one figure savings that have been
demonstrated in lower special education costs, lower grade
repetition rates, lower delinquency. The seven-to-one savings
don't even take into account, if you will, the revenue side,
meaning that investment in early childhood education leading to
people having higher-income careers and paying greater taxes
back to our country above and beyond the seven-to-one ratio.
The question I have for you today is about charter schools.
The President's proposal includes an increase from $255 million
to $295 million in the Title V charter school program, the
federal government's program to support financing and growth of
quality charter schools across the country. The budget also
expands the grants for the replication and expansion of high-
quality charter schools--already supported more than 335 high-
quality expansions.
I want to thank you, first of all, for being a champion for
expanding educational choice, both in charters as well as in
district schools across the country.
However, as you know, the supply of innovative, quality
charter schools has not caught up with demand. Over 600,000
students remain on charter school waiting lists, unable to
attend the school of their choice, forced to attend a school
that the parents perceive is inferior and frequently, according
to objective criteria, is inferior.
That is why I will soon reintroduce the All Students
Achieving through Reform Act, the All-STAR Act, which will help
enable and encourage new charter school startups, in addition
to supporting the replication and expansion of high-quality
charter schools. And of course, not all charter schools perform
well, which is why my bill also includes stronger language
around authorizing practices, including closing failing
charters and more accountability for school performance.
I want to ask you today, what about the federal charter
school program do you believe has been the most effective in
spurring the growth of high-quality charter schools and how
would you propose incentivizing states to promote the growth of
high-quality charter schools?
Secretary Duncan. So first, I just want to thank you
personally for your leadership on a whole host of education
issues, and you think about this with a level of thoughtfulness
and nuance and complexity that we desperately need, so I just
appreciate the ongoing partnership and everything you bring to
the table as we discuss these things.
So I met with a number of high-performing charter groups--
CMOs--a month ago maybe, and it was uplifting. They have been
able to dramatically expand the number of kids they are
serving--exponential growth.
Still a real need. A waiting list that you talked about,
but in all candor they said they would not have been able to
have the expansion they have had and the reach they have had in
the time that they have--in the short amount of time was it not
for our support, so I felt really good about that.
Like you, there is nothing, to me, magic about charters.
Good charters are part of the solution; bad charters are part
of the problem.
We talk about failing schools--5,000 around the country.
About 200 of them are charter schools, and we have challenged
them to, as you have, to close down and do some other things.
So I think the question you can push me and my team on is,
how do we continue to replicate faster high-quality? And to be
really clear, for me that has got to be charter and district.
And I think charters have actually been more nimble, more
entrepreneurial than districts in replicating success.
And I was recently at a----
Mr. Polis. With my limited time, if you could also address
how we can further incentivize states and districts that have
not been friendly to charters to encourage charters?
Secretary Duncan. So, I need to think about how we do a
better job there I don't--I would give us probably a relatively
low grade there, and putting the right carrots out there to
have folks do that. There are some private foundations that are
getting districts and charters, and for me, again, it is just
totally the wrong fight.
We have one common enemy and that is academic failure. And
whatever we can do to attack that together and replicate
success, we need to do that.
Just quickly, I want to also encourage the districts to
replicate their high-performing schools, and we have not seen
enough creativity there. I want to challenge myself and my team
to figure out how we incentivize that better.
Mr. Polis. And when you look at accountability and looking
at school turnarounds and would you look at charter schools and
district schools the same way and encourage states and
districts to do the same?
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. Again, for me, no 7-year-old
knows whether they go to a charter or a district or a magnet or
a gifted. Does my teacher care about me? Am I learning? Am I
safe? Is my principal helping me? We just need more schools
that look like that--more public schools that look like that.
Mr. Polis. Thank you for your work.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Mr. Courtney?
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, for the record, Ms. Foxx asked the question
who said, ``Lies, damned lies, and statistics''? As any
schoolchild in Connecticut knows, it was Mark Twain and he
wrote it when he lived in Hartford, Connecticut. If only I
could get Steven Spielberg to correct the mistake he made in
the Connecticut delegation on the 13th Amendment in his movie,
but that is another hearing.
First of all, I want to thank you for your visits to
Connecticut in the wake of Newtown. I know you are coming on
Friday, but someday we are going to get you across the
Connecticut River to Eastern Connecticut. But again, it means a
lot to the people of our--my state.
And your testimony, you know, on school safety, again, was
eloquent in terms of the fact that, you know, when we talk
about all these issues, if kids don't feel safe in schools the
CDC numbers on mental illness with young children that came out
a few--a couple days ago, I mean, this has got to be a focus.
And again, Mr. Kline, to his credit, held a hearing on this
topic and hopefully we can move that issue forward.
But I wanted to just spend a minute--I was out of the room
for a second because I was actually talking to the Head Start
director in Norwich, Connecticut, who last Monday had a staff
meeting announcing six layoffs of teachers driven by sequester.
This is 60 families that are going to lose home-based Head
Start services. They are going to go into--they have 520 kids
all together in the program and they are going to start going
into classroom slots next if we don't turn the poison off here.
And, you know, again, looking at the budget that came out
of the majority, which is below sequester levels, again, you
know, all the talk this morning about early childhood and the
benefit, you know, the reality out there right now is we are
going backwards and we have got to address this issue of
sequester. And I am sure you are getting these calls and this
sort of anecdotal input but it is going to pick up speed, and I
am--frankly, I am looking to you to help sort of use your
platform to warn people about the damage that we are doing
right now.
Secretary Duncan. So push me. I mean, in the clips
literally almost every day there are two or three or four
articles in local communities around the country where the cuts
are happening now.
And so whatever I can do to raise the alarm and to talk
about the reality of not just what is going to happen but what
is happening right now, if I am not doing enough, push me. I am
trying to go out there everywhere I can to talk about it and to
shine a spotlight on it.
And again, I hate to--you know, I think people here in
Washington don't begin to understand the consequences of their
actions. If they spent more time in the real world and out of
here--how does anyone feel good about that? Is that why you
guys came to Washington was to take away opportunities for poor
kids to have a chance to get off to a good start in life? Is
that what motivated you to enter public service? I don't
believe it was.
Mr. Courtney. Well again, 3-and 4-year-olds didn't cause
the structural deficit that we are in right now and they
shouldn't bear the burden.
Secretary Duncan. Native American kids, the children of
military families, families who are overseas, you know,
literally giving their lives for us, and then we are going to
give them a worse education and take away their counselors and
social workers, which is happening right now? Families who
deserve--you know, giving everything for us and we are going to
deprive them? I don't get our values. I don't understand.
Mr. Courtney. And so in any case, you know, this is
something I really think, you know, resonates with the public
when they see that kind of damage that is being done. I was at
a chamber of commerce meeting last week and kind of shared that
outcome, and the room--a groan went up in the room.
So, you know, hopefully we can--again, sequester was not
about having sequester go into effect; it was about forcing
people to sit down and compromise. And Phil Gramm from Texas,
who is the granddaddy of sequester, actually gave a speech in
Washington, quote-unquote, where that is what he said was the
purpose of it.
Lastly, and I know I have just got a few--Mr. Tierney asked
about, you know, extending the 3.4 percent rate and, you know I
would just say as someone who has been pushing that is that,
you know, we need a Higher Ed reauthorization bill. We need to
have a comprehensive, long-term solution, which I think
everybody agrees with. We are not getting there in 40 days,
which is really July 1st and the ticking clock.
And again, I think the President's proposal, using market-
based--to a point, I think, has something that people can work
with. There are a lot of proposals on the other side. That is a
good thing. That didn't exist a year ago----
Secretary Duncan. Right. Right.
Mr. Courtney [continuing]. When we were doing this issue.
But frankly, we have got to make sure that kids who are
making the decision now where to go to school have some
confidence and horizon about what decisions they are making.
Secretary Duncan. First of all on sequester, if there are
things that I can do better to articulate the reality, please
push me and my team to do that. That is part of our job and if
we are not doing that effectively enough we want to hear that.
Again, on this one, I know it is 40 days, but this one has
some intellectual complexity but it is not that that hard. And
again, I just with that--I think the expectations have gotten
so low for Congress to get anything done.
I just wish we could take an issue or two issues and just
figure it out. And again, we will all compromise; we will all--
you know, no one will get exactly what they want. That is how
this process is set up.
But I would just love to get it done and I would love to
get it done for the long haul and again, move on to all these
other really hard issues--dropout rates, ESEA reauthorization,
Higher Ed reauthorization. You know, there are so many other
things we need to be spending time on; I don't want to keep
coming back year after year on this.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Before we say goodbye and thank you to the Secretary I want
to yield to Mr. Miller for any closing remarks he might have.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for your time. I agree
with my colleagues here that the time you have spent on
waivers, I think, is better spent than trying to get a
bipartisan resolution out of this Congress, unfortunately, on
ESEA.
But I think members ought to understand that, you know, in
the case of Common Core standards and assessments, this was a
creation of the Governors; this wasn't a creation of the
federal government. In fact, a number of people were surprised
when the Governors came forward after many years of working and
trying to think, how are they a worldwide competitive entity.
To attract companies or economic activity they needed a better
school system with better standards and better performance.
And, you know, it is an important--you have allowed
districts that really want to go to the future to go, not be
held back by Congress' bickering back and forth. As I have said
in my opening statement, I am concerned that they take
everybody with them, they don't leave some people behind here,
and that it--the hallmark of this law is the equity and the
treatment and the opportunity for these students. Whether they
succeed or not is somewhat, you know--we can't guarantee that,
but we certainly can provide the opportunity to a first-class
education and I think the waivers--and along with the common
core.
I mean, I am quite surprised at the response of my state,
how positive it is--California has been reluctant on a lot of
this--how positive they are now and the, you know, the Governor
is seeking appropriations to help them bring this about. The
response of teachers to training sessions and preparation
sessions has just been dramatic across the state.
So that is all very, very encouraging. But I just--the
equity portion of it is very, very important.
And I hope that we will be able to work out a long-term
bipartisan support for student loan activity. We have got a
very serious problem on our hands. I think there are new
constructs that can be put together where, as you say, it is a
shared responsibility.
If the states continue to walk away from public support for
public institutions we can't keep putting money into the top
and they are taking it out the bottom, and that is sort of what
they have been doing here.
I know people are concerned about the growth in Pell Grant,
but let's understand, there are a lot of people who never in
their lives believed they would be eligible for a Pell Grant,
but when they lost they job they lost their income and they had
to go back to school. They found that to be very helpful to get
a certificate, to get a training, to get an upgrade in their
skills so that they would be ready as the recovery started to
happen here. So they are not there by choice; they are there by
circumstance, and that turned out to be a very expensive thing
for the program, but obviously, some underpinnings for those
families.
So I just--I want to thank you for these projects that you
have undertaken. Again, you heard it from my colleagues--you
know, there was a group of people who have been saying that
college isn't worth it. Oh, yes it is. Oh, yes it is. By every
measure it is worth it.
There is now a group of people saying early childhood
education really isn't worth it. Oh, yes it is by almost every
measure.
And it is incredibly important. We know the difference
between families in vocabulary acquisition. We know what--
that--the barriers to that child, their first encounter with
the formal education system, whether it is the Head Start
system or state-run program or kindergarten.
There is a big difference in terms of acquisition and
reading skills and the rest of that--in terms of colors and
numbers. And these sound so basic, and yet so many children
come to school without the--without those components.
And, you know, I think we have gotten better at partnering
up with parents in the involvement, in that education.
Certainly in my area of the state it seems to have gone better.
We realize we have got to transfer some of this.
And some very exciting things are being done in some school
district, engaging parents in that early childhood education
experience, in that kindergarten experience, and bringing them
through and helping the child transition.
But again, if we are not going to build a first-class
receptacle for the students that we are spending the money on--
the children we are spending the money on in early childhood
education and development, if we are going to dump them into a
substandard system it is not going to work. And so, you know,
we have to do a lot of things at one time here to get this
system up and running.
And so I really just want to encourage the administration
to continue to push on this. It is so important to the success
of these young children in terms of their participation in the
fullness of American society and fullness of the American
economy and to help us hold on to a democracy in a very diverse
country. We need their participation--their full, informed
participation in American society.
So thank you very much for spending this time with the
committee.
Chairman Kline. I, too, want to thank you, Mr. Secretary,
for being with us today.
A couple of things: It has been an extraordinary bipartisan
support here in the Congress for a long time for Pell Grants.
We are concerned about how much money is going in them and is
it being spent not only wisely but is it being abused?
And we certainly know there is anecdotal evidence that it
is being abused. A student goes in, gets a Pell Grant, buys a
car, never goes to school.
So we would like to work with you and we would ask the
Department to really look at that program to make sure that we
are, in fact, helping not only kids but, as the Ranking Member
said, sometimes it is people coming back. They may be 58. I
forgot who used that number here, but that is still young to
me, I know, but people are going to come back; they need access
to those Pell Grants. We just want to make sure it is not being
abused in a large scale, which sometimes we are getting reports
that indicate that that might be the case.
On student loans, you and I have talked about this again
and again, we heard it talked about here, we had Republicans
and Democrats trying to get to the solution which I think you
and the President have asked for, and that is a long-term
solution where we remove the interest rates to a place where
the rates are determined by the market, and I hope you will
continue to work with us because there is still work to be done
here as we try to move this through. July 1st is coming and we
are not done yet, but I would like to be able to continue to
work with you to try to get that long-term solution.
And then finally, Mr. Salmon raised the point about what is
called ``incentive compensation for affiliated third party
entities.'' Now, I mean, probably nobody outside this room or
maybe only three people know exactly what that is, but actually
you and I have talked about this a number of times. This is an
issue that came about because of departmental action and it can
be fixed by departmental action.
We were looking on a legislative solution here and we were
close and thought we had it, but as so often happens around
here, we missed by a little bit; but it doesn't mean we are
going to give up. It is something that needs to be fixed. You
can fix it and I hope you will look at it again.
And again, I want to thank you for coming here today. As
always, it is a pleasure to have you. Very excellent testimony,
complete answers to our questions.
And then again, I know that you are watching very closely
what is happening in Oklahoma and those schools and that you
share our concerns and prayers.
So, there being no further business, the Committee stands
adjourned.
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[Secretary Duncan's response to questions submitted for the
record follows:]
------
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]