[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND
PRIORITIES OF THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 24, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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 PUBLISHING OFFICE
98-731 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Ranking Member
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Northern Mariana Islands
Luke Messer, Indiana Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
David Brat, Virginia Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Buddy Carter, Georgia Mark Takano, California
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Carlos Curbelo, Florida Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York
Rick Allen, Georgia
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 24, 2016................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
King Jr., Hon. John B., Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, DC.................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Additional Submissions:
Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana:
Letter dated February 24, 2016 from Consumer Bankers
Association (CBA)...................................... 33
Questions submitted for the record by:
Allen, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia....................................... 67
Barletta, Hon. Lou, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania.................................. 65
Byrne, Hon. Bradley, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Alabama................................... 66
Bishop, Hon. Michael D., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan............................. 65
Carter, Hon. Buddy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia....................................... 66
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from
the State of North Carolina............................ 66
Fudge, Hon. Marcia L., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio...................................... 66
Chairman Kline........................................... 63
Messer, Hon. Luke, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana....................................... 81
Mr. Rokita............................................... 67
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania.............................. 68
Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan...................................... 69
Secretary King's responses to questions submitted for the
record..................................................... 70
EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
----------
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, D.C.
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Foxx, Roe, Thompson,
Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie, Rokita, Heck, Messer, Byrne, Brat,
Carter, Bishop, Grothman, Curbelo, Stefanik, Allen, Scott,
Hinojosa, Davis, Grijalva, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Wilson of
Florida, Bonamici, Takano, Jeffries, Clark, Adams, DeSaulnier.
Staff Present: Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members
Services Coordinator; James Forester, Professional Staff
Member; Emmanual Guillory, Professional Staff Member; Tyler
Hernandez, Press Secretary; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk;
Dominique McKay, Deputy Press Secretary; Brian Newell,
Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Jenny
Prescott, Professional Staff Member; Clint Raine, TFA Fellow;
Alex Ricci, Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education
Deputy Director and Senior Counsel; Emily Slack, Professional
Staff Member; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane
Sullivan, Staff Director; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern
and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Staff
Assistant; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Senior Education Policy
Advisor; Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director; Christian
Haines, Minority Education Policy Counsel; Brian Kennedy,
Minority General Counsel; Saloni Sharma, Minority Press
Assistant; Michael Taylor, Minority Education Policy Fellow;
and Arika Trim, Minority Press Secretary.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. I want to extend a warm welcome to
the acting Secretary of Education, John King, who is with us to
discuss the policies and priorities of the Department of
Education. Dr. King has been at the helm of the Department
since January and was recently nominated by the President to
serve as the next Secretary of Education.
And congratulations on your nomination, Dr. King.
We understand this is the beginning of a busy week for you
on Capitol Hill, back to the aforementioned nomination. You
graciously agreed to join us today to speak broadly about the
Department's priorities, and you will return tomorrow to
discuss, specifically, the Department's efforts regarding the
Every Student Succeeds Act.
Replacing No Child Left Behind was a leading priority of
this committee for many years. We are eager to learn how the
Department plans to implement the new law in a way that adheres
to the letter and intent of the law. While that's a
conversation we will have in more detail tomorrow, it does
reflect in some ways on today's hearing. In fact, as we
consider the work that lies ahead this year, there are two
lessons we can learn from our efforts to improve K-12
education.
First, the American people want commonsense reforms that
empower individuals, not Federal bureaucrats. Families across
the country face a number of difficult challenges, including
stagnant wages, rising college costs, and a lack of full-time
jobs.
Unfortunately, the response by many in Washington is to
call for more government, more programs, more spending, more
rules, more regulations. We've tried this top-down approach for
years, and it really hasn't worked. It's time we look for other
opportunities to provide more authority and flexibility to the
States and local communities while also ensuring a more limited
and accountable Federal Government.
Second, we have shown what's possible when we work together
in good faith for the common good. We saw a problem, agreed the
status quo wasn't working, and came together to enact a
practical solution. Both sides brought to the table very
different ideas and principles, but we were able to hold onto
our principles and still find common ground. Because we did, we
delivered real results for the American people, and they expect
similar results in the months ahead.
It's for these reasons many of us are disappointed with the
President's budget request. It would provide the Department
with tens of billions of dollars in new spending to create and
administer new entitlement programs as well as numerous new
competitive grant programs that put the Department in charge of
picking winners and losers. This additional burden to the
taxpayer would not provide students and families a more
efficient, effective, and accountable agency. Instead, these
dollars would be used to grow an already bloated bureaucracy.
No doubt these proposals are well intended, but they will
ultimately divert limited taxpayer resources away from existing
services that are vitally important to low- and middle-income
families.
The American people aren't interested in continuing the
same failed policies, but that's precisely what this budget
would do. It doubles down on the false hope that the Federal
Government can create the opportunity and prosperity families
desperately need. We know there's a better way. We recently
proved there's a better way. There are a number of issues that
deserve our attention, such as expanding access to an
affordable college education, improving career and technical
education, and the successful implementation of our recent
reforms to K-12 education.
Dr. King, I hope we can work together on these and other
important issues in a way that builds on our recent success by
placing less faith in the schemes of Washington and more faith
in the American people.
With that, I will now recognize Ranking Member Scott for
his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
From welfare and health care to early childhood development and
support services for older Americans, the policies the Department of
Health and Human Services oversees affect the lives of millions of
Americans. Conversations like this one are vitally important as we work
to ensure the department is acting in the best interests of taxpayers
and those in need. As we examine what programs and policies are
working, and which ones are in need of improvement, I hope there are a
number of areas where we can find common ground.
Of course, there are also areas where we will ultimately agree to
disagree, and perhaps the most prominent example is the president's
health care law. As has been the case for nearly six years, this flawed
law continues to hurt working families, students, and small businesses.
It's still depressing hours and wages for low-income workers, still
making it harder for individuals to receive the care they need, and
still driving up health care costs.
One Emory University professor recently wrote that his family's
health-insurance premium is now their biggest expense - even greater
than their mortgage. Before the health care law went into effect, this
man was able to cover his entire family of four for less than $13,000.
Now, the cost of insuring just him and his wife is nearly $28,000.
That's right - twice the cost to cover half as many people. In fact,
paying more for less is becoming a hallmark of the health care law.
Over the years, Republicans have put forward a number of health
care reform ideas, ones that would expand access to affordable care and
lead to a more patient-centered health care system. We will continue to
do so, because we firmly believe the president's health care law is
fatally flawed and unsustainable, and more importantly, because we
believe the American people deserve better.
Again, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree, but as I
mentioned, there are areas where I am hopeful we can find common
ground.
(More)
Head Start, for example, currently supports nearly one million
children at a cost of more than $9 billion annually. It's an important
program for many low-income families. However, concerns persist that
it's not providing children with long-term results.
We both agree changes need to be made, but so far, we have
different ideas on what reform should look like. The department is in
the process of fundamentally transforming Head Start through
regulations that will have serious consequences for the vulnerable
families this important program serves. We, on the other hand, have
outlined a number of key principles that we believe will strengthen the
program based on feedback we collected from parents and providers. I
look forward to discussing where we might be able to find middle ground
and work together so that these children can have the solid foundation
they need to succeed in school and in life.
I'm also hopeful that we can work together to ensure changes to the
Preschool Development Grants Program are implemented as Congress
intended. The Every Student Succeeds Act reformed the program to help
states streamline and strengthen early learning efforts. To accomplish
this goal, Congress moved the program from the Department of Education
to HHS, which already oversees the bulk of early learning programs. As
you take on this responsibility, Secretary Burwell, please know we
intend to stay engaged with the department to ensure a successful
transition.
Finally, the department is also responsible for helping states to
prevent and respond to child abuse and neglect, specifically those
outlined in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act or CAPTA. As
I'm sure you're aware, this law provides states with resources to
improve their child protective services systems - if they make a number
of assurances concerning their child welfare policies. It's come to our
attention that some states are making these assurances without putting
the necessary policies in place. Yet, not a single state is being
denied federal funds.
A Reuters' investigation recently revealed the shocking and deadly
consequences of this neglect and cast serious doubts as to whether
basic requirements of the law are being met and enforced. In light of
this tragic report, we wrote to you to better understand the
department's process in reviewing and approving state plans under
CAPTA, and I'd like to continue that discussion today. It's clear that
the current system is failing some of our country's most vulnerable
children and families, and something has to change.
As you can see, we have quite a bit to cover today. These and other
issues are vitally important to the men and women we serve, and we have
a responsibility to ensure they are serving those individuals in the
best way possible.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing
today. And I know some of my colleagues were taken aback when
the House and Senate Budget Committees declined, apparently for
the first time ever, to invite the administration to give
testimony about the President's budget request for FY 2017. I'm
glad we have taken a better approach to the annual budget
process in this committee, and I know that there are things in
this budget that we can agree on and others that we won't agree
on. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk those issues out. I'm
glad, Mr. Chairman, that we're having an opportunity to do that
today.
I want to welcome the acting Secretary here today as well.
We will be seeing a lot of him this week as we hold another
hearing tomorrow on the implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act. Although he will only be in the Department for
about a year, that has the potential of being a very
transformational year in that it comes at the time when we
oversee early learning, elementary and secondary education, and
higher education in this country. I know he's up to the
challenge, and I look forward to his testimony today.
Our Nation's budget reflects its priorities. I think it's
safe to say that the budget request we have before us today
from the Department is proof that education remains a top
priority for the Obama administration. This year's request
includes an additional $1.3 billion, a 2 percent increase, for
programs at the Department of Education. At the same time,
through a combination of savings from both spending and revenue
sides of the budget, the administration's overall budget
request reduces the deficit from 3.3 percent of GDP to 2.6
percent.
Mr. Chairman, the request we have before us is, therefore,
proof that we can increase the amount we spend on education in
a responsible way without running higher deficits. The Federal
investment in education is a crucial component of our national
strength and competitiveness in the 21st century. That
investment begins in early childhood, and this year's request
continues to prioritize early childhood education. We can and
should provide high-quality early childhood education for all
4-year-olds, and this budget continues to call for us to do
just that.
The budget requests builds on the bipartisan work we did on
ESSA, and most programs in the bill are at or above the levels
authorized in that law. The budget includes multiple programs
designed to reduce the cost of higher education, with
particular focus on first-generation and low-income students.
I had the honor of working with the Department last year on
its America's College Promise proposal to make 2 years of
community college the new norm for all students. I was happy to
see that the budget request this year reflected modifications
we worked on together to include first-generation students and
minority-serving institutions as beneficiaries from the ACP
program.
The budget request recognizes that investing in teachers
and lifting up the teaching profession is essential in
improving educational outcomes nationally. If we are going to
ensure that every child in every classroom has a highly
effective teacher, we have to build pathways to train those
teachers and school leaders and provide incentives necessary
for them to take the most challenging positions where they are
most needed.
Now, there are some questions I have about some of the
choices made in the budget. I believe we should do more to
increase the maximum Pell Grant award and help to defray the
cost of higher education, especially when we make a sizable
profit off student loans. There are certain programs authorized
on the ESSA that receive 30 percent or higher increases over
negotiated authorization levels.
On the whole, I support the President's budget, especially
when compared to the alternative. And I say that because the
alternative has yet to present itself. For some reason, the
Speaker has chosen to expedite the budget process this year,
but we still haven't seen the actual proposal from the
majority. Last year's majority proposal included $103 billion
in cuts in education over 10 years. That translated into
significant cuts in Title I, funding for the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, cuts in Head Start, cuts in Pell
Grants. And if the choice is between a Republican budget like
last year's and the President's request, I'll take the
President's request.
This budget season we will have tough choices to make as
the Congress, choices that reflect our values. I think this
budget request we have before us strikes the right balance and
recognizes that money we spend on education comes back to the
country many times over. We need to make crucial investments
today if we expect to lead the world on education for decades
to come.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you Chairman Kline for holding this hearing here today. I
know I, along with many of my colleagues, were taken aback when the
House and Senate Budget Committee Chairmen declined, for the first time
ever, to invite the Administration to give testimony about the
President's budget request for FY 2017. I'm glad that we have taken a
more civil approach to the annual budget process in this committee. I
know that there are things in this budget request that we agree with
and others that we won't agree with, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't
talk those issues out, so I'm glad Mr. Chairman, that we are having an
opportunity to do that today.
And I want to welcome Acting Secretary King here with us today as
well. We will be seeing a lot of him this week as we hold another
hearing tomorrow on the implementation of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA). Although he will only be at the Department for a year, that
has the potential to be a very transformational year when it comes to
how we oversee early learning, elementary and secondary education, and
higher education in this country. I know that he is up to the
challenge, and I look forward to his testimony today.
A nation's budget reflects its priorities. And I think it is safe
to say that the budget request we have before us for the Department of
Education is proof that education remains a top priority for the Obama
Administration. This year's request includes an additional $1.3
billion, a 2% increase, for programs at the Department of Education. At
the same time, through a combination of savings from both the spending
and revenue sides of the budget, the administration's overall budget
request reduces the deficit from 3.3% of GDP to 2.6%.
Mr. Chairman, the request we have before us today is proof we can
increase the amount we spend on education in a responsible way without
running higher deficits.
Federal investment in education is a crucial component of our
national strength and competitiveness in the 21st century.
b That investment begins in early childhood, and this year's
request continues to prioritize early childhood education. We can and
should provide high-quality early childhood education to all four-year-
olds, and this budget continues to call for us to do just that.
b The budget request builds on the bipartisan work we did on ESSA
and most programs in that bill are at or above levels authorized in
that law.
b The budget includes multiple programs designed to reduce the cost
of higher education, with a particular focus on first-generation and
low-income students. I had the honor of working with the Department
last year on its America's College Promise (ACP) proposal to make two
years of community college the new normal for all students. I was happy
to see that the budget request this year reflected modifications we
worked on together to include first-generation students at HBCUs,
Hispanic Serving Institutions, AANAPISIs, and other Minority Serving
Institutions as beneficiaries from the ACP program.
b The budget request recognizes that investing in teachers and
lifting up the teaching profession is essential to improving
educational outcomes nationally. If we are going to ensure that every
child in every classroom has a highly effective teacher, we have to
build the pathways to train those teachers and school leaders, and
provide the incentives necessary for them to take the most challenging
positions where they are the most needed.
Now, there are some questions I have about some of the choices made
in this budget. I believe that we could do more to increase the maximum
Pell Grant award and help defray the cost of higher education,
especially when we make a sizable profit off of student loans. There
are certain programs authorized under ESSA that receive 30% and higher
increases over negotiated authorization levels. But on the whole I
support the President's budget, especially when compared to the
alternative. I say that because the alternative has yet to present
itself. For some reason, Speaker Ryan has chosen to expedite the budget
process this year, but we still haven't seen a proposal from the
Majority. Last year's Republican budget proposal included $103 billion
in cuts to education over 10 years. That translated to significant cuts
in Title I funding, funding for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, cuts to Head Start, and cuts to Pell Grants. If the
choice is between a Republican budget like last year's and the
President's request, I'll take the President's request any day of the
week.
This budget season we will have tough choices to make as a
Congress, choices that will reflect our values. I think this budget
request we have before us strikes the right balance, and recognizes
that money we spend on education comes back to the country many times
over. We need to make crucial investments today if expect to lead the
world in education for decades to come. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I
yield back.
______
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), all 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 such statements
and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to
be submitted for the official hearing record.
Chairman Kline. It's now my pleasure to introduce our
distinguished witness. Dr. John B. King, Jr. is the acting
Secretary for the U.S. Department of Education. He was named
acting Secretary of the Department of Education last month.
Prior to this, he served as a principal senior adviser to the
Department performing the duties of the deputy secretary. And
as I mentioned earlier, he has now been officially nominated by
the President of the United States. And it is my understanding
that the Senate, in fact, is going to have a hearing tomorrow
afternoon on that nomination.
We wish you good luck with that.
Let me ask you now, Dr. King, to please stand and raise
your right hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Kline. Let the record reflect Dr. King answered in
the affirmative -- as by the way, has every witness that we
have ever asked to do that.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
just briefly remind you and everybody about the lighting
system. For many of us up here, this is our first hearing in
this completely renovated hearing room, and we're, perhaps, a
little disoriented and maybe even awed. I think maybe Mr. Brat
is still lost. I'm not sure. Oh, no, that's not what you were -
- I thought you were talking.
Dr. King, I'll ask you to here, in just a minute, to give
us your testimony. The timer will come on there in front of
you, which indicates you have 5 minutes, but as I indicated to
you earlier, I have never, never gaveled down a witness for
going -- certainly, not a Secretary or acting Secretary -- for
going somewhat over. But if you can limit those remarks, then
we can get into questions and answers. Each member here will be
given 5 minutes to ask questions and get answers. And I will be
a little bit more demanding on my colleagues' time than yours.
So, Dr. King, you're recognized.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN B. KING, JR., ACTING SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. King. Thank you very much. Good morning. Chairman
Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to discuss the Department's 2017
budget. I look forward to building on our bipartisan
collaboration as we implement the Every Student Succeeds Act
and solve important challenges in public education.
This first year, we are focused on three principles: first,
ensuring every child has the opportunity to earn an excellent
education; second, supporting our Nation's teachers and
elevating the teaching profession; and, third, improving
access, affordability, and completion in higher education.
These principles, along with my own experiences working in
public education, inform the ideas in our 2017 budget proposal.
Before joining the Department, I led the New York State
Department of Education and served as the managing director of
Uncommon Schools, a network of high-achieving charter schools.
I began my career as a high school social studies teacher and
cofounded one of the highest-performing middle schools in
Massachusetts.
I'm also the proud parent of two public school students,
and these experiences inspire every decision that I make at the
Department.
While this budget is focused on the challenges ahead of us,
I also want to acknowledge the remarkable gains we are seeing.
High school graduation rates are at an all-time high and
dropout rates are falling. We have the largest and most diverse
classes enrolling and completing higher education. The numbers
of African American and Latino college students are up by more
than a million since 2008.
The Department's 2017 budget builds on that progress in
important ways. It would strengthen formula programs at the
heart of the Every Student Succeeds Act and invest in next-
generation high schools and career and technical education. It
ensures that our youngest learners get a strong start in school
through President Obama's landmark Preschool for All initiative
and capitalizes on teacher leadership by helping them achieve
their ideas in the schools where they are needed most, and
brings computer science to every classroom in this country.
Through the new Stronger Together program, we would help
school and district leaders create more high-achieving,
socioeconomically diverse classrooms and schools. All students
benefit from learning with classmates from different economic
backgrounds, and all students should have that opportunity.
The programs in our 2017 budget would also make higher
education more affordable and help more students earn their
college degrees. America's College Promise would make community
college free for all students, an idea that is proving its
potential in communities from Tennessee to Long Beach,
California. This budget would also drive innovations in Pell
Grants by supporting students that take summer classes and at
least 15 credits per semester and reward institutions with high
completion rates.
We need new strategies for helping students earn their
degrees, and through First in the World and the HBCU Innovation
for Completion Fund, we would help colleges translate their
ideas into better outcomes for their students.
This budget leverages local leadership, the source of
strength of our Nation's education system, to help more
students succeed. But I also know that there are places where
leaders are not living up to their responsibilities.
Last year, I visited a community where five local schools
had become socioeconomically and racially isolated and under-
resourced failure factories, to borrow a term from a local
newspaper. There, we met desperate families, dejected teachers,
and students that questioned whether the adults in their lives
really care.
I contrast that visit with the excellent schools I've seen
in communities from Houston to Wilmington to Miami. I've met
countless engaged students who know that, thanks to the
educators in their lives, their destiny will not be determined
by where they were born.
The Department's 2017 budget would support local and State-
led efforts to create many more places where students know
their education and their future is in their own hands. I look
forward to discussing these ideas with you in more detail and
would be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.
[The testimony of Mr. King follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Dr. King. Less than 5 minutes. I
don't know that you get any extra points for that, but well
done.
I had discussed this very briefly with you before. It's
been a nagging concern, I guess, to me, year after year. When
we look at the President's budget year after year, there is
little or no increase suggested in funding for IDEA, and this
year turns out to be the same thing. If I look at the
President's budget, I can give many examples here, the budget
proposes a new billion-dollar mandatory program called Respect:
Best Job in the World. It proposes $120 million for a new
Stronger Together grant program, requests 80 million for a new
Next Generation High Schools program, proposes $2 billion, and
$4 billion over 3 years, for a new mandatory Computer Science
for All Initiative, proposes $100 million for a new Computer
Science for All development grant program, and so forth.
My point is that the budget is full of new programs. And
the discussions I used to have with Mr. Miller, when he was
here, when these new program ideas would come up, I would ask
him: Why do you want to propose a new program which will be
chronically underfunded? And I'm sort of asking you the same
thing.
Year after year and in this budget, it's new program, new
program, new program. They are always competing with each other
for funding, and they are competing with IDEA.
In countless school visits, roundtable meetings,
discussions I've had with superintendents, principals,
teachers, parents, and I ask them, ``What's the most important
thing that the Federal Government can do to help you?'' the
answer is always, from every one of them, step up to the
Federal Government's commitment to fund special ed. We were
supposed to be providing 40 percent of the new funds that would
be required under IDEA for the new requirement to take care of
special needs kids. We've never gotten half that. And this
budget brings it down from almost half, working down to about
16 percent.
Can you please just explain why, why you, why the
President, why somebody thinks it's more valuable to create
new, untested programs that are going to be underfunded than it
is to meet this commitment?
Mr. King. I appreciate the question, Congressman.
The budget is really focused on the priorities that I
described, equity and excellence for all students, investing in
teaching, and lifting up the teaching profession, and doing
more to ensure access, affordability, and completion in higher
education. As we invest in those priorities, we were careful to
stay within the constraints of the budget caps that were agreed
to last year and to ensure that this is a budget that actually
reduces the deficit over the long term.
And so within those constraints, we tried to prioritize
those programs that we think would best accelerate our meeting
those goals. But we are deeply committed to students with
disabilities and ensuring opportunity for them. Students with
disabilities would benefit from the programs that are in this
budget. We maintain the increased investment from the 2016
budget, and actually increase spending in the Part B and Part C
IDEA programs.
Chairman Kline. Well, we're just going to continue to
disagree here. It seems to me -- continues to seem to me --
that we would be a whole lot better to set as our first
priority meeting the commitment that's been out there for,
what, now over 40 years, and we can't seem to do it. And school
after school after school, district after district says that's
the most important thing. And yet, this budget has created all
of these new programs, which are, yes, you stay within the
caps, but that means you're taking money from what could be,
and I would argue, should be going to special ed.
Okay, I yield back.
Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. King, in your written testimony, you talk about
research and evidence and data. Can you explain how the budget
develops the appropriate data base and evidence to
appropriately guide education policy?
Mr. King. Yes, absolutely. We are deeply committed to the
principle that we need more evidence-based decision-making in
education. If you look at education versus other sectors, we
spend in education something like less than one half of 1
percent on research and development. In other areas of our
economy, that number can be as high as 20 percent spent on
research and development.
So we need more investment there. This budget prioritizes
that in a few ways. We propose an increase in funding for IES,
so that they can engage in important research projects, fund
important research projects across the country. We call for an
increase in the education, innovation, and research grant
programs so that we can fund efforts at the local level and
State level to develop an evidence base around what works,
particularly for our highest-needs students. And we propose
restoring funding for the First in the World grant competition,
which is focused on building an evidence base around
initiatives at the higher education level that ensures students
get to completion. And as a companion to that, we have the HBCU
Completion Innovation Fund proposal that we think will help
Historically Black Colleges and Universities build an evidence
base there around best approaches to ensure that students don't
only start, but actually finish college.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
And speaking of minority colleges, throughout the South
there are consent decrees dealing with the effects of
segregation of schools before the 1960s. Does your budget have
sufficient funding for you to review those consent decrees to
see if they are complied with and to address segregation in
public schools generally?
Mr. King. Let me first say that HBCUs play a hugely
important role in American culture. I think it's often
underappreciated how critical the role of HBCUs is in preparing
teachers for the country, a diverse teacher workforce, how
critical the role of HBCUs is in preparing African American
doctors, African Americans graduating with STEM degrees.
So we want to make sure that the HBCU sector is a thriving
one. That's why we invest in the HBCU Innovation Fund. HBCUs,
as you know, figure prominently in the America's College
Promise proposal, allowing students to go to HBCUs using
America's College Promise funds.
We also ask for an increase in the staff at the Office of
Civil Rights. And the Office of Civil Rights is currently
working, as you know, on several issues related to those
consent decrees and States' allocation of resources to their
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. But one of our
very real challenges in the Office of Civil Rights is a huge
increase in the number of civil rights complaints that we are
investigating and closing with communities and institutions,
but we have not had the necessary staff. And so many of those
complaints take longer to resolve than would be ideal.
On the broader point of segregation, I would say the budget
calls for an increase in the magnet schools program, which is
directed at communities that have either existing court orders
or agreements around desegregation, but the budget also calls
for an investment in Stronger Together, which would foster
locally led, locally defined, voluntary efforts to increase
socioeconomic integration in schools, because we want our
schools to be places where students experience the kind of
diversity that they will experience in the workforce.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Flint, Michigan has made national news because of the lead
poisoning in the water. Has your Department developed a plan or
are you developing a plan to address the educational challenges
created by this lead exposure?
Mr. King. We are very engaged in Flint. What's happened
there, I think, is shameful and tragic. And it's very important
that all agencies participate in helping the community in Flint
respond to the situation.
So we've been in close contact with the school districts
and the regional providers of educational services in Flint,
providing technical assistance, helping them identify how they
can use existing resources to respond to the needs. We've had
folks on the ground meeting with folks in Flint, visiting with
parents and educators. We are working with a cross-agency team
to identify what would be most useful going forward. And we
certainly will look forward to working with this committee, and
with your staff in particular, on how we ensure that the
Federal Government supports the community of Flint.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Just to alert all of my colleagues, Dr. King has a hard
stop at 12:30. We will honor that. So that means I will be
dropping this gravel pretty quickly if you go over the 5
minutes.
Let's see. Dr. Roe, you are recognized.
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. King, good luck on your confirmation. I'm from the
great State of Tennessee. We do fund our colleges based on
graduation rates, not on heads and beds. And we also have
provided free community college and technical college. As you
know, we've had the greatest gains in K through 12 than any
State in the Union. People should be looking at that.
What I want to talk about today with you, and I really want
to work with the Department on this, and probably you have read
this, but Dr. Nick Zeppos at Vanderbilt has ``Recalibrating
Regulations of Colleges and Universities.'' I'm just going to
go over a few things quickly about the incredible costs that
are placed on colleges to comply with Federal regulations.
Basically, regulations that, for instance, in 1997, at
Stanford University, 7.5 percent of the tuition was to comply
with Federal regulations. In Vanderbilt University, in 2014, 11
percent, or $150 million, that's $11,000 per student, just to
comply with Federal regulations. That's one of the ways we
could have more money, is to decrease the amount of regulatory
burden we placed on these colleges and universities. Thirty-
three percent increase in the last 10 years in compliance
officers in colleges. And this is public data.
Regulations are overly complex. In at least one case, a
guidance document meant to clarify uncertainty led to more
confusion. In 2011, a ``dear colleague'' on Title IX
responsibilities for sexual harassment contained all these
complex mandates, and then when they had to explain just that,
it was a 53-page document that people had to go through.
The colleges are required to have selective service
registration. Not that these are not important, but this is
something a college probably shouldn't be doing. Voter
registration requirements, peer-to-peer file sharing, foreign
gift reporting. I mean, on and on, I could go on and on.
Timely. Let me give you this one. In May of 2013, Yale
University was ordered to repay financial aid funds based on
the Department of Education audit undertaken in 1996. The
University of Colorado received a similar demand based on a
1997 audit. And even though the universities appealed in a
timely fashion, it took 17 and 16 years, respectively, for the
Department to act. That's ridiculous, and it's expensive,
because they are, again, doing all these things.
2004, the Department investigated Yale for the Clery Act
reporting violation, that's sexual harassment on campus, 2001
and 2002, but the fine wasn't issued until 2013. So I could go
on and on with that.
Another thing is a barrier to innovation, these
requirements are. Vanderbilt gave up its online programming
because of the extensive requirements in several States. In
North Carolina, they just threw the hat in. And in California,
the State of California projected the cost of developing and
implementing a new data system required to meet regulatory
requirements at $233 million just for California alone. That
would have much been better than IDEA or other things that we
could have spent money on. As we have all said, the resources
are limited.
So I want to work with you. This is a great document. Have
you read this document?
Mr. King. I've seen it, yes.
Mr. Roe. It really gives a lot of great ideas. I'm going to
let you answer.
Mr. King. So I share your commitment to making sure that
the resources that are going to the higher education sector are
going to students. Of course, we want our students to be safe
and supportive while they are in school and able to go on to
graduate and prepare for what's next.
Some of the recommendations in there are things that we are
working on. As you know, we have a Pell experimental site
focused on competency-based education where we are working with
several higher ed institutions to foster innovation. We've got
an effort with Pell dual enrollments to foster innovation
around partnerships with high schools. In our higher ed
institutions, we've made some changes to the financial aid
process.
Mr. Roe. I don't mean to interrupt you, but how old are
your children now?
Mr. King. Nine and 12.
Mr. Roe. Okay. Well, I have three that have graduated from
college. And, sadly, a University of Tennessee grad has got to
say one got an MBA from Vanderbilt. That's hard for me to
confess, but I will. But how when you start writing a check to
a university, how can you, when you write an $11,000 a year per
student just to comply with Federal regulations that is really
not much benefit to the student, when you start writing that
check, it's going to be different. I've written those checks,
and I want you to think about that. I seriously want to work on
reducing this regulatory burden. I think it's hugely important.
Mr. King. Yeah, I share that priority. I'm still paying my
student loans. I share that priority. And so I think we can
work together on that. We certainly think in this next year
there are places where we can make progress on some of the
items mentioned in that report. I do want you to know we are
working on some of them already and have implemented some of
those recommendations.
Mr. Roe. Thank you. I yield.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hinojosa.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Kline. I have some
prepared remarks here, and I want to certainly ask the
questions.
Dr. King, thank you for coming to speak to our committee,
and it's a pleasure to hear your education priorities on this
2017 budget that is certainly going to be discussed the rest of
this month and maybe longer. But I want to say that in seeing
the materials that were given to us by staff, I am very
concerned.
You made the statement that the HBCUs are a very important
component of higher education, and I have been one of the
strongest supporters of HBCUs. In fact, as chairman of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I met with the Black Caucus and
the Hispanic Caucus leaders, as well as the Asian Pacific, and
we came to an agreement that we were going to all work together
to help all minority-serving institutions.
But in looking at your proposed budget here, increasing 245
million for strengthening HBCUs, and seeing the increase in the
student population of HSIs, the numbers that are enrolling
since 2010 with the reconciliation of higher education went up
30 percent, and yet you have nothing in here increasing the
investment in both the HSIs and the Asia-Pacific colleges and
universities as we requested of President Obama when we met
with him at the White House.
And furthermore, you have to realize that if we don't speak
up, I don't think that the government and, certainly, the
Congress is going to increase it, because we had to fight for
20 years to get the kind of increases we got in 2010.
Now, HSIs were reduced 2 years ago in their Federal
investment, and I'm very concerned, and you need to explain to
me why you left out the other two groups.
Mr. King. So let me say, first, HSIs, MSIs generally, I
think, play a critical role in the education system--
Mr. Hinojosa. I agree with you.
Mr. King. -- and are often a path to opportunity for first-
generation college students who otherwise might not have access
to those opportunities.
In the America's College Promise proposal, MSIs are well
represented. So if students, hard-working students were to
pursue degrees at 2-year or 4-year MSIs, they would be eligible
for the America's College Promise funding.
The First in the World fund includes a set-aside for MSIs
and HBCUs at 30 percent, the First in the World fund, that's
$100 million that's targeted towards completion, efforts to
improve the evidence base around completion. And then the
innovation fund, Completion Innovation Fund, is also for MSIs
and HBCUs.
So we've reflected MSIs in several places. We were
constrained in our approach to this budget by--
Mr. Hinojosa. If I can interrupt you just a minute, because
the time is running out. In the last 4 years we have shown
great improvement in graduation rates, in enrollment in higher
education, and graduation, even, at the colleges. And so we
need for your Department to not only pay attention to these
three that I mentioned, but also the tribally controlled
colleges, because they are certainly not being even considered
and given the moneys that they need to bring their graduation
rates up.
So, again, I look forward to another round of questions,
but know that we want to work with you and your staff, and that
I believe that the regulations that were put in to make schools
accountable is needed, especially Title IX, for women to be
able to have the moneys so that they can have their sports. We
put on a big, big fight back in 1998 here in this committee,
and, finally, we did not allow them to remove Title IX, because
there were some that were complaining about that regulation.
And there's other things that are necessary by the Federal
Government for them to show us, the schools and the colleges,
the accountability and how they are using that money and if
it's working.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
Dr. King, thank you so much for being here. Good luck, best
wishes, for your confirmation process with the Senate.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. Dr. King, in this year's budget request, your
Department has proposed to level fund the only Federal
investment in career and technical education, the Carl D.
Perkins Act State grant program, and instead you propose $75
million for a new competitive grant program that your
Department estimates will only benefit 5 to 25 programs
throughout the country. It speaks to the same question that the
chairman started out with of, really, making sure that we're
serious about what we know works, what we have been doing,
versus creating new programs have so much uncertainty attached
to them.
The same week that you made this proposal, your Department
highlighted the fact that many career and technical education
programs have waiting lists of students who want to enroll in
quality CTE programs but cannot because programs simply lack
the capacity to meet this increasing demand for career and
technical education.
Why has the Department of Education continued to propose
new, untested grant programs that come with tremendous
certainty -- also, I would argue, you know, favors bigger
programs that maybe have more capacity for grant writing
compared to especially those in underserved urban or rural
areas -- that would only benefit, as the Department's own
analysis has shown, only a handful of programs, the number
being 5 to 25 as estimated by the Department of Education, at
the expense of the Nation's foundational support for CTE via
the Perkins Act?
Mr. King. Congressman, I appreciate the question. I am a
huge supporter of career and technical education. And when I
was commissioner in New York, one of the things we focused on
was expanding access to career and technical education, and
particularly strengthening the partnerships between high
schools, employers, and also higher education institutions so
that students were prepared for success when they graduated.
We see the Next Generation High Schools program in that
context, a way to cultivate innovation in career and technical
education. We know that there's a need for more CTE programs
that are focused on 21st century jobs. There are CTE programs
around the country that are looking for resources to offer new
types of programs that respond to new demands in advanced
manufacturing or in high-tech industries.
So we see the Next Generation High Schools programs as an
opportunity to spur that kind of innovation and build an
evidence base around what works, but believe strongly in the
Perkins program, hope, actually, that there's an opportunity
for a discussion on reauthorization of the Perkins CTE Act and
an opportunity to ensure that we foster innovation, that we
have the teachers that we need. You know, when I talk to
superintendents, one of the challenges is finding teachers in
the CTE fields, particularly high-demand new fields, emerging
fields like computer science and tech-related fields.
So CTE would benefit from a variety of the programs that
are here. We've got a billion-dollar investment in making
teaching the best job in the world. We think that will help us
to attract teachers to the CTE fields that are in high demand
today. So to be clear, this budget invests in CTE because we
believe strongly in it.
Mr. Thompson. Well, it invests to the benefit of 5 to 25
programs across the Nation. So I really don't think it invests
broadly in the futures of a significant number of kids. I think
there's a better way to do it.
I have a question on whether the administration has changed
its perspective. In April 2012, the administration released a
blueprint for the reauthorization of the Perkins Act, which I
agree with you, I think it's incredibly important. I look
forward as this committee's work goes forward that we get that
done. But what the administration put forward is viewed by
many, by stakeholders, as overly prescriptive.
Has the administration's vision for a Perkins
reauthorization changed since then? Because if your proposal is
to level fund it this year, it seems like, perhaps -- well, let
me just focus on the question being overly prescriptive.
And, specifically, one key stakeholder group I didn't hear
you mention was business and industry. I mean, I would
encourage you to use the same principles that this body, this
committee did with the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act,
with the Every Student Succeeds Act, where we pushed local
control, local authority, more flexibility by those on the
ground, decision makers, versus being overly prescriptive from
Washington.
Mr. King. Yeah. Eager to work with you on this. I think the
principles from the blueprint are the principles we think are
important, investing in innovation, ensuring that we have the
teacher workforce that we need.
Close partnerships with employers. One of the projects I
worked on in New York, I am very proud of, was a partnership in
IBM launching a school called P-TECH in Brooklyn where students
graduate with a high school diploma, associate's degree, first
in line for a job with IBM. We replicate that--
Chairman Kline. I hate to interrupt, Dr. King, but the
gentleman's time has expired. We're doing the filibuster-up-to-
10-seconds-left trick, folks. We can't do that. Dr. King has a
hard stop.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here, Dr. King. I appreciate it
very much. And best of luck on your confirmation.
In this President's budget we once again see an increase in
the funding for charter schools. And given all the discussion
that goes back and forth on that concept, whether it's for-
profit or public charters, that we've seen in the past, one of
the questions that I have, that I think is something that I
think lags behind in the effort to increase the funding at a
time when some of the categorical programs are losing funding
and traditional public schools are losing funding, how will the
Department ensure that there's some really basic accountability
to these entities?
How will these entities communicate to students and parents
that make the choice to enter a charter school, everything from
financial disclosure, what is proprietary and not in terms of
the entities that run these, and regulatory issues, the
public's right to know, public disclosure, public meetings, so
that people can attend and know what is outside of a financial
boardroom but is in a public setting?
These are questions I think that as we move forward in the
initiatives of this administration on charter schools that
lagging behind is the taxpayer accountability as to how this
money is being used. And what do you propose in that area in
general?
And before you answer, let me just indicate to you, Dr.
King, let me associate myself with Mr. Hinojosa's comments
relative to minority-serving institutions as a whole.
Sir?
Mr. King. Thanks.
So ultimately charters we see as one path to innovation
among many. And so this budget invests in magnet schools,
invests in the Stronger Together socioeconomic-integration
initiative, invests in the Charter School Program.
What's most critical is we need that innovation to get
better outcomes. Despite the progress we've made as a country,
despite having the highest graduation rate we've ever had, we
still see significant achievement gaps. And there are places
where high-performing charters, high-performing magnet schools,
strong socioeconomic-integration efforts are making a real
difference for student outcomes, but, of course, that needs to
come along with the accountability.
In our Charter School Program, we are focused on helping
States strengthen their authorizers. The quality of charters in
a given State is very closely tied to the quality of the
charter authorizers. Are those authorizers holding the schools,
the school leaders, accountable to the charter agreement? Are
they ensuring transparency--
Mr. Grijalva. Should there, Dr. King, be a basic template,
though, disclosure, financial, posting of meetings so that
people can attend, limiting what is proprietary and not in
terms of financial issues and salary issues that are questions
people ask, but there's always that wall? Do you think there
should be a basic template at the very minimum?
Mr. King. Yeah. There are set of requirements for
participation in the Federal Charter School Program around
authorizer practices. Some of the issues that you are raising
are often dictated by State law. But for our Charter School
Program, for participation in that grant program, there are a
set of expectations.
And, look, we have to acknowledge that there are places
where authorizers should be doing a much better job. There are
States where low-performing charters, charters with poor
financial track records are allowed to continue to operate even
though they are not living up to their charter, and in those
places the authorizers should intervene to close those schools.
Mr. Grijalva. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary, for your willingness to come
today.
I want to ask questions about a program that you are now
responsible for, caring for, and undertaking. It's a program
that I must admit right from the get-go I don't support. I
think it is ill-advised. It is top-down management of a set of
indicators that I don't think we can do effectively from the
Federal level, and that's the College Scorecard.
Is the goal of the College Scorecard, in your mind, to
determine which colleges and universities are legitimate?
Mr. King. So the goal of the Scorecard is to provide
information to students, to parents, and to institutions. In
the work to develop the Scorecard, we did a lot of listening,
to students, to higher ed institutions, to the civil rights
communities, to advocacy organizations for students, to
understand the kinds of information that would better inform
student--
Mr. Walberg. Which I think indicates -- and forgive me for
jumping in, but the chairman has made it very clear we are only
going to have a set time -- but indicates to me you have a lot
of parameters to deal with, which makes it very difficult to
manage that from top down when we have accrediting
institutions, when we have schools themselves, when we have the
responsibility of individuals, parents, students, to do the
research necessary to find which schools work.
In my district, Hillsdale College, for instance, it's not a
school that has had a low success rate. According to Kiplinger,
U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, Princeton Review, it's rated
as one of the top liberal arts colleges in the world, and yet
it's not included in the Scorecard, simply because it takes no
Federal or State moneys, and so it doesn't come into some of
the plans where you will pick information from. But it also
comes in some of the rating institutions or recording
institutions that you do take from, but they are not included.
I don't think that's accurate, to portray Hillsdale College
simply because it's not in the Scorecard, it's probably not
worthy of people going to the school. Do you?
Mr. King. We're working with the higher education community
to make sure that schools that weren't included in the first
round of the Scorecard have the opportunity to be in the
Scorecard. But it's important to note, the Scorecard is not a
rating system, in that we don't have rankings of the schools.
Mr. Walberg. Are they affecting the rating system?
Mr. King. It's information, it's a transparent system of
information about the schools.
Now, people can use that information. And one of the things
we did, we were careful to do in the development of the
Scorecard, was make it possible for others to access the data,
protecting student privacy, being able to assess the data to
create other tools that might inform students about things like
how much does the typical student leaving the school have to
pay in student debt, how much does the typical student leaving
the school earn. We think those are important things for
students to be aware of.
Mr. Walberg. Yeah, but those -- you bring up an important
point as well. We have another three schools in Michigan here
that reported either just simply the average annual cost or
nothing at all, and yet they are included in this point.
I go to one of my alma maters -- one of my alma maters --
storied, historic, world renowned -- and I say this out of
truth, not just because I graduated from it -- but the Moody
Bible Institute of Chicago. Over 3,000 students that go there.
Average annual cost is very low, because every student that
goes is received on a tuition-paid scholarship. Graduation rate
significantly high, 75 percent or better.
But no data available for salary. Why? These are
missionaries. These are pastors. These are missionary pilots
that go out. They are not going to make a lot of money. In
fact, in most cases they have to raise their own. And yet
that's included in this Scorecard.
All that to say, I'm not sure this -- though it's rather
expensive to produce, it puts a lot of information out, and yet
I think it's misleading as well. And I'm not sure that the
Federal Government should be involved in putting out something
that, as you say, is not a rating system, but it becomes a
rating system. It's impossible not to be a rating system when
that type of information is included, and it's not incomplete -
- it's not complete. It's incomplete.
Mr. King. Again, we feel like the transparency for students
about the information we do have is important and can inform
decisions.
I was in a high school a few weeks ago, sitting with
students who were using a tool called Pell Advocates that
relies on the information from the Scorecard, and it was a
high-need-type school in the district, and you could see
students realizing that schools they thought were out of reach
for them because their sticker price is so high, realize that,
no, in fact, they could go to that school because of the
financial aid that was available. And I saw students literally
change their mind about what they thought was possible for them
because of that information. That strikes me as a worthwhile
effort.
Mr. Walberg. It would be good to be complete and accurate
information.
And I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Fudge.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Dr. King, for being here. Certainly, I am
confident that the Senate will see your stellar qualifications
and confirm you, so we are just going to claim that.
I too do want to just agree with my colleague,
Representative Grijalva, about my concern of accountability for
charter schools. Obviously, I'm from the State of Ohio, where
our State purposefully, knowingly, sent misleading information
to the Federal Government about our charter schools. So I know
what it's like.
Dr. King, last year, Congressman Gibson, Senators Portman
and Warner, and myself introduced the Go to High School, Go to
College Act, which allows students in dual enrollment in early
college programs to access Pell Grant dollars while still in
high school. In October 2015, the Department announced a pilot
program to allow high school students the opportunity to access
Federal Pell Grants to take college courses through dual
enrollment.
What funding is in the fiscal year 2017 education budget
for early Pell and dual-enrollment programs, and what is that
status of the Department's pilot program?
Mr. King. Thanks for the question. So we think there's
tremendous opportunity in allowing higher ed institutions to
innovate around serving high school students. And, you know,
I've seen many high schools around the country where students
who may not have thought college was possible for them have
that experience of taking college classes in high school, and
it changes their expectations for themselves and their life
trajectory.
That's the reason we are committed to the Pell dual-
enrollment experimental site. We are going and make sure that
we can find that experimental site within existing Pell
dollars. We put out a request for applications from
institutions. That closed a couple of weeks ago. We are
reviewing those applications from institutions, and we expect
there will be a number around the country that begin this work,
and we'll build an evidence base around dual enrollment.
Ms. Fudge. I don't want to cut you off, Dr. King, but the
time is running. So, indeed, there is no additional funding.
Mr. King. That's right. We are doing this experimental site
within existing Pell dollars.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. Now, the early Pell pilot program appears
to exclude tuition-free programs. Is that accurate?
Mr. King. No, it's that we see this is as an investment in
expansion. And so what we've tried to say is the dollars here
have to be used to expand access to dual-enrollment programs.
Ms. Fudge. Okay, Dr. King. The FY 2017 budget request funds
for the creation of a new American Technical Training Fund,
which will provide competitive grants to support evidence-based
tuition-free job training programs in high-demand fields. I am
certainly one that does not believe in competitively funding
very many things.
Could you tell me, even though I know that there is a clear
need to fund these programs, what plans does the Department
have to address the issue for the entirety of our Nation's
workforce, not just those who can write a grant?
Mr. King. So we think it's important that we build more
programs that are targeted towards either folks who are low
income or folks who are unemployed so they can get access to
jobs training and education.
Ms. Fudge. Which are the people who generally can't write
grants very well?
Mr. King. Well, so these would be the higher ed
institutions themselves would seek these grants in partnership
with employer partners and create programs that would serve
those low-income students, those unemployed students, help them
get the skills they need to get good jobs.
Now, this is a competitive grant program, $75 million. But
then, we also have proposed, in partnership with the Department
of Labor, a $5 billion investment in programs that would serve
disconnected youth, programs that would serve folks who are
unemployed, programs that would provide summer jobs and first
jobs for high-need students.
So we see this effort as part of a broader commitment
across the Federal Government to ensuring that folks who want
opportunity can get that opportunity.
Ms. Fudge. But the competitive grants are still the way you
think it should be done?
Mr. King. Well, that's what we propose on the discretionary
side in this specific program, trying to operate within the
budget caps. But as I said, with the Department of Labor, we
proposed $5 billion in three different programs that are
focused on expanding job training and education programs for
low-income adults and those who are unemployed.
Ms. Fudge. As my time is running out, the average student
debt is about $35,000 a person right now. And you don't need to
answer it at this point, but I would like an answer at some
point. What funding request are you or have you made to help
students better manage their loan repayment so they can have a
quality of life they worked so hard for when they went and got
a college education? You don't need to answer it, if you would,
please, respond.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Fudge. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Salmon is recognized.
Mr. Salmon. Thank you.
Welcome, Dr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Mr. Salmon. It's no secret that over the last few years the
Department's taken several steps to aggressively target
particular sectors of higher education. One such step was the
creation of an interagency task force on for-profit
institutions.
Proprietary institutions play an extremely important role
in delivering postsecondary education to nontraditional
students, and I'm very concerned that the Department is
unjustly staining the reputation of the entire sector.
What does the interagency task force on for-profits seek to
accomplish? How does the Department attempt to justify
operating the task force without transparency? And how can the
Department further justify favoring one sector over another?
Mr. King. So to be clear, our goal in the higher education
sector generally is to ensure that we protect both the
interests of students and the interests of taxpayers. We've got
to make sure that students have access to good information when
they enroll in a school, they get the support they need to
graduate, and that taxpayers can be confident that schools are
using taxpayer dollars to support students.
The interagency work on that task force is focused on
ensuring that where there are bad actors -- and there are some
-- where there are bad actors, there's an intervention to
change that behavior and to ensure that student interests are
protected.
We recently announced the addition of an enforcement unit
at the Department within our Federal student aid team focused
on bad actors. It's not specific to one sector. That could be a
nonprofit, could be a for-profit, could be a public
institution. But if an institution isn't following the law,
isn't serving students well, we think it's important for there
to be an intervention.
Mr. Salmon. I agree that bad actors should be dealt with
appropriately, whether they're in the private sector or whether
they're in the public sector. And I'll just throw a couple
statistics that come off of the Department's College Scorecard.
San Antonio College, which is a public university, has a
graduation rate of 8 percent. The University of Maryland,
University College, a public university, has a graduation rate
of 4 percent. The West Coast University, Los Angeles, which is
a for-profit university, has a graduation rate of 85 percent.
And the Cambridge Institute of Health and Technology, a for-
profit university, has a graduation rate of 87 percent.
So there are really good actors and bad actors in both the
private and the public sector. And I just want to make sure
that as we go forward, that those students that are
participating in public universities, that your care and
concern for them is as great as it is for the students of
private universities.
Mr. King. Absolutely. It's a diverse sector, and I think
part of what those statistics point out is how much work we
have to do as a country on the issue of completion. And when we
think about the students who struggle to pay back their debt,
it's often the students who start but don't finish, and then
they're trapped in this cycle. They can't get a good job
because they don't have a degree, but they also can't pay back
their debt.
And so many of the proposals in our budget are focused on
that issue of completion, including in our public institutions.
The America's College Promise program really requires a set of
commitments to completion-focused policy changes in States that
would participate.
Mr. Salmon. I want to shift to student loans. My son-in-law
is a dentist now and graduated from Case Western dental school
in Ohio. His first year he took out a pretty significant
student loan and then decided, ``nuts to this,'' and he joined
the Army. They paid for the other 3 years, and he served 3
years as an Army dentist.
Now, this year that he took out for a student loan, the
repayment rate under a government monopoly student loan
process, the Federal Government basically has a monopoly on all
student loans now, but the repayment percentage is 9 percent.
Nine percent. And when he told me he wanted to investigate
refinancing it, he found out that it was against the law.
As I started talking to different folks about this, I come
to find this disparity, that graduate students actually pay a
higher percentage on their government monopoly student loans
than undergrad, even though their repayment rates are far
higher and the risk associated with graduate-level programs is
far less. In a private sector loan, they would be given a much
lower rate, but since it's a government monopoly loan, it's
higher.
I come to find out that the reason that they pay those
exorbitant rates and they can't refinance is that that's
actually revenue to the State. It's a hidden tax. And I would
just encourage all of my colleagues to really take a second
look at this. These monopoly loans from the government aren't
all they're cracked up to be and they're really penalizing a
lot of families.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. I'm happy to welcome you here today,
Dr. King. It was my pleasure to host you this past Friday for
Miami-Dade County's My Brother's Keeper Action Summit. It was
an honor to show you how our community leaders, elected
officials, and education community have committed themselves to
uplifting our young people.
I find myself very moved by your personal story. It is
truly a testament to the power of education. And I look forward
to working with you in the future to ensure we promote and
protect educational opportunities for our youth. I know you are
exceptionally qualified to be the Secretary of Education
because you were a principal.
I commend the President for submitting a budget that seeks
to expand access to a quality education and ensure our children
are college and career ready.
I have a couple of questions for you, and thank you. During
the ESSA conference committee, I was able to push through an
amendment that created an additional use of new Student Support
and Academic Enrichment Fund so schools can establish and
improve the dropout and reentry programs that give potential
dropouts the support they need.
The President's budget does not fully fund this new block
grant at the fully authorized levels. Has the Department
proposed flexibility to ensure LEAs can fund varied strategies
to support learning, including dropout prevention and reentry?
Mr. King. So first, Congresswoman, thank you for the
opportunity to join you in Miami for the My Brother's Keeper
event. Thank you for your leadership in the community around
ensuring that our young people are safe and have educational
opportunities.
We think there's tremendous opportunity as States and
districts move forward with implementation of the Every Student
Succeeds Act for districts to invest in smart strategies aimed
at reducing dropout rates, ensuring safe and supportive
environments for students, ensuring that students have access
to a well-rounded education.
In Title IV, we increase the funding. The programs that
were covered by Title IV in the `16 budget were at about $278
million. We increase that to $500 million in our budget. But we
were, again, operating within the constraints of the budget
caps and trying to make sure that we addressed the President's
priorities within those budget caps. But we do think those are
hugely important programs and think there's great opportunity
for LEAs to address student needs.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you.
I also want to know if you can speak to how the President's
budget takes steps towards training and attracting more diverse
school leaders.
Mr. King. Hugely important issue. You know, if you look at
our public schools today, the majority of the students in the
Nation's public schools today are students of color. And yet
only about 18 percent of our teachers are teachers of color.
Only 2 percent of our teachers are African American men. And so
we have work to do as a country to ensure a diverse teacher
workforce.
The President's budget includes a proposal around a Teacher
and Principal Pathways innovation grant program that would be a
grant that teacher preparation and school leader preparation
programs could leverage to make efforts to improve diversity.
We know, for example, in some communities paraprofessionals
are a place where there's much more diversity than among the
teaching staff. And if there was an opportunity to provide
coursework and training and to see those paraprofessionals as
future full-time teachers, you could add to your staff
diversity.
There are other places around the country where we see
districts struggling with recruiting bilingual teachers to meet
students' needs. And so this Pathways initiative would be
another opportunity.
There's also room, we think, for States and districts to
use Title II dollars for programs that would support the
effective diverse teacher workforce that we need.
Ms. Wilson. Okay. Can you speak more about proposals to
support strong early education programs, including
kindergarten?
Mr. King. Yeah. Early education is a top priority for the
administration. As you know, the President believes deeply that
early education can be the key to getting students off on the
right track as they start their education. The budget includes
Preschool for All with the goal that all students would have
access to high-quality preschool programs, particularly those
students who are most at risk.
The budget also includes an increase for the Preschool
Development Grant program that now will be managed in
partnership with Health and Human Services. That program is
already increasing the number of high-quality early learning
slots.
And one of the signature elements of our Preschool
Development Grants program and our Race to the Top -- Early
Learning Challenge program, for both of those initiatives, has
been the requirement for good collaboration around transitions
to kindergarten. We really see preschool not as separate from
the K-12 system, but as a part of the K-12 system. It's really
about building a quality P-12 pipeline.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here. I have several
questions for you. I'd be happy for you to answer with any time
that's remaining, but will ask for a written response for
questions you're not able to answer here today.
I'm very concerned about what's happening within your
Department's Office for Civil Rights and its impact on college
campuses across the country. For too long the OCR has gone
around Congress by legislating a new mission, and I'm deeply
concerned about the office's legitimacy and effectiveness on
these issues and the potential negative impact on students and
institutions. The office has used the Dear Colleague letter
process, an implied threat of investigation that would result
in the loss of Federal funds as a way to require action by
institutions.
Anything that can result in an expensive and protracted
investigation should be established by Congress through law.
And I'm very concerned that a number of the office's actions
encroach on our constitutional authority to make laws. The
office should follow the regulatory process that provides ample
time for notice and comment. There are significant issues that
should be addressed by stakeholders before the Department makes
a unilateral decision on how to address certain issues. And,
again, individual circumstances matter greatly.
To that end, these are questions. How many of the Dear
Colleague letters that have been issued over the past 6 years
were reviewed to determine they should have been submitted for
notice and comment? How many of those letters have had notice
and comment period prior to issuance? Who makes that
determination? Who's consulted about these significant changes
prior to the letters being written?
I'd also like to know what you plan to do to ensure this
process is reformed to give all relevant stakeholders time to
weigh in to ensure any new rules are the best way to prevent
discrimination in our schools and on campus.
Further, the Office of Civil Rights is busy touting how
many sexual assault cases it has opened, but the number of
cases isn't as important as providing justice in each
individual case. Many are concerned that the office's current
approach is counterproductive to reaching a just resolution, as
well as being costly and efficient.
How were these cases brought to the Department? How many of
the cases before the office have been closed? How long does it
take to close these cases? And are you publishing that
information along with the findings in each case while ensuring
that you're protecting student privacy?
And last, the President's budget includes a sizeable
increase in funding for student aid administration. However, at
a November hearing we heard testimony that FSA is not meeting
its statutory obligations to be accountable for its operations
or meet its mandated planning and reporting requirements. How
do you plan to ensure FSA is acting as an effective partner
with institutions as its PBO status requires?
So I welcome you to answer these. But I also would like a
written response to any you're not able to answer, by March 1.
Thank you very much.
Mr. King. Thank you, Congresswoman. Certainly our staff can
follow up with yours on some of the details here.
Just broadly on the first point, on the Office of Civil
Rights. Our goal in the Office of Civil Rights is to ensure
that the rights of students are protected and that our
campuses, whether it's our K-12 schools or our higher education
campuses, are safe and supportive environments for all
students. We think protecting students, both female and male
students, against sexual assault has to be a part of how we
ensure that our campuses are safe and supportive environments.
The Dear Colleague letters that we issue do not have force
of law. They are not, from our perspective, the same, clearly,
as a statute or a regulation. But they are an attempt to
provide clarity for the field and to answer questions that we
get.
Ms. Foxx. Is it not true, though, that the campuses feel
they have the force of law and that there is a strong
intimidation tone to those letters that you're issuing?
Mr. King. The letters generally try to do two things. One
is to clarify how the Department interprets existing law and
regulation to provide clarity. And also to provide models of
best practice, examples of best practice. And so that's the
goal with which we approach Dear Colleague letters.
When we do regulations, we follow the public comment
process or the negotiated rulemaking process and gather public
comment. Often the Dear Colleague letters are referencing
existing statutes or regulations that went through the comment
process.
Ms. Foxx. Well, I look forward to getting the detailed
responses to the questions that I've asked. Thank you very
much.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady yields back.
Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations, Dr. King, on your nomination. I wish you
an expeditious path through that process.
I know today is budget and tomorrow is Every Student
Succeeds Act. But I want to for a moment follow up on Ms.
Wilson's comments about the Student Support and Academic
Enrichment Grant program. You know, we authorized $1.65 billion
for these formula block grants, but the Department budget
requests only about a third of that amount and also proposes
making the grants competitive. The distribution formula was
designed to protect against some of the concerns of
consolidating programs. So I'm concerned about that.
So I have a two-part question. First, can you talk about
the disruption that could be caused by making these grants
competitive? There's a lot of potential from these formula
grants to sustain meaningful changes.
And second, I appreciate the challenges of designing a
budget that adequately funds programs. But I must tell you, I'm
currently circulating a letter to my colleagues urging their
support in an attempt to fully fund this program at its
authorized level. So are you confident that these additional
dollars, if we are successful in that request, will be put to
good use in our local school districts?
So the concern about the disruption and will these dollars
be put to good use. And I do want to save time for a higher ed
question quickly.
Mr. King. Thanks for the question. You know, I believe very
strongly in the programs that Title IV is intended to support,
whether it's school counseling or the work to ensure that
school environments are safe and supportive or the work to
ensure that students have access to a well-rounded education
that includes the arts and physical education or access to
advanced coursework, like AP classes.
So that's hugely important, and we think States and
districts have the opportunity to make good use of those Title
IV dollars. As I mentioned earlier, our proposal is an increase
over the funding that was in the four prior grant programs in
`16. And so it is a significant increase. We think $500 million
is a good start. Again, we were working, as you reference,
within the budget agreement caps.
Certainly look forward to working with you on this question
and with this committee as the budget process moves forward.
The priorities behind Title IV are ones that we share. I think
one of the challenges in administration will be ensuring that
the grants are of sufficient size that districts can make good
use of them to support exactly the intended programs.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. We've seen -- I've seen
over my years, though, that the competitive grant process
oftentimes puts smaller rural districts and underfunded
districts at a disadvantage.
Moving on to higher education, first in response to Mr.
Salmon's comments on student loans, I want to remind him that
Congress, we, set the interest rate. So I know my side of
aisle's certainly willing to work with him and all of you on
that side of the aisle to lower those rates so that the Federal
Government isn't profiting off of repayment.
So I also, like you, had student loans. I worked my way
through college. And last Congress I introduced the
Opportunities for Success Act, I'll be reintroducing, to
provide resources for low-income college students to
participate in meaningful internships. So I'm really interested
in the President's budget proposal for directing workstudy aid
to students most in need. So if you could address that.
And also I wanted to mention a bipartisan effort I'm
leading to give student loan borrowers the option to have their
income information automatically certified for income-based
repayment plans. And my hope is that the Department will work
with my office and the IRS to make it easier for borrowers to
choose to have their loan payments automatically based on their
income.
So can you talk about your commitment to this effort,
please, as well as that workstudy aid issue?
Mr. King. Sure. So let me say the challenge that we have as
a country is for sure helping -- one of the major challenges we
have is helping students think through how to manage their
student debt. It's one of the reasons we have been focused on
the income-based repayment plans for direct loans so that we
can cap the amount of money that students need to pay at 10
percent of their discretionary income so that students can
manage their debt. It's one of the reasons we think it's so
important to have good information for students at the outset
about their options, about the cost of their degree, about
their likely income when they leave a particular program.
We are very interested in working with you on issues around
workstudy. Workstudy can be transformative for students, both
in terms of the ways that it helps them to make their way
through college, but also workstudy is supporting students
doing very important public service activities on many
campuses, allowing students to really engage with the community
outside of their university. Many students can trace why they
became a teacher or why they went into public service to
experiences they had through workstudy.
So hugely important program. Eager to work with you on
that. And certainly eager to work with you on how we make the
income-base repayment program as efficient as possible and
increase participation in that program as much as possible.
Ms. Bonamici. Okay. I look forward to working with you.
Thank you.
Yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Rokita.
Mr. Rokita. Thank the chairman.
Acting Secretary King, thanks for being here today. I'm
currently chairing the kindergarten to 12th grade subcommittee,
and look forward to working with you. Just so know, my office
is always open, the phone's always available for you. That's
the relationship I had with your predecessor, and I offer it to
you here publicly.
Mr. King. Absolutely.
Mr. Rokita. A little bit of housekeeping to start off. I
was intrigued by Mrs. Foxx's line of questioning and
appreciated the March 1 deadline that she offered to get
written answers to her questions. I want to be clear for the
record that you agree that that's a reasonable deadline to get
written answers back.
Mr. King. I think so. I mean, I think our staff should
consult with hers on some of the--
Mr. Rokita. Could you take 5 seconds right now and ask your
staff if any questions she asked were unclear to them, because
I know they're going to help writing the response, and relay
those concerns to the microphone now?
Mr. King. No, it's just that we don't have our OCR team
here, and I want to make sure that we -- the OCR team keeps
very careful documentation of their cases. I just want to make
sure that we have adequate time to respond fully.
Mr. Rokita. So do you doubt you can make the March 1
deadline?
Mr. King. We will endeavor to meet the March 1 deadline.
But again, I want to make sure that our team consults on the
specifics of the questions.
Mr. Rokita. Do you feel any of Mrs. Foxx's questions were
unclear?
Mr. King. It's a question of whether we can gather all of
the specific material that she's interested in by March 1.
Mr. Rokita. Okay. But the questions were straightforward
and reasonable?
Mr. King. The questions were reasonable.
Mr. Rokita. Okay. Thank you, Doctor.
I also wear the hat -- or the curse -- of being vice
chairman of the Budget Committee, and so I'm very interested in
today's hearing from a couple of those perspectives. I see that
your administration has been proclaiming that the budget
adheres to the budget agreement reached by the previous Speaker
last fall, I believe in October. Yet it includes over $6
billion for new mandatory spending programs in 2017 alone.
Now, just two of those programs that we touched on a little
bit so far, Preschool for All and the College Promise programs,
are estimated to increase the deficit by $127 billion over 10
years -- $127 billion over 10 years alone. So I find it hard to
understand how that adheres to any kind of budget agreement.
This was my initial reaction: How does that adhere to any
budget agreement when we blow up the numbers that way?
So then you dig a little deeper, and I realized how you did
it. These programs, you moved them into mandatory spending
versus discretionary spending. And of course the heart of the
agreement was on the discretionary side. And for those watching
at home or wherever you may be tuning in, it's sort of a
confusing concept, not to us, but to others, mandatory versus
discretionary. Of course the appropriations process is all
discretionary spending. The budget is discretionary spending.
Congressman Rokita and the rest of us here, we all vote on
whether to dial up those numbers or dial down those numbers.
But what doesn't get touched and what is the majority of
our Federal spend every year and what is a majority of our $19
trillion in debt is the mandatory side. So as I read your
budget request, you're simply -- you're taking $127 billion in
terms of new spending, put it into mandatory programs, so we
can't touch it unless we reform that underlying program, which
we did in the Every Student Succeeds Act, and we'll probably
talk more about that tomorrow.
But you see the switch that I'm talking about here. People
would call it a gimmick. And this is your first time here in
this capacity on the Hill. You don't want to start off that
way. Did you have a hand in writing this budget?
Mr. King. The President's budget overall not only stays
within the caps agreed to on discretionary spending, but the
budget overall reduces--
Mr. Rokita. Yeah, I just said that. Sir, no, I'm sorry, let
me interrupt you. I just said that. Yes. It agrees to the
discretionary side of things by blowing up the mandatory side,
including a $127 billion increase in spending over 2 years on
your two programs, Preschool for All and College Promise.
So my question was, did you write this budget?
Mr. King. Again, the President proposes for the budget
overall tradeoffs that ensure that the budget overall,
including mandatory spending--
Mr. Rokita. Let's not start off like this. I know you're
new. You can easily say that Arne Dunkin wrote -- helped the
President write this. Did you have a hand--
Mr. King. I was actively involved in the conversations, as
was the entire team at the Department, working closely with OMB
to ensure--
Mr. Rokita. Do you think that's a responsible way to
budget, to move stuff from the discretionary side into the
mandatory side and then proclaim that you're adhering to an
agreement?
Mr. King. Again, the budget as a whole actually would
reduce the deficit. Each program that is proposed on the
mandatory side also has a pay-for--
Mr. Rokita. You're about ready, you've been nominated, to
hold the reins of an agency that spends billions of dollars,
and there's a tremendous amount of responsibility that goes
with that, as you know. Did you agree to move $127 billion of
new spending from the discretionary side out of the
appropriators' hands and out of the budget's hands to a
mandatory side of spending?
Mr. King. This budget commits to programs that we think are
hugely important for the country. Preschool for All, as you
know--
Mr. Rokita. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
I want to turn towards the preschoolers and early
education, and specifically parts B and C of the IDEA Act. As
you know, they are absolutely critical to addressing the needs
of our young children from birth through age 5 who experience
learning challenges, including, you know, they provide support
for preschools as well as State infrastructure for early
screening, referral, and intervention. I was delighted to see a
modest increase. You know these programs could use even more,
but we are grateful for the Department in doing that.
Can you address the priorities in the area of early
education, but specifically for young children with
disabilities?
Mr. King. Yeah. So hugely important role for preschool and
students' long-term success. And we think that's hugely
important for students with disabilities and for all students.
We do propose an increase in part B and C, and that is a
place where we tried to increase IDEA funding. But I would say
the Preschool for All proposal, which would move us towards
universal access, particularly for our highest need students,
to quality public preschool, would serve students with
disabilities quite well. And we think it's important that where
possible we have inclusive preschool environments. And ensuring
that access to preschool is available would allow more
communities to create inclusive preschool environments where
preschool students with disabilities are in the classroom with
general education preschool students.
Over the long term, I think there's more that we can do as
a country to support early identification. The earlier we
intervene with students, the better off we'll be. I know there
are proposals on the Health and Human Services side around Head
Start and so forth.
But in terms of the education budget, I think the
combination of Preschool for All, the increase for Preschool
Development Grants, which are jointly administered with HHS,
and the part B and C increases all reflect our deep commitment
to preschool.
Ms. Clark. Wonderful. Thank you.
I also wanted to ask you and follow up on some of my
colleagues' questions around year-round Pell grants, which I am
certainly hearing from my community colleges in Massachusetts
are critical.
And as we are looking at curriculum for community colleges
really with an emphasis on stackable certificates, so that our
students can get to that first job, I wonder how you see sort
of -- do you see any tension with your On-Track Pell Bonus
potentially between encouraging students to take a certain
number of credit hours versus getting that initial certificate
that may allow them to start on a career path quickly?
And some of the issues that I've heard coming up are really
the need for flexible ways that students can sign up for class
time, whether that be a longer class that doesn't meet as
frequently or a Saturday class, so that they can provide for
their families while furthering their education. I just wonder
if you could address that.
Mr. King. Yeah. So, you know, college completion is hugely
important to how we ensure America's long-term economic
competitiveness, and it is critical to solving some of our
challenges around student debt. And what we know from evidence
around the country is that programs that help students get to
completion can have a significant impact on graduation rates.
We know that there are programs -- for example, when I was
in New York, at City University of New York, a support program
that they have called ASAP for students who are in community
college literally doubled the completion rate. A small number
of supports for students doubled the completion rate from about
20 percent to 40 percent for Pell-eligible students, ensuring
that they would get to a degree.
So these proposals build on an evidence base. We know that
if students have an incentive to take more credits, increases
the likelihood that they'll complete. It's a small incentive
that we're proposing, $150 a semester, to encourage students to
take 15 credits. We know that campuses around the country,
University of Hawaii is an example of this, that have committed
to these 15-credit initiatives have then had to examine exactly
the issues you're describing. Do students have access to the
courses that they need each semester? Are there creative ways
to schedule those courses?
That's why we also propose an institutional bonus for
campuses that do a good job improving their completion rates
for Pell students, because often institutions can structure
their program design, the counseling they provide to students
to increase completion rates.
And then summer Pell builds on that as well. We know that
if students can stay on track and take those extra summer
courses, they are much more likely to graduate.
But you're right. We've got to do this all with attention
to making sure that we maintain space for innovative program
design on the part of institutions--
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I want to advise all my colleagues that I'm going to limit
time to 4 minutes so that everybody has a chance to engage in
the discussion and we can still meet the commitment to Dr. King
to get him out of here by his hard time.
And, Dr. Heck, we're going to start with limiting you.
You're recognized.
Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Secretary, for being here.
I represent the Clark County School District in southern
Nevada, which is the fifth-largest school district in the
country, which presents its own unique challenges. But one of
the bright spots that we have is our career and technical
education programs, which provide for very engaged students,
passionate teachers, and much higher graduation rates than the
general population.
CTE has that ``hold harmless'' provision in it that was
based on 1998 funding levels, which disproportionately impact
States that experienced rapid growth, like Nevada, in the
ensuing 18 years. A prior budget proposal would have shifted
money from CTE to another program, which would have then
invoked the ``hold harmless'' provision. I was glad that
proposal was not followed and has not reappeared. But I remain
concerned about that provision.
Can you tell me what ideas you have to ensure adequate and
equitable distribution of CTE funding to all States based on
current populations and need?
Mr. King. I'm certainly open to working with you on that.
As I had indicated earlier, we're hopeful that there will be a
reauthorization of the Perkins CTE Act, and I think that would
create an opportunity for discussions about allocation of
resources.
And also ways that we spur innovation. You know, in New
York, one of the ways that we were able to stretch the CTE
dollars was working through regional providers that were
serving multiple districts. And that allowed us to pool
students, pool resources, and create CTE programs that were
more cost effective.
So I think there's an opportunity in that reauthorization
discussion to get at exactly this issue.
Mr. Heck. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on
that.
Also, last year I introduced a bipartisan Simplifying the
Application for Student Aid Act with Reps. Roe, Polis, and
Pocan. The important legislation would require the Secretary of
Education to allow students to use their tax information from 2
years prior to fill out their FAFSA earlier. That would provide
a quicker response to students and therefore give them more
time to make important decisions about their college education.
Last year, the Department announced that it would use its
current authority to allow students to use that older data.
While, obviously, I agree with the concept and will continue
advocating for it, I'm concerned that the transition year,
where the same income year will determine two award years, will
cause confusion for students and burden for institutions.
Can you clarify for me how you will treat conflicting
information during the transition and explain when you will
provide schools with the detailed instructions for how to do so
given the October 1 implementation date?
Mr. King. And we're working to provide additional guidance
to schools. As you say, the prior-prior approach would apply
beginning next October, apply to all students. But there is
flexibility built into our student aid system for students aid
administrators at campuses to look at if there have been
changes in a student's circumstances. Because of course, even
as we move towards the prior-prior year tax return driving the
aid calculation, if a student's parent has lost a job or a
parent has passed away, we want there to be flexibility, and
student aid administrators would maintain that flexibility to
adjust awards based on that additional information.
Mr. Heck. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I'll yield back the balance of my time, pointing
out that I was able to get two questions in.
Chairman Kline. You are my hero, sir. The gentleman yields
back.
Mr. Polis.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I have three
questions for the Secretary.
And I'll give them all to you, and then hopefully you'll
have time to respond.
First of all, thank you so much for coming before us and
thank the Obama administration for putting forward a great
budget in this area. I especially want to thank you for the
administration's proposed funding increase for the Charter
School Program requested at $350 million. As you know, the
administration also supported the recent omnibus bill that had
an increase of $80 million of plus-up for fiscal year 2016
funding for charter schools, and I'm pleased to see the support
will continue under your leadership.
My three questions are, first, open education. Last year,
the Department indicated that access to open education
resources would be a priority for the Department's Office of
Education Technology. We see great opportunities to save
students money on textbooks, particularly at the higher ed
level, and I'd like you to address how the President's budget
request continues the Office of Ed Tech's commitment to
increasing access to open resources and ensuring materials
created with grants from the Department are available to the
public under an open license. That's the first one.
Second question, a few people have addressed, have brought
up the importance of summer Pell. I want to lend my voice to
that. I spoke with students in Boulder and Fort Collins at CSU
and CU about access to Pell Grants in the summer. I was hoping
you could briefly address how the administration's request for
funding summer Pell is important for students and your plans in
that area.
And then finally, dual enrollment. We're very excited in
Colorado, we found that a student is 23 percent more likely to
attend college if they took dual-enrollment classes in high
school. That is a class that is offered usually through a
community college for college credit. It's a great way to get
low-income kids or first-generation college-goers to access
college, sometimes even earn an associate's degree concurrent
with their high school degree.
What is the Department doing and what can the Department do
to support the growth of these programs, and what can Congress
do to ensure that more students have access to dual-enrollment
programs and access to low-cost or no-cost for-credit college
courses while they're in high school?
Mr. King. Great. Thank you, Congressman.
So on the issue of open educational resources, we think
there's a huge opportunity for savings and sharing -- sharing
of best practice, savings to schools and to students. And
that's true of K-12 and higher ed. There are some very
interesting efforts around the country around open educational
resources to lower the costs of textbooks for students at the
higher ed level. Certainly at the K-12 level, lots of
opportunities for sharing between educators across the country.
We have a regulation out that we just closed public comment
on that would require grantees, Federal grantees, to make their
resources available in an open way. We're reviewing that
comment now and are excited about that effort.
Summer Pell, I think, can be transformative for students.
Great examples around the country of the ways in which helping
students get to completion faster, manage their time better as
they work towards completion can improve outcomes. We think
Summer Pell will help with that. We've built that into our
budget proposal and see it in conjunction with the
institutional bonus for schools that improve completion rates
for Pell students as part of a multiprong strategy to improve
completion rates.
And then on the issue of dual enrollment, we've got a Pell
experimental site on dual enrollment. We've just received
applications from institutions around the country, higher ed
institutions, to use Pell for high school students to pursue
dual-enrollment classes. We're excited about that effort. The
research base on dual enrollment is very strong already, and we
will build that evidence base with this experimental site. But
there's also an opportunity in our proposed Next Generation
High School initiative for schools to use a dual-enrollment
approach.
Mr. Polis. And we're in my last 10 seconds, and I'd
appreciate a future follow-up. I just want to encourage you to
consider that a realistic way to deliver on the President's
commitment to make community college free is through our K-12
system and through concurrent enrollment. And I hope that you
can see that as, you know, one of our most realistic ways to
actually make that happen.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Polis. Thank the gentleman. I look forward to your
responses.
And I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary for being here. Appreciate you
being here today.
We've received some reports that the Federal Student Aid,
FSA, and the Office of Postsecondary Education, OPE, do not
always communicate effectively, and, in general, most offices
within the Department are siloed from each other, which harms
coordination and efficiency. This came to a head in November
when former Secretary Duncan sent a memo to FSA and to OPE
instructing them to find a better process for communicating
effectively in regards to accreditation issues.
How did this communication become so ineffective it
required a memo from the head of the agency? And then what are
you doing within the Department to make the communication
practices effective overall, better overall?
Mr. King. Two important parodies for me in this year are
continuing to strengthen the efficiency of management of the
Department and improving our efforts to ensure that the higher
ed sector delivers access, affordability, and completion. The
accreditation work is in that context, where we want to make
sure that we are transparent about the information on the
process that accreditors follow, we want to make sure that
accreditors are doing a good job fulfilling their
responsibility as part of the accountability for higher ed
institutions.
We worry that institutions like Corinthian which, you know,
failed -- Corinthian was accredited all the way through its
failure as an institution. And so we've got to make sure that
accreditors are paying close attention to institutional
performance.
That memo was issued in that spirit, to try to ensure that
we work together across the agency to strengthen the process
for monitoring and supporting accreditors, and we're going to
continue that work. We've also got legislative proposals, happy
to share those with you, on how we might improve the process
for accreditors.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And I believe Dr. Foxx had asked a
question at the end of her time and didn't have time for a
response. And just to remind you, because I know you've had a
lot of questions since then, she asked: How do you plan to
ensure FSA is acting as an effective partner with institutions
as its PBO status requires?
Mr. King. One of the proposals in the President's budget is
for an increase in staffing at Federal Student Aid. We see that
the loan portfolio is growing. So we've got to make sure that
we have the staff that we need to support that portfolio. We
are working with a variety of contractors, including servicers,
to try to improve the student borrower experience. We will soon
recompete the servicer contract, which will be an opportunity
to strengthen how servicers work with borrowers. I mentioned
earlier, we launched a new enforcement unit focused on ensuring
that where there are bad actors, whether it's in the for-
profit, non-profit, or public sector, that we have a strategy
to investigate and intervene.
So we have a number of initiatives underway to strengthen
the experience of students and institutions working with the
Federal Student Aid system.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you for your answers, and
congratulations on your selection. We look forward to working
with you over the next year.
And I yield back 40 seconds.
Chairman Kline. You also are my hero. Gentleman yields
back.
Ms. Adams.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And, Dr. King, thank you for testifying today and for
speaking with the Bipartisan HBCU Caucus a few weeks ago. It
was a pleasure to have you there and to know that we have a
bipartisan group of members on both sides of the aisle who are
very interested in this issue. I'm encouraged as well that you
will do well with your confirmation, and congratulations.
As you know, and many of my colleagues know, HBCUs have
been a priority of mine for a while. So I was pleased to see
the new HBCU/MSI Innovation for Completion Fund, and within it
the First in the World Program and the support for HBCUs. So
could you talk a little bit more about the decision to create
the program and support for HBCUs and ways that the Department
can work to address the funding discrepancies that have
historically existed for these schools?
Mr. King. Yeah. Thank you for your question. And thank you
for the opportunity to meet with the Bipartisan HBCU Caucus.
We think one of the critical issues that we need to work on
as a country is completion, ensuring that students who start
are able to finish school. We know there are examples around
the country, including HBCUs and MSIs, of smart initiatives to
provide counseling to students, to help students figure out the
right course selection, to help students think about internship
opportunities that will expose them to possible career choices
that might shape their course selection, just-in-time small
grants to help students manage some of the financial challenges
that come up in the day-to-day of their lives, student support
services where students may be struggling with challenging life
issues, whether that's domestic violence in a relationship or
issues of food insecurity.
So we know that those programs can help improve completion,
and when students get their degree, they are in a much better
position to be successful in the economy and to pay back any
debt that they may have.
First in the World was funded for 2 years, and there are a
number of grants, including to HBCUs and MSIs around the
country, that are showing early signs of promise around
improving completion through support services for students. We
think that's an important program to continue and needs to have
a set-aside for HBCUs and MSIs because of their critical role
in the economy and our culture.
Similarly, the HBCU/MSI Innovation Completion Fund is
designed to be targeted to HBCUs and MSIs that want to help
build an evidence base around what works to help students get
to completion.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Let me ask you another question which has
to do with the decision the administration made 5 years ago to
cut $10 million from the Ronald E. McNair Postbaccalaureate
Achievement TRIO program, which prepares low-income first-
generation minority students for graduate studies. And so I
understand that at that time the administration made the
decision to support efforts to improve STEM-based programs and
to help the Nation address the decline in our country's STEM-
trained graduates by focusing on students earlier in the
pipeline. So the direct result was the loss of the opportunity
for future scholars to pursue a graduate degree, which included
the program at Dr. McNair's and my alma mater, North Carolina
A&T, which sits in my district.
Given that Congress afforded a $60 million funding increase
to TRIO last year, will you consider restoring this program?
Mr. King. Yeah. We look forward to working with you on
this. We are pleased that there's funding there to continue the
McNair program at the prior level.
I would say that the TRIO programs have a hugely important
role on our campuses. TRIO programs are a key part of the
supports for first-generation college students. We have a
number of staff members and leaders at the Department who were
themselves beneficiaries of TRIO programs. And so we think
that's hugely important and look forward to working with you on
implementation.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Messer.
Mr. Messer. Thank you, Chairman.
Congratulations, Dr. King. It's great to have you here.
I want to start with a thank you and then a request for
help. The thank you comes with your predecessor and your team
back in September, the Federal Department of Education was very
helpful to charter schools in Indiana. And I sent a letter in
late September, that you may well be aware of, where it was
determined that there were $2.3 million in cuts to Indiana's
public charter schools, and at a time when you didn't have
similar cuts to the other public charter schools.
In immediate response to that letter, the Indiana
Department of Education reached out to the Federal Department
of Education, and you guys very clearly and very quickly told
them that their calculations were wrong and that they needed to
do something about it. In fact, you set up a meeting in late
September of those principals to charter schools, the State
Board of Education and the Indiana Department of Education, to
discuss that. So thank you. Thank you for your prompt action
there.
Now, this was where my request for help comes in, because
since that time there's been radio silence. You know, it's not
fair that we would penalize public school students who choose
to go to charter schools. And if we care about these kids, we
need to do something about it.
And so I have a couple quick questions. One, are you aware
of whether the Federal Department of Education has had any
follow-up with the Indiana Department of Education on this
issue?
Mr. King. We are still in conversation with the Indiana
Education Department and expect resolution of the issues. My
understanding is that they realize that their calculations were
in error, that they are intent on correcting them, and
certainly we can update you on that.
Mr. Messer. So they responded in September in response to
your advice that they had made the error. The Indiana
Department of Education and the State's public charter school
organizations say they haven't had any contact. So could you
commit to me that you will work again to bring these principals
back together to work on this issue?
Mr. King. Happy to do that. My understanding is that our
team has been consulting with the Education Department on the
necessary corrections. And I'll make sure that we follow up
with you and figure out the best next steps.
Mr. Messer. And to be clear, if those follow-ups have
happened, the public charter school organization has had no
further follow-up.
Mr. King. Got it.
Mr. Messer. And my understanding is the State Board of
Education as well.
And then lastly, you know, we're now 5 months later. We're
approaching the end of the year. Do you have any sense of when
these schools -- and most importantly, the students they serve
-- can count on getting that funding?
Mr. King. My understanding from the team is that it's
imminent, but I will make sure that our team updates you and
your staff on that.
Mr. Messer. Okay. Thank you very much. Again,
congratulations in this new appointment. You've done a very
impressive job today, frankly, of answering on a wide variety
of issues. And looking forward to the opportunity to work with
you.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Mr. Messer. Thank you.
And I yield back a minute, 2 seconds, Chairman.
Chairman Kline. My absolute hero.
Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good morning, I guess. With all the
destruction of students' financial futures caused by big
predatory for-profit colleges, and with so many of the students
now claiming fraud and demanding debt relief that could cost
taxpayers billions of dollars, with mounting law enforcement
investigations of these same companies, and with some of these
companies themselves in irresponsible, precarious financial
shape, does the Department think it makes sense to keep sending
these companies billions of our taxpayer dollars and sending
our students there?
Are you taking a harder look at the continued eligibility
of some of these companies for Title IX aid?
Mr. King. So our task is both to protect the interests of
students and taxpayers. We are very concerned about bad actors,
and where we've identified bad actors, we have acted. For
example, there's a set of schools, the Mariano schools in
California, that were recently -- Marinello Schools, sorry --
that were recently closed as a result of enforcement actions
that were taken.
We're going to continue to do that. We have proposed in
this budget $13 million for our enforcement unit. We are
directing existing resources towards that enforcement unit and
will grow the capacity of that enforcement unit.
Mr. Takano. I'm glad to hear that. I hope I can maybe talk
with you about, you know, just what schools are under review.
I'm very concerned about what happened.
I'm going to move on to the topic of Corinthian. Prior to
its collapse, Corinthian Colleges, Inc., faced countless
lawsuits and investigations by the SEC, the CFPB, many State
attorneys general, and others. Corinthian has since faced two
enforcement actions by the Department itself and lost its
lawsuit to the CFPB. But to date, despite staggering evidence
that the fraud at Corinthian was endemic across the chain, the
Department has only granted relief to less than 1 percent of
the affected students and only those who attended a single
school, Heald College.
When is the Department going to act to make good on former
Secretary Duncan's promise that students would get, quote,
``every penny of relief they're entitled to under the law,''
end quote?
Mr. King. Yeah. Our Special Master Joe Smith is working
through the requests for relief that we have currently. One of
the key elements in the requests for relief is evidence of a
State law violation, and so we've got to work through the
requests that we have so far. I think the amount that's been
granted in relief is now somewhere near $28 million already.
But we'll continue to work through that effort as quickly as
possible.
We also have a regulation process underway, a negotiated
rulemaking process underway around borrowers defense that will
allow us to set up, we think, more efficient procedures for
these issues going forward, because we do want to make sure
that where students have been wronged, that they are made whole
as quickly as possible.
Mr. Takano. Well, many students have been defrauded and
deceived, and there's a lot of bad actors in the industry.
Don't you think, you know, that the gentleman from Arizona, my
colleague's citation of graduation rates can be superficial and
even, I think, deceptive in terms of how they portray, I think,
a false comparison between graduation rates of a for-profit
college, depending on the program and the accreditation of that
school, and what goes on in a more general setting at our
public community colleges and universities.
Mr. King. One of the challenges in the sector is that in
many cases institutions are running a multitude of programs.
And some of their programs may have strong outcomes, others may
not. We know that we have institutions that sometimes
misrepresent the evidence of their graduation rates. And that's
one of the reasons why our enforcement work is so important.
Mr. Takano. So we should be skeptical about an 87 percent
or an 85 percent -- I mean, we'd have to look at the particular
institution.
Mr. King. Any institution's graduation rate, I think, we
have to make sure that they have the evidence to back that up
and that it's consistent across programs.
Mr. Takano. My time is up. I'm sorry.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. King, thank you for joining us today.
I wanted to focus my question on higher ed. The district I
represent in the north country in New York State, I
consistently hear from students, financial aid administrators,
concerned parents that our financial aid system is overly
complex and nonintuitive. And I believe that instead of
confusing students, our aid system should enable individuals to
quickly attain the skills necessary to work and to contribute
to our economy.
Which is why last year, along with my colleagues, Mr.
Curbelo and Mr. Hinojosa, I introduced the Flexible Pell Grant
for 21st Century Students Act. And I thank you for your
positive comments on the year-round Pell bill. And I also want
to thank my colleagues, Ms. Clark and Mr. Polis, for their
positive comments on year-round Pell, and I encourage them to
cosponsor this bill.
Not only does this bill encourage students to complete
their degrees at an accelerated pace, but the bill also directs
the Secretary to provide annual financial aid reports to Pell
students to help them make the right financial decisions for
their unique situation.
So my question for you is, in the year ahead, how do you
intend to ensure that we are providing all students with the
necessary counseling, especially those most in need as they
navigate postsecondary education with a very complex student
loan repayment program?
Mr. King. Helping students to make good decisions about
their course-taking, their borrowing, is critical. And then
once students have left school, making sure that they have good
advice and counseling around how to manage their debt is
critical.
A number of things in this budget that I think work towards
that. Certainly summer Pell, the bonus for students who are
taking 15 or more credits will help in that direction. The
institutional bonus for institutions that ensure their Pell
students actually graduate and complete, I think that
institutional bonus will cause institutions to provide more of
just the kind of support services and counseling that you're
describing.
We are taking steps at Federal Student Aid to try to
simplify the process. We have made the FAFSA form itself
simpler. We've made more information available online through
the College Scorecard. We're moving on October 1 to an earlier
launch date for the FAFSA and also to the use of prior-prior
tax return to simplify the process of providing tax
information.
So there are good steps underway, I think, in the
Department, but I look forward to working with you. I think
there are some changes in law that we could make that would
make the process even more transparent. I should also say this
budget includes a simplification of income-based repayment, and
certainly interested in working with you on that as well.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you very much. I look forward to
working with you and the administration on this issue to
simplify a very complex program that is causing significant
heartburn to students and parents and administrators at our
higher ed institutions. Thanks.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Very impressed with the cooperation here.
Mrs. Davis, you're recognized.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Dr. King, for being here and for taking on
this critical leadership position.
I wanted to ask you particularly about teachers. I'm afraid
I'm doing double duty here today, so I was in another
committee. It's my understanding that you haven't spoken too
much about teachers today, and we know that they're absolutely
critical in a student's achievement and personal future.
One of the issues that's critical is around teacher
diversity and making sure that people understand why this is
important. So perhaps you could address that.
The other is in California, particularly, we're looking at
a teacher shortage that's significant. And many retired
teachers understand why that's true. And, in fact, a recent
article basically said that most retired teachers would never
recommend to their kids that they become teachers.
Now, that's something that we have to be very concerned
about. And sometimes people see this, I think, as a State
issue, a local issue, one that the Federal Government ought not
be involved in. So I wonder if you could address that as well.
And then in terms of teacher professionalism initiatives,
what are the key initiatives that you would like to not just
engage in, but you would like to see your time in office that
really raises the professionalism of teachers? What are the
current programs? What more -- what can be done? Because as we
all know, teachers are concerned that if they take on some of
the leadership roles within schools that they would be taken
out of their classroom even, and those are dedicated teachers
who don't want to do that.
Mr. King. Yeah. Thanks.
Mrs. Davis. I'm sorry. A little bit of time to address it.
Mr. King. Thanks for the question.
This is a hugely important issue. I am very worried about
the ways in which the tone around teaching, I think, over the
last decade has led folks to feel blamed or attacked. I think
it's scary for the country that young people are less
interested in the teaching profession. So we have got to change
that. That's one of my priorities for this year, is to try to
lift up the teaching profession. I was a teacher. My parents
were teachers. I get the role that teachers play in kids'
lives.
The President's budget includes a proposal called Best Job
in the World that would dedicate a billion dollars of resources
to a variety of initiatives around supporting teachers. That
includes increases in the Teacher Incentive and School Leader
Incentive Fund, because we think it's important that we attract
highly effective teachers and principals to high-need schools.
We think it's important to create resources for schools,
create collaboration time for teachers. Often, you know, when
you talk to teachers about what's frustrating about the job,
the lack of time for collaboration with colleagues to improve
instruction, to support students, is a major issue, a major
working conditions issue. This billion-dollar investment would
help to address that.
We also dedicate resources towards Teacher and Principal
Pathways, because we think we need innovation in teacher prep
and school leader prep to make sure that we have a diverse
workforce that's well prepared for the diverse classrooms of
the 21st century.
And we also are planning at the Department a number of
efforts to try to lift up teacher leadership from the
classroom. We've got the Teach to Lead program, and that's
funded in the budget. It's a small amount of money, $10
million, but that would help provide grants to teachers around
teacher-led projects to improve their schools and districts.
And then we also are doing work at the Department to try to
lift up the issue of teacher diversity. We worry a tremendous
amount about the lack of diversity in many places, and we want
to make sure that districts and teacher prep programs and
school leader prep programs are committed to recruiting diverse
students.
Mrs. Davis. I hear all that, and I think that's great. I
think on the other hand we need -- it is about resources, it's
about critical mass. So I would just encourage that as we're
looking at that we need to make sure that we have enough
momentum going on in schools to really be able to demonstrate
what a great difference it makes if it's done correctly.
Mr. King. That's right.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Obviously, student debt is a huge problem out
there. Are you in favor of allowing students to refinance their
debt at a lower interest rate?
Mr. King. We'd be interested in working with you on that.
Through our Income-Based Repayment program we've tried to focus
on for direct loans and showing that we can cap the amount of
discretionary income that students are required to pay. But
certainly open to talking about other strategies that would
allow students--
Mr. Grothman. Well, I'm just saying across the board. I
don't like this idea of penalizing people, you know, penalizing
certain people. Do you think it would be a good idea just in
general to say we can refinance debt?
Mr. King. I think if there are ways that we can help
students to consolidate debt and take advantage of some of the
existing direct loan programs, including the income-based
repayment, I think that's something that we should explore
Mr. Grothman. It's something I'd like to do. And we're,
obviously, going to go into a very difficult budget right now.
I realize, you know, a certain level has been agreed to, but we
also have a dip in the economy. So income's not going to come
in as quickly as we said.
President Obama has proposed particularly huge mandatory
spending increases, and even a 2 percent increase in your
budget here. Do you have any suggestions of things you don't
feel are as necessary in your proposed budget if we have to
pare it back, particularly if we have to pare it back to allow
students to refinance?
Mr. King. We think that investments that are in this
proposed budget will actually produce long-term savings. You
know, if you think about the benefits of preschool for all, for
example, we know that students who are in high-quality
preschool are less likely to end up needing remedial services
later.
So that is a strategy, yes, it's an upfront investment, but
over the long run will have a strong return on investment.
Mr. Grothman. So your idea would be greater in debt now,
but down the road it's going to pay for itself 20 years from
now or something.
Mr. King. It's the idea that if we make these investments
in preschool, in the skills that students would get through
community college experiences, funded through America's College
Promise, that the long-term return to our economy justifies
those initial investments.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. A lot of your investments are in 4-year
college. In my district, I am finding a lot of people, perhaps
egged on by people giving them student loans or Pell Grants,
are spending a significant amount of time going to a 4-year
college and later on they wind up going back to a tech school
because their degree, their 4-year degree, was not helpful at
all.
Do you have any proposals out there in which maybe we could
prevent these kids from wasting their time in the first place
and they can go or be pushed immediately into some sort of
education in which they could get a job rather than wasting, to
a certain extent, taxpayers' money, but also their own money
and time in getting a degree that's not helpful?
Mr. King. One of our challenges, I think, in the higher ed
sector generally is how do we help students make good decisions
about the relationship between their choice of school, choice
of degree, and their long-term earnings. It's one of the
reasons we think the College Scorecard provides helpful
information to students, because it gives them the sense of the
likely earnings that students would have leaving a particular
school.
Mr. Grothman. I don't mean to cut you off, but my chairman
is going to bang the gavel.
Do you agree that there are many people going for a
traditional degree today who would be better off not going for
that degree?
Mr. King. You know, I think it's a broader question of
whether our students are choosing the degree that makes the
most sense for their life plan, and that's where I think the
College Scorecard could be helpful. It's also where the
institutional bonus for Pell completion rates would be helpful,
because then institutions would be incentivized to provide more
counseling for students on just these issues.
Mr. Grothman. Right. Do you feel guilty if you've given a
large student loan to somebody and they don't get a decent job
and have to go back maybe to a tech school 5 or 6 years later?
Does that make you feel guilty?
Mr. King. I think as a country we have to be very aware
that we have so many students who, A, are starting but not
finishing, which is a huge challenge, and that there are
students who are finishing and then not able to be successful
in the 21st century economy. It's one of the reasons why the
President's budget invests in efforts, joint efforts between
education and labor to make sure that we are getting students
into programs that help give them skills that will allow them
to compete in the 21st century economy.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. Thank you
for your testimony. You certainly have outlasted the rest of
the committee. Congratulations on that.
I have just one question, in fact, and I wanted to get your
input, if I could, on the Department of Labor's proposed
overtime rule and really your input as to what I've been
hearing from a lot of folks in the education community that it
would have a dramatic effect on higher ed all the way down to
our local school districts.
Just specifically, I've heard from a number of small
colleges in my home State of Michigan about the potential
negative impacts of this new rule. One college, very small,
1,700 students, told me they could face up to a million-dollar
increase in costs per year under this new rule.
There are other examples across the country. As I looked
into the issue, I found the university system of Maryland, for
example, estimates that they could see an increase in costs of
up to 40 million in just the first year. The University of
Florida, which has 12 universities in all, faces a cost of 62
million annually -- $62 million. Community colleges in Iowa
estimate that this rule would have raised -- could have raised
their costs in 2016 so far up to $12.6 million. That's just in
the first quarter. There are so many examples, and I won't get
into all of them because we have limited time, but it's of
great concern.
I should note that the rule will also have negative impacts
on school employees. Many of them will be reclassified as
hourly employees to try and deal with this rule. That would be
considered by most as a demotion. The rule would also limit
opportunities in the workplace, such as flexible schedules and
career development.
And, obviously, too this has a huge impact on the other
side too, increasing costs for colleges and universities at all
levels, and that trickles all the way down to everybody who's
got to pay for colleges, students, parents, and it's really
having a hugely devastating effect.
And I'm not certain that this was intended to be the case,
but I do know that it is the case, and I just wondered if you
could give me some of your thoughts about the proposed rules
and some of these issues that have been raised.
Mr. King. Yeah. I mean, I would defer to my colleagues at
the Department of Labor on the specifics of the rule. I would
say as a general matter, whether it's issues around overtime or
paid leave or minimum wage, I think at the end of the day
investing in our workforce results in a stronger middle class
that in the end then allows for more resources for higher
education, for early education, for K-12 education.
So in the long run, I think those kinds of efforts to
protect employees and protect the interests of employees are
important to the overall economy. But, again, I would defer to
my colleagues at the Department of Labor on the specifics of
the rule.
Mr. Bishop. But can you at least acknowledge that there
are, clearly, issues that have been raised and might be a real
concern? These might be unintended consequences, but, in fact,
they are legitimate concerns raised by colleges and
universities and local school districts?
Mr. King. I think colleges and universities, like other
employers, need to develop strategies that make sense for their
employees and for their long-term--
Mr. Bishop. That's why they raise the issue, because
they're trying to do that but they have limited dollars. And
all I want is to raise the issue with you to make sure that
it's on your radar screen so that you might have an opportunity
to speak with Secretary Perez on the issue, because it's a real
concern. And these are people that, obviously, you have
jurisdiction over. They are both students, they are teachers,
they are colleges and universities, and it's important. I just
wanted to raise it to your attention.
I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
All members have had a chance to engage in the discussion,
so we are getting ready to close. And I will yield to Mr.
Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look forward to working with the Secretary as we address
the challenges of early childhood education, elementary and
secondary, and affordability of higher education.
Mr. Chairman, we had spoken earlier about the situation in
Flint, Michigan, and the Secretary, the Department is
developing an appropriate response. There are a lot of things
that need to be done. For example, early childhood education,
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. A lot of early
intervention can go a long way into mitigating the problems.
And we need to make sure that we have a specific educational
response so if we can do an emergency supplemental, we'll know
what needs to be in it for the programs under our jurisdiction.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting the Secretary. I
yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
I'd just a note, I'm sorry, obviously, people, all members
here are rushing between hearings. Ms. Bonamici was talking
about how Congress sets the student loan interest rates. It is
true that in a bipartisan way, working with the administration,
the Obama administration, a formula -- Congress was involved in
creating a formula. But as you know, the rates are determined
now by the market. Congress doesn't sit here and decide with a
Ouija board, or whatever they used to do, what those interest
rates ought to be. I just want to be clear about that.
I want to thank you, Dr. King, for being here today. And I
really do appreciate your willingness to come back tomorrow and
letting us really get into a discussion of the Every Student
Succeeds Act. Great interest to us and to you and to the
Department and I think to people across the country, because
we're already starting to hear from stakeholders in our States
and districts. So we're really looking forward to that.
And, again, good luck to you tomorrow afternoon as you move
to the wrong side of the Capitol for those discussions.
There being no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
Mr. King. Thank you.
[Questions submitted for the record and their responses
follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]