<DOC>
[DOCID: f:49104190.wais]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:45 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Specter, Craig, Harkin, Kohl, Murray, and
Landrieu.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SPELLINGS, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY: THOMAS SKELLY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET SERVICE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER
Senator Specter. Good morning Ladies, and Gentlemen, the
subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
will now proceed with our hearing on the budget from the
Department of Education. I regret our delayed start, but we
just finished a vote on the PATRIOT Act, and Senator Harkin was
on the floor and should be here I think, shortly. Scheduling
has been complicated because of this vote. As you know we had
moved the time from 9:30 to 11:00 and then back to 10:30 and we
don't like to keep people waiting, especially the Secretary of
Education. But we welcome you here, Madam Secretary.
You were confirmed on January 20, 2005. You have extensive
experience working for the President when he had been a
Governor; you were Assistant to the Secretary for Domestic
Policy. You were Senior Advisor to then Governor Bush with
responsibilities for developing and implementing the Governor's
education policy. You are a graduate of the University of
Houston, with a bachelor's degree in political science and
journalism.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Madam Secretary, I shall be relatively brief because of our
time here, our late start. Without objection, my written
statement will be included in the record. As you and I have
talked briefly earlier this week, I'm concerned about the
overall budget. We had a budget for this subcommittee, which
has in addition to the Department of Education, Health and
Human Services and Labor, which fell about $8 billion short
when you figure the cuts and take into account, inflation. I
know that it is difficult as a loyal member of the
administration when you have the policies working up through
the Office of Management and Budget. But as I said to you in
our telephone conversation, and as I've said repeatedly, I
think there's a real need for someone in your position to be a
tough advocate for your Department. Education is simply under
funded. When I took a look at the President's budget, we're
always asked for comment and I wanted to be definitive and
brief and chose the word scandalous which I think it is. I know
the President, the administration have tremendous problems in
many, many areas but when you have so much money for the
National Institutes for Health, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and Worker Safety, and Mine Safety, and
important education programs, it's simply insufficient to have
continual cuts on discretionary programs. We're regrettably
moving to a system where there will be no discretionary funding
at all. We'll all be out of jobs. The Appropriations Committee,
which used to be--was once a powerful committee.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Arlen Specter
This morning, the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education will discuss the President's $54.410 billion 2007 budget
request for the Department of Education. We are delighted to have
before us the distinguished Secretary of Education, the Honorable
Margaret Spellings, our Nation's 8th Secretary of Education.
Madam Secretary, your impressive biography clearly illustrates your
abilities and potential for leading this important Department. Being a
mother of two school-age daughters gives you important insights into
your other job as Secretary of Education.
This subcommittee is pleased to see several shared priorities
funded in the fiscal year 2007 budget including the $200 million
request for school improvement grants, $380 million for the American
Competitiveness Initiative, and additional funding for foreign language
instruction and the Advanced Placement Program.
However, I am concerned that the budget is $2.1 billion below the
fiscal year 2006 level and that there are 42 program eliminations. For
example, $303 million currently available for Gear-Up, which provides
for the transition from seventh grade to college; $1.2 billion for
State grants for vocational and technical education programs; and $23
million for correctional education programs all are proposed for
elimination. The Pell Grant maximum award is frozen at $4,050 for the
fifth year in a row.
I know, Madam Secretary, that you can appreciate the difficult
tradeoffs that this subcommittee will need to negotiate in the coming
months as we balance the competing pressures of biomedical research,
worker protection programs and continued investment in our Nation's
youth. Madam Secretary, I look forward to working with you to craft an
appropriations bill that maintains our commitment to fiscal restraint
while preserving funding for high priority programs.
Senator Specter. Senator Landrieu, would you care to be
acting ranking and make an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Specter. Or not be acting, just make an opening
statement.
DEPARTMENT LAUDED FOR HURRICANE RESPONSE
Senator Landrieu. It's hard shoes to fill, but I will make
an opening statement. Just very briefly because I appreciate
that we want to hear our witness. But I wanted, Mr. Chairman,
to be here this morning to give compliments to this
Department--being mindful of what you said and agreeing with
the level of funding which I'll get back to in a minute. Which
I fully agree is scandalous. But Madam Secretary, your
Department has been really a model of partnership for the State
of Louisiana through the most difficult time that our State has
experienced. I spoke to the Secretary, Mr. Chairman, privately
before to let her know that if every Department of the Federal
Government had worked this honestly, this reliably, with us we
would not be experiencing the problems that we're experiencing
now. In all of the calls, and I had thousands of calls about
Katrina and Rita and the devastation that occurred, not one
call did my office receive from any school or university in the
country or from any parent saying they couldn't find a place
for their child, or their young person to go to school. Number
one, because the word went out across the country, please take
the 330,000 children that showed up for school on Friday; the
hurricane hit on Sunday, and they had no school to go to on
Monday.
Mr. Chairman, it's a credit to the education establishment
in this country that almost to my knowledge, every high school
student, every elementary school student, and every college
student that wanted to, found a place to continue their
education of the last 6 months, and Madam Secretary, I think
you deserve a lot of credit for that.
Second, the quickness in which we were able in a bipartisan
way, we were able to implement with the chairman's help and
assistance the special funding for getting our schools back up
and started also is a great model. Having said that, we still
have many problems as you know. We're hoping the new school
system that emerges in New Orleans can be a model for the
Nation as it emerges as a network of public charter schools and
we're going to need your ongoing help and commitment to that
end.
We do have problems with FEMA in terms of reimbursing and
not reimbursing for school construction, we've lost over 100
school buildings, Mr. Chairman, which is a great strain on any
system, to have to try to build the physical plants as well as
the internal operations. But I did want to start with that and
then finally say, having said that, the overall budget for the
Nation is just not sufficient to meet the new standards and
challenges that we have set for our schools as we struggle to
provide excellence, opportunity, no guarantee Madam Secretary,
but an opportunity.
TITLE I FUNDING
Title I funding, is the only Title that helps poor and
lower middle-income children get the resources they need; to
have the kinds of schools they need to be excellent. With that
funding decreasing I don't know how our poor counties and
middle-income counties that are struggling can meet the targets
of No Child Left Behind, which means closing that achievement
gap. So that's what I'm going to focus on in the committee and,
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
Senator Specter. Well thank you very much, Senator
Landrieu. Well welcome again, Madam Secretary, the floor is
yours, and we look forward to your testimony.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SPELLINGS
Secretary Spellings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It
does seem like all roads lead to you today, and so I'm at your
service, and thank you for all your work that you're doing, not
only in this arena, but in many others.
EDUCATION FUNDS DISBURSED FOR HURRICANE RECOVERY
Senator Landrieu, thank you for your very generous
comments. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and your
support. Let me begin first, by thanking all of you for your
work on behalf of the victims of hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
As Senator Landrieu has talked about, we've worked a lot on
that. After you passed the Hurricane Education Recovery Act in
December, we sent immediately $250 million to Louisiana,
Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama to help re-open schools in the
region. That was in addition to $20 million that we sent to
help open, or re-open, charter schools for affected students in
Louisiana, and more than $200 million that we sent to help
college students in the region. We'll be sending another $500
million in aid to these States in the coming days, and we've
been consulting with experts at the Federal, State, and local
levels, reviewing records from tax data, property loss data,
and insurance claims, to make sure that this money is allocated
fairly.
We'll also be providing $645 million to reimburse districts
all over the country for the cost of educating displaced
students, as they've done so welcomingly, and so well. We've
been working with States to help accelerate this process and to
identify the number of displaced students so we can begin
sending this money to schools.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 EDUCATION BUDGET REQUEST
But today I'm here to talk about the President's budget,
and it's more important than ever that we spend taxpayer
dollars wisely and well. Since taking office in 2001, the
President has worked with you to increase funding for education
by about 30 percent. The new budget increases education
spending in key areas, but, as you've observed, not across the
board. I know together we have a very tough job ahead. The
programs you make funding decisions for are discretionary and
you don't have much room to maneuver. It's only getting harder
to fund priorities and reduce the deficit, because of the
rising cost of entitlement spending.
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
At the same time, as policymakers we must focus on results.
We've looked at data to see what policies are working for
students, and where we can save taxpayers money or work more
efficiently and effectively by eliminating and consolidating
less effective programs. Raising student achievement is always
our watch word. The President's new American Competitiveness
Initiative would devote $380 million to strengthen K-12 math
and science education. Overall the Department of Education will
increase funding for its programs in these critical fields by
51 percent. The President has asked me to form a national math
panel of experts to help us bring together the best research on
proven strategies for teaching math; just as we've done in
reading. His budget includes $250 million for a new program
called Math Now, that will help elementary and middle school
students develop the academic foundation to eventually take
higher-level classes in high school, such as Advanced Placement
courses. The trouble today is that more than a third of our
high schools offer no AP classes and that needs to change,
especially when we know that students are going to need these
skills in a world where 90 percent of the fastest growing jobs
require postsecondary education.
The President has also called for $122 million to prepare
an additional 70,000 teachers to lead Advanced Placement and
International Baccalaureate classes in math, science, and
critical foreign languages. The budget includes $25 million to
help recruit 30,000 math and science professionals to become
adjunct high school teachers in these critical areas.
I know there are concerns about resources, but in reality
we have resources available around these priorities. Currently
13 different government agencies spend about $2.8 billion on
207 different programs for math and science. The problem is
that these programs are in their own silos with little or no
coordination with No Child Left Behind and its goals for
raising student achievement. It's a 1,000 flowers blooming and
maybe even a few weeds throughout the Government.
We should align these efforts with the principles of No
Child Left Behind by continuing to hold schools accountable for
getting students to grade-level proficiency by 2014, and by
giving local policymakers and educators resources, authority,
and the research base to do what's best.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT AND HIGH SCHOOL REFORM
Thanks to No Child Left Behind, we've reached a point where
we have the data to see what's working in our schools and what
needs to work better. We're proposing a new $200 million School
Improvement program to help States use what we've learned to
turn around schools in need of improvement. Now we must build
on the foundations of the NCLB law, which is working in grades
three through eight, to extend the benefits of assessment and
accountability for results into our high schools, with the
President's $1.5 billion high school reform proposal. There's a
wide and growing consensus that we have a problem in our high
schools and we must work together to address these issues. A
high school diploma must be a record of achievement and not
just a certificate of attendance. If we raise the bar, our
students will rise to the challenge just as they always have,
but we must give them the skills to compete.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you. I'd be glad to answer any questions. With me
today is Tom Skelly, our Budget Director, who tells me he's
been doing this since 1976. So he knows what he's doing by now.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Margaret Spellings
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the President's 2007 budget for
education. I know you have received our Congressional justifications
and other background materials laying out the details of our request,
so I will concentrate on a few key highlights.
President Bush is requesting $54.4 billion in discretionary
appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2007. We
are proposing significant increases in key areas, as well as
substantial savings from reductions in lower priorities. The result
would be a discretionary total that is up more than $12 billion, or 29
percent, since fiscal year 2001.
We know the 2007 budget process will involve difficult trade-offs
among existing programs, just as was the case with the 2006
appropriations bill. In 2006, we saw that this Subcommittee was willing
to balance funding for priority programs with reductions and
eliminations in other activities, and we hope you will take the same
approach in 2007.
For example, our budget would save $3.5 billion by eliminating
funding for 42 programs. These reductions and terminations reflect the
Administration's longstanding goal of providing local control,
streamlining government to avoid unnecessary duplication, and targeting
taxpayer dollars to those programs with the greatest promise of
improving student outcomes. Let me add that we very much appreciate the
efforts of this Subcommittee last year in eliminating five Department
programs, and making significant reductions in several others, in order
to better target existing resources. We look forward to working with
you on this goal again this year.
A BROAD EMPHASIS ON COMPETITIVENESS
President Bush has made ensuring American competitiveness in the
global economy a strong priority in his overall 2007 budget, primarily
through his American Competitiveness Initiative. Several of the
increases in the Department's request are part of that Initiative, and
I'll say more about them in a minute, but I think most of you would
agree that we need to address the competitiveness issue in America's
schools now, this year. This is why most of our major increases for
2007--not just those included in the President's Initiative--are aimed
at keeping our students, and our workforce, competitive for the 21st
century.
In that context, a key proposal for 2007 is a renewed request for
High School Reform, a $1.5 billion initiative to support a wide range
of locally determined reforms aimed at ensuring that every student not
only graduates from high school, but graduates with the skills to
succeed in either college or the workforce. The High School Reform
proposal also would require States to assess students, in reading or
language arts and math, at two additional grades in high school. NCLB
currently requires assessments in these subjects for just one high
school grade. We believe the additional assessments are needed to
increase accountability and give parents and teachers the information
they need to keep all students on track toward graduation. And more
generally, these assessments will help researchers and policymakers
understand more about what works and what doesn't work in our high
schools, a key goal when about 1 million high school students a year
drop out, at great cost to our economy and society. Too many students
drop out, and too many of them are minorities.
We also are seeking $100 million for the Striving Readers program,
which is applying the lessons of the successful Reading First model,
which translates research into practice to improve reading instruction
for young children, at the secondary school level. The $70 million
increase for this program would expand support for the development and
implementation of research-based methods for improving the skills of
teenage students who are reading below grade level, and who otherwise
might end up dropping out of school. It's hard to compete with anyone
if you don't finish high school.
MATH AND SCIENCE
A critical new focus for 2007 is on improving student achievement
in math and science from the early grades through high school, and the
President is seeking $380 million in new funding to support this goal
through his American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). That total
includes $250 million for two proposed programs we call Math Now, one
focused on developing and implementing proven instructional practices
for students in grades K-6, and one to support research-based
interventions for middle school students. Both initiatives would be
guided by the recommendations of a National Mathematics Panel that I
will appoint soon, and that will be charged with identifying essential
math content and sound instructional principles, just as the National
Reading Panel did for reading instruction.
Another key ACI request is a $90 million increase for the Advanced
Placement program, to expand incentives for training teachers and
encouraging students, particularly in high-poverty schools, to take
high-level Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses
in math, science, and critical foreign languages. We also are proposing
a new requirement for State or private-sector matching funds to expand
the reach of the AP program, so that we can train an estimated 70,000
teachers over the next five years. Over the long term, this proposal
would increase the number of students taking AP-IB exams in math,
science, and critical foreign languages from 380,000 today to 1.5
million in 2012, and triple the number of students passing these tests
to 700,000 by 2012.
I believe that increasing the number of American students studying
and gaining fluency in critical foreign languages is essential not only
for our national security, as suggested by the President's National
Security Language Initiative, but also to maintain our economic
competitiveness. That's why I'm very pleased that our request includes
$35 million in new funds for a package of proposals that would
encourage more students to master a critical foreign language. The
largest proposal is $24 million for Advancing America Through Foreign
Language Partnerships, a new program that would link postsecondary
institutions with school districts to support language learning from
kindergarten through high school, as well as advanced language study at
the postsecondary level.
BUILDING STATE CAPACITY FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
We continue to make good progress in implementing No Child Left
Behind, with scores on State assessments up significantly across the
country, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress showing
real improvements in closing achievement gaps, especially in the early
grades addressed by key NCLB programs like Title I and Reading First.
Our 2007 request would help maintain that positive momentum, while
providing a new push in the area of school improvement. Our budget
would provide $12.7 billion for Title I Grants to Local Educational
Agencies, which is the foundation of NCLB, while funding a $200 million
School Improvement Grants program. This initiative would help States to
establish and expand the statewide systems of improvement and support
that are essential to the long-term success of NCLB. If we're going to
reach the 100-percent proficiency goal by 2013-14, we need to make
continuous improvement our watchword, and our request would help States
do just that.
Our request also would support additional options for students
enrolled in schools that have been identified for restructuring--these
are chronically low-performing schools that have not made adequate
yearly progress under NCLB for at least 5 years. The $100 million
America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids program would permit the
parents of such students to transfer their children to a private school
or to obtain intensive tutoring or other supplemental services,
including after-school and summer-school instruction. The President
believes that for accountability to be meaningful, there must be real
consequences for schools and real options for students and parents.
OTHER PROGRAMS
The 2007 budget would provide a $100 million increase for the
reauthorized Special Education Grants to States program, for a total
increase of $4.3 billion, or 69 percent, over the past five years. We
also would maintain a $4,050 Pell Grant maximum award with a $12.7
billion request for that program, while continuing to support the new
Academic Competitiveness Grants and National SMART Grants program. I
want to thank the Members of this Subcommittee, along with your
colleagues in the House, for supporting these critical new grant
programs. In particular, SMART Grants complement the President's
American Competitiveness Initiative by awarding up to $4,000 annually
to third- and fourth-year postsecondary students majoring in physical,
life, or computer sciences, mathematics, technology, engineering, or a
critical foreign language.
CONCLUSION
These highlights of our 2007 request show that within the very
tight constraints required by the need to reduce the Federal budget
deficit in a time of war, we are proposing a strong education budget,
one that will maintain and even accelerate progress under No Child Left
Behind, while making key new investments in critical areas designed to
ensure our future competitiveness in the 21st century global economy.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 EDUCATION BUDGET PRIORITIES
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. I
begin with the questions which I posed in the letter which I
sent to you, last month. I focus at the outset on the proposed
budget for the Department of Education, being $2.1 billion
below last year. The Department has highlighted rising test
scores, a narrowing of the achievement gaps since the passage
of No Child Left Behind, and the increase in Federal funding
that has accomplished those results. What are the prospects for
continued progress with the budget cuts which are in your
proposal?
Secretary Spellings. Well Senator, I think there are a
couple of answers to that. One is that the priorities of No
Child Left Behind are indeed funded in the President's budget--
the emphasis on reading, the emphasis on teacher development,
the emphasis on Title I. Then there are the additional
resources that we are requesting for school improvement--the
$200 million that we need as the No Child Left Behind law
matures--as well as the investment in competitiveness, and in
high schools, and in math and science. So I think that where we
have resources we've focused them on the goals of No Child Left
Behind. Second, I would say that a lot of the infrastructure
that was needed to be put in place to do No Child Left Behind,
such as assessments, and reading curriculum reform and those
sorts of things, has been done, and now we're turning our
attention to the maturing of No Child Left Behind and these
other priorities.
Senator Specter. The difficulty, Madam Secretary, is that
there are cuts in a lot of programs which impact the students
whom you're trying to deal with in No Child Left Behind. You're
robbing Peter to pay Paul, really. When you have a net decrease
of $2.1 billion and you have the inflation factor as well, it
just seems to me that it's impossible to make it up with the
shuffling that you're suggesting.
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE AND SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
What is the situation with the repeated public comments
about the difficulty of moving students from one school which
is not satisfactory to other schools? We see constant
complaints that the recipient school districts are unable to
accommodate the students, that that has not really been a
practical or realistic program?
Secretary Spellings. Let me make a couple of comments about
that, Senator. First, I've observed that also. We have about a
10 percent take-up, if you will: 2 million students are
eligible for supplemental services, and about 200,000 students
are seeking those options. So we must do a better job of making
sure those options for parents are real. But one of the things
I think I've learned, and we're piloting strategies in various
places around the country, is, does it make more sense--and we
ought to get some data about this--to allow students to get
extra intervention and supplemental services before the public
school choice options are used. So we're testing that theory in
Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and some districts in Virginia
will also test that out. Does it make more sense, before we
ship them off to other schools, to get them additional
remediation. That's why the President's call for an additional
$100 million for either choice, or ramped up supplemental
services, makes a lot of sense.
Senator Specter. But you still are letting them choose to
go to another district, aren't you?
Secretary Spellings. The public school choice options, yes,
are still in place. But what I'm saying is, perhaps parents
would be equally satisfied or more satisfied to receive
supplemental services first.
Senator Specter. Well, are you saying that in all
situations where children want to move from an inferior school
to a better school that there are remedial programs to
discourage their moving?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I'm saying that perhaps in the
meantime, as we address these choice issues, that getting
remediation in a particular skill or subject, quickly and
readily available, convenient----
Senator Specter. Well, are you talking about something
which is realistic, so that we have inferior schools in those
situations, all of those situations, or almost all of those
situations, or most of those situations, you have remedial
programs to discourage going to another school?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think it's a range of
fallibility if you will. I mean, some of these schools are
chronically low performing and that's why we need to spend $200
million to make sure that real school restructuring takes
place.
EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
Senator Specter. Madam Secretary, my time is almost up and
I'm going to observe the time. But the question really is, is
that a palliative and a fig leaf, or does it really work?
Secretary Spellings. I think supplemental services can work
very well educationally for kids.
Senator Specter. Can. But do they, are they? Are there
sufficient supplemental services to pick up on this very
critical program problem?
Secretary Spellings. In some places there are, and in some
places there are not, Senator. Clearly, I agree.
Senator Specter. Well, that's not satisfactory. My red
light went on, so I'm going to yield at this point to
distinguished ranking member Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, I
apologize for being late, I'll just forgo my opening statement
and ask that it be made a part of the record, if that's okay.
Senator Specter. Without objection, it will be made part of
the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin
Good morning, Madam Secretary. I don't get to see you that often in
person, so I want to take this opportunity to commend you for the steps
you've taken to make the No Child Left Behind Act more flexible.
There's still room for improvement, but you're responding to the
concerns that many people have with this law, and you deserve credit
for that.
Today, however, our focus is on the President's proposed budget for
education. And I must speak frankly: I don't see how anyone in this
administration can defend it.
This budget would cut federal education spending by $2.1 billion.
That's the largest cut, in dollars, in the 26-year history of the
Education Department. And it comes on the heels of a $600 million cut
in fiscal year 2006--the first cut in a decade.
It looks to me as if this administration has basically given up on
the three programs that matter most to the Nation's students--Title I,
IDEA, and Pell.
Title I is the cornerstone program for the No Child Left Behind
Act. It's the program that targets aid to the students who are most at
risk of failing. That's why NCLB calls for a $2.2 billion increase for
Title I this year. But how much more does the President ask for? Zero.
It's flat funded.
This administration has also given up on funding for students with
disabilities. In fact, it's moving in the wrong direction. In fiscal
year 2005, the federal government provided 19 percent of the average
per-pupil expenditure toward the costs of special education. This year,
fiscal year 2006, it went down to 18 percent. Next year, under this
budget, it would go down again, to 17 percent. As the federal share
goes down, states and local districts have to pick up more of the tab.
And we all know what that means--higher property taxes.
This administration has also given up on student aid. Under this
budget, the maximum Pell Grant award would be frozen at $4,050, the
same level as four years ago. I wonder if there are any colleges in
America that charge the same amount for tuition that they did four
years ago. I doubt it. It gets tougher and tougher all the time for
low- and middle-income families to afford college, but this
administration doesn't seem to care.
It's as if the President said, ``Well, I spent a little money on
education during the first couple years of my administration. So much
for that. I'm done.''
So if there's nothing in this budget for Title I, Pell, and IDEA,
what is there? Unfortunately, a lot of the ``same old, same old.''
Once again, the President proposes a high school reform initiative.
But as far as I'm concerned, it's dead on arrival. The President asked
for it last year, Congress rejected it, and the same thing will happen
again this year, as long as it's contingent on eliminating the Perkins
vocational ed program.
And speaking of eliminations, the budget zeroes out 42 programs in
all. Forty-one of them are programs you tried, unsuccessfully, to
eliminate in the past. Congress restored the funding for them last
year, and I can tell you right now, we'll restore funding for almost
all of them again this year.
Like I said, more of the ``same old, same old.''
There are really only two new initiatives in this budget of any
significance: the Math Now programs, which cost a total of $250
million, and the Title I School Improvement Grants, which are budgeted
for $200 million.
I happen to like both of these ideas. In fact, I was the first
Member of Congress to include funding for School Improvement Grants in
an appropriations bill. In fiscal year 2003, when I was chairman of
this subcommittee, I included $100 million for this program in the
Senate Labor-HHS bill. It didn't end up getting funded, but I'd like to
see it happen.
But where will the money come from to fund these new initiatives? I
guarantee you: We're going to restore the TRIO programs that this
budget would eliminate. There's enormous bipartisan support for TRIO.
So that's $456 million that we've got to find from somewhere. We're
going to restore GEAR-UP, at $303 million. We're going to restore the
Robert C. Byrd Scholarships, at $41 million. We're going to restore the
counseling programs, at $35 million. I created that program, so I can
assure you that Congress will save it.
I could go on and on, program after program. But here's the bottom
line: Unless the President helps up find more money overall for
education, his new initiatives are simply not going to get funded, at
least not anywhere close to the levels he wants.
I've served on this subcommittee as ranking member or chairman
since 1989, so I know what I'm talking about. If you want us to fund
these presidential initiatives, you're going to have to work with us to
get our congressional priorities funded as well.
Again, Madam Secretary, I want to welcome you to the subcommittee.
I look orward to hearing your testimony.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND FLEXIBILITY PROVISIONS
Senator Harkin. Madam Secretary, welcome. First a
compliment before I get into the other stuff, if you don't
mind; I don't see you that often, I just want to take the
opportunity to commend you for the steps that you've taken to
make the No Child Left Behind Act more flexible. That has
always been a sore point, and I appreciate that. There's I
think, still some room for improvement. But I think you were
responding to the concerns that many people have with this law,
and I think you deserve credit for that--to get that
flexibility in there. But that's aside from today.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BUDGET REQUEST
We're talking about the budget. I guess my first question
was, the budget that you've sent up for our subcommittee on
education, would you Madam Secretary, like to see it passed
exactly as you sent it up?
Secretary Spellings. Well, Senator, as you know, we propose
and you dispose. It's a process between the two of us, we
seldom end up--you know, you all seldom enact exactly what the
President sends up. I mean obviously----
Senator Harkin. I'm just asking you. Do you back it? Do you
back it as you sent it up?
Secretary Spellings. Certainly. I support the President's
budget.
Senator Harkin. Does your boss the President back it as it
was sent up.
Secretary Spellings. Yes, he does.
Senator Harkin. So he wants it enacted just like that?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think he believes that this is
the smartest, best allocation of resources, given all the
various priorities in the Government.
PROPOSED EDUCATION BUDGET CUTS
Senator Harkin. I just want to get that clear for the
record. That this isn't just some little game, that this is a
budget that your boss the President of the United States,
proposed to us, and this is how he'd like to see it enacted and
so would you, Madam Secretary. Here is the biggest cut in
Federal education spending, $2.1 billion in the 26 year history
of the Education Department. Do you disagree with that?
Secretary Spellings. Well, Senator----
Senator Harkin. Is that figure correct, or not?
Secretary Spellings. I can't remember the exact figure, the
$2.1----
Senator Harkin. That's what I have; I just want to make
sure we're on the same page.
Mr. Skelly. It's the biggest since 1988. So not 26 years.
Senator Harkin. So what year was the bigger cut?
Mr. Skelly. 1988.
Senator Harkin. 1988 was a bigger cut?
Mr. Skelly. In dollars and in percentage.
Senator Harkin. In dollars and in percentage, in 1988.
Mr. Skelly. Yes sir.
Senator Harkin. Okay, so I was off a few years. Then we had
a $600 million cut in fiscal year 2006. Right?
Mr. Skelly. That's right, Senator.
[Clerk's Note.--Senator Harkin was correct. The proposed
cut of $2.1 billion would be the largest reduction in the 26-
year history of the Education Department. The cut in 1988 was
larger as a percentage of the total budget, but not in
dollars.]
TITLE I GRANTS TO LEAS
Senator Harkin. Okay. I just want to make sure we're on the
same page. Now let's turn to Title I, cornerstone program of
the No Child Left Behind Act. Madam Secretary, I read your
testimony, you said it was the cornerstone.
Secretary Spellings. I do.
Senator Harkin. No Child Left Behind calls for a $2.2
billion increase for Title I this year, how much did the
President ask for? Zero. Flat funded.
Secretary Spellings. As well----
Senator Harkin. That's quite a cornerstone.
Secretary Spellings. As well as some additional resources
that attach to No Child Left Behind, like $200 million for
school improvement.
Senator Harkin. But Title I is the cornerstone, you say
that. When it's flat funded and when No Child Left Behind Act
calls for a $2.21 billion increase for Title I this year,
something's wrong with the cornerstone.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Special education, Republicans and Democrats for years have
been saying we've got to get it to the 40 percent level, you
know what I'm talking about.
Secretary Spellings. Right, I do.
Senator Harkin. We've talked about it; we've had votes on
it, Senate Resolutions that are 100 to nothing, or 99 to 1 or
something like that, about doing this. Well, we've been inching
up the last few years, under the leadership of Senator Specter.
We've been getting it up; we've gone up to 19 percent. An all
time high. Last year we went back to 18, under this budget we
go back to 17 percent.
I don't know how you can see this as any kind of progress
at all on how the administration can support this.
PELL GRANTS
Student aid Pell Grants are now frozen at $4,050, the same
as 4 years ago. Can you name me one college in the United
States where the tuition is the same this year as it was 4
years ago? There isn't such a place. Yet the Pell Grant's
frozen at that. These are for the poorest of kids. I mean you
know what you have to do to qualify for a Pell Grant?
Secretary Spellings. I do.
Senator Harkin. You just about have to have nothing to
qualify for a Pell Grant. But yet, the President talks about
his competitiveness initiative. Sounds great, we all believe in
that, but is it just competitiveness just for the kids of
wealthy families, or families who can get loans and stuff like
that; how about competitiveness for the kids that qualify for
Pell Grants. What about them? What about their competitiveness?
Where do they fit into this picture? Well--I just don't see how
you can support that. I'm not saying it's all bad. There are
some things that you got in there that are good. Some of the
math and science stuff is okay. That's fine. Little bits and
pieces here and there. But in total, I just can't imagine your
support for that. I see my time is up now, and I didn't really
get a question in, but I wanted to make sure that we were
talking about apples and apples, and not oranges and apples and
that kind of stuff, and maybe on the second round I can have a
question about that. Thank you very much.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Harkin. Senator
Landrieu.
EDUCATION RESPONSE FOR HURRICANE RECOVERY
Senator Landrieu. As the ranking member is here--before you
came in Senator, I was complimentary of the Department, of the
great work that they have done for the Hurricane Katrina and
Rita victims, and said what a reliable partner they've been. I
want to thank you also, Senator Harkin, because without you and
Senator Specter our education aid bill would not have passed
the way it did, and I want to say how much we appreciate that.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST
Having said that, I want to agree with what both the
chairman and ranking member said; not only do I think this
budget is scandalous in terms of short changing our goals,
Madam Secretary, for No Child Left Behind, but it's
disheartening and wholly inadequate. Disheartening for the army
of people out there trying to close these achievement gaps,
making the changes, pushing themselves to achieve excellence,
only to find their budget is being cut. While Title I is flat
funded dollar for dollar for last year, because it does not
have an inflation factor and it's not taking into consideration
the extra efforts being made to move these poor and low-income,
and moderate-income children up, it really is short changing
their ability.
Last night I got to attend a function in Washington, the
Youth National Guard Youth Challenge Program, that tries to
focus on reaching the 33 million Americans between the ages of
16 and 24 that do not have a high school diploma--33 million
Americans between the ages of 16 and 24. Those numbers don't
just pop, they are created by budgets like this that do not
provide the support of children in those early grades so that
they could get a diploma of achievement--they can read, and
calculate at grade level.
I know that as the Department's Secretary you're
responsible for carrying out the President's budget. But I want
to say as a Senator who is given choices between extending
dividend tax cuts, reducing capital gains taxes, this is what
is paying for those tax cuts. The short changing in education
for children in Louisiana, Mississippi, the Gulf Coast,
Arizona, in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin, and in places in Iowa,
and all places are paying for those tax cuts. I think it's too
heavy of a price. I just want to go on record. It's too heavy
of a price to pay. We end up paying for it, in you know,
criminal justice systems. We end up paying it in mental health
services. The taxpayer's don't get a break. The taxpayers just
pick it up in a more painful, more expensive way. I don't know
when we're going to learn that investment in early childhood
education is giving children a fighting chance. There's no
guarantee of success, but I want to say for the record and my
time, and I'd like to ask you this question because only our
Federal portion represents about 8 to 10 percent of the total.
The States are picking up about 70 percent, is that correct
Madam Secretary of Education, expenses at the State level?
Secretary Spellings. It varies around the country.
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCATION RESOURCES
Senator Landrieu. What is the Department doing to try to
equalize or make more equitable the funding in the country,
from our wealthier counties, to our poor counties? If you could
just focus a minute of your answer. I know we haven't directed
you as such. Title I attempts to try to equal--it's Congress'
best attempt to try to give poor and middle income children the
same resources available. But is this Department at all focused
on that resource gap? There's an achievement gap, but there's a
resource gap. Do you know what it is, can you just tell us, and
give us a minute of what you're doing to try to close that gap?
DISTRIBUTION OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL
Secretary Spellings. Well, that's a great question and I
think it manifests itself in a lot of ways. Highly qualified
teachers: one of the dirty little secrets in education is that
our most qualified people are in our least challenging
environments and vice versa, and so as we implement No Child
Left Behind we ought to look at how States and school districts
allocate highly qualified personnel. The President's budget
proposal on Advanced Placement (AP)--I talked about the 40
percent of the high schools that offer no AP at all. I use the
example in my speeches that in Fairfax County, Virginia, you
can find schools with 20 plus AP classes, whereas in the
District of Columbia, Ballou High School has just 3 or 4. Those
are exactly the kinds of things that we need to address as part
of either implementing No Child Left Behind or the resources
that the President has asked for.
No Child Left Behind--whether it's for special education
students or limited English speakers--has focused educators on
bottom line results for all kids and resources. Obviously, our
Federal commitment has always been to our Nation's neediest
students, and that's why we invest so much money in IDEA and
Title I, to help level out those educational opportunities
around the country. With respect to Title I, obviously the
formula reflects the numbers of poor kids as they migrate
around our country.
PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES ACROSS THE NATION
Senator Landrieu. Just to conclude though, Mr. Chairman, we
focus on the neediest. But I can say from--there are a lot of
middle-income families now that would classify themselves as
middle-income that are stretched and need help and as we
continue to cut these programs back, we're touching the bottom
5 or 7 percent, when we should be trying to help the bottom 40
or 50 percent. Tom, I would like you just to submit for the
record, the difference in resources from the poorest counties,
to the wealthiest counties to give us an update for the record
of this committee. I understand in some places it's like $3,000
or $4,000 a child, and then in some counties we're spending
$12,000-$14,000 a child. I know that we don't direct that
funding, but we can you know recognize that while there's an
achievement gap, there's a resource gap that this committee has
an obligation to fix, or try to fix. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
EDUCATION FUNDING IN HIGH-POVERTY AND LOW-POVERTY DISTRICTS
Average expenditures per student vary across local educational
agencies (LEAs) from about $3,300 to over $20,000 per student,
according to the 2003 Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance
Data compiled by the Census Bureau. Most of the largest and smallest
figures are for very small school districts with limited enrollment.
For example, of the 10 LEAs with expenditures per student between
$3,000 and $4,000, only 1 had an enrollment of over 100 students. They
are mostly small, rural school districts, including 5 in Nebraska and 3
in Montana. However, even excluding the very small and rural school
outliers, there is a significant difference in the per-student averages
among the poorest and wealthiest LEAs (with ``poor'' and ``wealthy''
defined on the basis of the percentage of school-aged children living
in poverty). The 100 LEAs with the lowest poverty rates and enrollment
of at least 1,000 had average expenditures of $9,585 per student, while
the 100 LEAs with the highest poverty rates and enrollment of at least
1,000 had average expenditures of $7,897 per student.
Among the poorest LEAs, defined as those with poverty above 40
percent, there are many sizable school districts with average
expenditures well below the national average of about $8,100. For
example, Roosevelt Elementary School District in Arizona, with a
poverty rate over 45 percent and enrollment of 11,000, had an average
expenditure per student of $5,900. Laredo Independent School District
in Texas (45 percent poverty; enrollment of 24,000) had an average
expenditure per student of $6,900. Greenville Public School District in
Mississippi (42 percent poverty; enrollment of 7,400) had an average
expenditure per student of $5,900. But there are also many poor
districts with larger than average expenditures per student. These
include Muskegon Heights School District in Michigan (44 percent
poverty; $10,300 per student), Todd County, South Dakota (40 percent
poverty; $11,500 per student) and Rochester City School District in New
York (40 percent poverty; $12,711 per student).
The same can be said for the wealthier school districts. There are
examples of high per-student expenditures, such as Fairfax County,
Virginia (6 percent poverty; $9,500 per student), Montgomery County,
Maryland (7 percent poverty; $10,580 per student), and Cherry Hill, New
Jersey (3 percent poverty; $11,300 per student) as well as examples of
low per-student expenditures, such as Clay County, Florida (9 percent
poverty; $5,600 per student), Scottsdale School District, Arizona (7
percent poverty; $5,600 per student), and Alpine School District in
Utah (9 percent poverty; $4,400 per student).
While the spread is significant between the poorest and wealthiest
districts, there is a more noticeable pattern among States. The 142
LEAs with an average expenditure per-student below $5,000 are in only
17 States, with the majority in Arizona, Oklahoma, Utah, Montana, and
Nebraska. At the other end of the spectrum, half of the 200 LEAs with
the highest average expenditure per student are in three States:
California, New York, and New Jersey.
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FUNDS
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Landrieu. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Spellings; you'll recall that we spoke at last
year's hearing about Perkins Vocational Education program.
Perkins is very important to every State, but particularly my
State. Wisconsin received almost $25 million in Perkins funds
last year, and over 23,000 students benefit in my State from
Perkins services. The vast majority of Perkins recipients in
Wisconsin have gone on to graduate and obtain high skill, high
wage jobs. Last year the President proposed to eliminate
Perkins funding but the Congress refused to go along, as you
know. The Senate voted to reauthorize Perkins by a vote of 99
to nothing. We also worked to restore most of the funding cut
by the President. One would think that these actions would have
sent a very strong message to the President, and Senators in
both parties feel strongly about Perkins. Yet once again, as
you know, the President's proposed elimination of this vital
program in 2007. Would you explain how he apparently is so out
of touch with we here who live and work with the problem
everyday in our States? Not just to reduce Perkins, which is
unacceptable, but to eliminate Perkins, which seems to me to be
incomprehensible.
INVESTMENT IN SECONDARY EDUCATION
Secretary Spellings. Senator, yes I will. The President
believes that we ought to gather up the resources that we spend
in vocational education, TRIO, and GEAR UP and a number of our
secondary school investments and create a high school reform
program; a $1.5 billion high school initiative for States to
use as they see fit, around graduation rates and enhanced
achievement for all high school students, including additional
accountability and the like. When and where vocational
education programs, GEAR UP, TRIO, any of those programs work
well, then States can and should--and I'm confident will--
continue to invest in those. But I think we also have to look
at our results of secondary education, and that is about half
of the African American and Hispanic kids who start high school
do not complete high school. When these resources and these
programs are targeted to them I think we have to ask ourselves,
are they working as well as they can be in the aggregate.
Senator Kohl. Well, I don't think you've really answered
the question, he still proposes eliminating Perkins and
aggregating it all really in the final analysis results in
cuts. But it's just done in a way that we don't really see how
these cuts occur, but that's I believe pretty clear to most of
us who look at this closely that aggregating really involves
cutting. Madam Secretary, I supported the No Child Left Behind
because it guaranteed flexibility and accountability would come
with more Federal funding to make it work. Instead, funding
levels have fallen billions of dollars short of what was
authorized and these cuts as you know cause real hardships.
Schools are being forced to cut staff and important programs
like summer school, class size reductions, arts, physical
education, and languages. Last year almost 11,000 schools
failed to make adequately yearly progress under No Child Left
Behind thus facing Federal sanctions. These schools will face
even greater challenges as testing and teacher quality
requirements go into full effect.
So isn't it time to provide the funding that was promised
so that we can give schools and students a real chance to
succeed which was the premise behind No Child Left Behind, that
there would be funding which is by all accounts not what was
promised. Where do we go from here?
ALLOCATION OF BUDGET RESOURCES
Secretary Spellings. I think what you'll find in the
President's budget, and it is a tough budget no doubt about it,
is that the resources are allocated around the core principles
of No Child Left Behind, such as our sustained investments in
Title I, in reading, in teacher quality, and the accountability
features and achievement. That those are our most--that's our
most urgent calling, and our highest priority for resources.
PELL GRANTS
Senator Kohl. Madam Secretary, the President's budget
proposal also targets student aid programs for harmful cuts
including a $4.6 billion reduction in funding for Pell Grants.
The maximum Pell Grant award is again frozen at $4,050 for the
fifth year in a row, despite rising tuition costs. These may
just seem like numbers but they also have a real impact on
students who are struggling to go to college. The University of
Wisconsin in Madison alone dispersed $9.2 million in Pell
Grants to 3,751 low-income students last year. In 1975 the Pell
Grant recovered 80 percent of the costs of a 4-year public
education in college and today that number is down to about 40
percent. So my question is, how can this administration claim
to want to make higher education a reality for low-income
students while at the same time cut the very programs that
would help them achieve that goal.
Secretary Spellings. Well, let me respond in a couple of
ways. One, while as you said the Pell Grant itself is still
$4,050, the actual grant has not been cut. There will be about
59,000 more students who will be taking advantage of Pell
Grants. In addition to that, as part of the reconciliation that
you all passed, there are additional resources for students who
are studying in the critical areas of science, technology,
engineering and math. Starting with about an additional $750
for year one of their studies, going up to $4,000 by the fourth
year if they pursue those particular fields. As you know, the
Congress finally has eliminated the Pell shortfall that has
vexed us for so long, which is most of that $4 billion that you
spoke of, but I think what we know is that the community
colleges, in particular, continue to be able to offer a full
and complete education at the Pell Grant level. So it's a
matter of students frequently starting there at community
college as opposed to a State university. But the Pell Grant
does remain stable at $4,050.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Kohl. Thank you, and before I turn it back to the
chairman, my time has expired. When you keep a program like
Pell Grants at the same level for 5 years, you are reducing its
value, obviously. When I pointed out that the Pell Grant
covered in 1975, 80 percent of your public education and today
it's 40 percent, that describes the erosion of keeping the
number at a constant level. Thank you so much, and thank you
Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Herb Kohl
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Spellings, I join my colleagues
in welcoming you here today. You face a significant and challenging
task in managing the Department of Education and I hope that we can
work together to improve access to education for all Americans.
I appreciate the difficult task you face in funding the many
education priorities of our country. That job is more challenging, in
our view, because this Administration has chosen budget and tax
policies that have led to rising deficits and diminishing resources
available for essential education programs.
This budget is abysmal for the education community. It proposes the
largest cut to federal education funding in the 26-year history of the
Department. Students, educators, parents, and administrators all lose
out under this budget. Funding for No Child Left Behind and Special
Education, the main federal funding streams for our local school
districts, are a far cry from their authorized levels. More
specifically, funding for No Child Left Behind is $12.3 billion dollars
below the authorization level, and IDEA is $6.3 billion short in 2007.
In addition, over forty programs are slated for elimination, including
funding for Career and Technical Education, Safe and Drug Free Schools,
and TRIO programs.
The President's budget should reflect our nation's priorities--but
these are just a few examples of this budget being out of step with our
values. I will continue to work with my colleagues to improve upon this
budget. Madame Secretary, I hope that you will work with us to better
meet our nation's education needs.
Senator Specter. Thank you Senator Kohl, Senator Craig.
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Madam
Secretary, I'm pleased you're with us this morning. First and
foremost, I want to commend you and the President for including
the American Competitiveness Initiative in his State of the
Union. I thought that was critically important, and I'm looking
forward to working with the Department of Education and in this
instance the Department of Energy will have a fair chunk of
that, and my colleagues in the implementation of many of those
proposals. I think it's important. I think we can convince the
American people it's important, that we remain competitive and
that we design a system that allows us to do that. When we were
holding hearings on that recently in the Energy committee I was
likening it to our reaction to Sputnik. The Defense Education
Act of the 1960s that followed and the tremendous--and the
fallout, the positive fallout of that down through the decades,
as we trained a generation of mathematicians, and scientists,
all because we found ourselves not competitive in the real
world in a cold war environment and out of that space
initiative and everything else. Of course because the--what I
believe is a national crisis we're in today as it relates to
energy, we take that a lot easier because the lights are still
on, and even though gas is more expensive at the pump, it's
still there and we're adjusting accordingly even though it's
costing us, you know, lots of jobs out there in the industrial
sector today, and all that. The new world that we compete in is
going to be ever demanding.
We all know those stories, they are real and I'm glad to
see the President out on the edge of that, pushing it. That's
extremely important for us. In the context of doing that
although, I think we have to shape budgets that begin to fit
that and move us in those directions, and they are bits and
pieces of all that we're talking about in order to meet the
challenges laid out by the President in the Competitiveness
Initiative. I believe that bringing professionals into the
classrooms will be tremendous assets to our students. Yet the
system is so rigid to allowing that to happen today that it
almost, at the very beginning unless we break down some of
those barriers towards the very initiative that's underway.
What programs have been or are being implemented to ensure that
professionals interested in teaching have the training they
require, and do you believe the President's budget provides
adequate funding to bring these professionals ultimately into
the classroom to work alongside the educator in inspiring these
young people into these different areas that are within the
Competitiveness Initiative?
ADJUNCT TEACHERS PROGRAM
Secretary Spellings. Thank you for that question. The
President's budget calls for $25 million to start to seed some
of this kind of activity, which we call Adjunct Teachers. We
use this all the time in higher education, especially in
community colleges, and it's very effective. Typically, people
who are engaged in their own profession teach part time in
higher education. Many of these students now, high school
students, enjoy dual enrollment programs between community
colleges and high schools, and they are already being served by
the kind of professionals that you talk about. IBM has
committed 1,200 engineers and other highly skilled
professionals to make transitions into the teaching profession,
so I do think there's an appetite and a willingness out there
and a need--a dramatic need--for those sorts of competencies.
We have some models to build on through Troops-to-Teachers,
Teach for America, and some other programs that have taken mid-
career professionals and helped them become effective teachers.
But I think the notion is, let's be able to get some of our
expertise and resources from the broad community around some of
these 185 day, 10-month contract sort of structures, that we're
so used to dealing with in education.
INNOVATIVE HIGH SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING IN IDAHO
Senator Craig. I had the privilege, Mr. Chairman, of
walking through a new high school in Idaho during this last
recess. The largest building in our State from the standpoint
of an educational institution, 2,200 students. I thought, oh my
goodness, how can they possibly handle 2,200; surely they must
be lost in the system, because I was thinking of the old
models. But I walked into a school with academies, and the
allowance to actually begin shaping from your freshman year on,
some core competencies that move you then into community
colleges, or into University settings. In the junior senior
year, that nexus with the community college that you had--I
spent a couple of hours there, spoke with the senior class, and
walked out with a total different opinion. Or a sense of
understanding as to these new structures, and in this
particular school district which is the fastest growing in our
State, they're building a new high school about every 2 years
now, they're moving to this concept. They feel they can go to
larger schools but they allow the student to actually identify
with a much smaller unit within the school. It's impressive.
It's happening at other places in the county. Idaho is not
alone in it certainly, and it makes some very real sense, tied
to this competitive initiative, and being able to move young
people out earlier. Those who chose to, to get into that higher
learning, frankly, can break through the rigidity of the
current system that says, no, no this is the way we've always
done it, we control it, so this is the way you're going to do
it. If it isn't providing us with that level of training and
talent, then we've got to break through it, and if you can't
live within it, you get outside of it, I guess, and that's
starting to happen in parts of Idaho where we have community
college settings in which they can cooperate. That's a pretty
exciting concept. But in doing so--and then transitioning them
forward, there was concern about the Pell Grants and other
tools to make sure that those students can carry on, and I'm
looking at this budget concerned about obviously areas like the
Federal Direct Student Loans and the Federal Family Education
Loans, and all of those kind of things. Those tools are going
to be in part a necessary component of any kind of
competitiveness initiative to move these young people forward.
Secretary Spellings. I agree with that.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Secretary Spellings. Absolutely, Senator. I think I'd love
to visit that school, I mean these are places as you said----
Senator Craig. You want to visit it?
Secretary Spellings. I would like to.
Senator Craig. Fine, you'll get an invitation today.
Secretary Spellings. Good.
Senator Craig. We'd love to have you out.
ADJUNCT TEACHERS
Secretary Spellings. Establishing the nexus between higher
education and high school, that can be more efficient and more
effective as we get these professionals who are working in the
field, and who have this expertise, because we're frankly going
to be very challenged to do it other ways.
Senator Craig. Well, it's an exciting model, and as I say,
there are many large schools across the country that are
recognizing that high schools of 2,000, if not restructured,
lose children.
Secretary Spellings. Exactly.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
Senator Murray.
SCHOOLS-WITHIN-SCHOOLS
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Craig, I'm delighted to hear that you went to that
school. The Gates Foundation has been focusing on schools-
within-schools, with some real successful programs.
Senator Craig. If you'll let me interrupt. I'm not
absolutely sure, but it's very possible they're participating
in this one. Yes.
ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS AND NATIONAL SMART GRANTS
Senator Murray. Yeah. I agree with the focus on high
schools. I think it's absolutely critical that we as a Nation
really find out why we're losing kids at such dramatic rates.
Those kinds of programs really make a difference. But let me,
Madam Secretary, talk with you a minute about some of the
academic competitive grants in the national science and
mathematics act says to retain talent, the SMART grants. To
receive those American competitive grants, students have to
have completed what is called the rigorous secondary school
program of study. Now I agree, as I said that we have to do
everything we can to prepare students for the global economy
they're going to be in. Whether--but I think a student's luck
in where they attend high school, whether it's Senator Craig's
or another one, shouldn't determine whether or not the Federal
Government helps them attend college. CBO estimated that only
9.9 percent of the Pell eligible students are going to be able
to take advantage of those academic competitiveness and SMART
grants in 2007. Now the maximum Pell Grant has not increased
for 4 years despite as we all know tuition rising at our
Nation's public colleges by over 7 percent last year. So if the
$850 billion that those grants cost in 2007 were spent on Pell
Grants, students would actually receive an additional $200 in
aid that would have made a tremendous difference. I would like
to find out from you, how you anticipate judging what
constitutes a rigorous secondary school curriculum?
RIGOROUS HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM
Secretary Spellings. That's a great question and we're
struggling with that at the Department now. About a week ago,
we had folks in from the Gates Foundation, from the National
Governors Association, and from the Council of Chief State
School Officers to look at and talk about what's the most
appropriate way to do that while being very respectful of our
prohibition at the Department of Education for prescribing
curriculum. I certainly don't want to sit up here and look at
high school course syllabi and so forth. So we're working on
that right now. I mean, I think we know things that are widely
accepted, like Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate,
and the State Scholar's program--that 14 States have already
bought into place, i.e. their determination of a college-ready
curriculum. For State Scholars this is 4 years of English, 3
years of math and science, and 2 years of foreign language.
We'll be announcing another 8 to 12 States that will be joining
the State Scholars program soon. So States have come to terms
largely, or are beginning to, with what they believe to be
college-ready, so that, I hope, will be informative as we look
at the Academic Competitiveness Grants.
Senator Murray. Well, I appreciate the goal, but here we
are in 2007 where less than 10 percent of the students are
going to be eligible for these grants, and in tight budget
times it seems to me that using those dollars to help all kids
get $200 in aid, not just those who are lucky enough to attend
a high school that works out to have a ``rigorous schedule.'' I
just think it's something we have to manage. So I'm very
concerned about a large amount of money funneling to a few kids
who happen to be in the right high school, with the right
curriculum, versus us being able to help all students with an
additional $200 with the same pot of money. So it's just a
budget issue in my mind. Obviously you've got a program you
love, and you want to go down that road. But in tight budget
times we have to say, are we going to help all kids out there,
or just the ones who are lucky enough to have that somehow
undefined yet rigorous curriculum.
Secretary Spellings. Well, it's also obviously our
responsibility to make sure that we have a college-ready
curriculum, and this is why we need more Advanced Placement in
more places, and so forth, making such a curriculum available
to all kids everywhere.
Senator Murray. Well, I think it's good to provide
incentives to high schools to move towards a rigorous
curriculum, I'm with you on that. But I don't want to see us
use the kids as a tool. Because in the end they are the ones
who are not going to be able to go to college based on where
they went to school. I think it's so important that we provide
that opportunity, but it's a philosophical debate.
HEA TITLE IX
I have limited time. I wanted to ask you about Title IX. On
March 17, the Department released a new guidance on the
interest prong of the three-part test which schools are using
to show their compliance with Title IX. As you are aware, I
have some really grave concerns about this new guidance,
because I believe it sets a new low bar for compliance with the
Federal Civil Rights Law. Schools would now be allowed to use
an email survey to show their compliance with Title IX. The
school would only have to send that survey to women. So, a lack
of response at our universities where kids already have a lot
to do, and may just say to heck with that, seems to me a very
poor way to be determining compliance with Title IX. Now I know
that it's used--surveys are used as part of compliance, but
it's the sole means to making sure whether a school complies or
not, to me seems really wrong headed.
Now as you know there's a lot of concern over this new
guidance, and there's a bipartisan group of Senators on the
subcommittee who have asked for a report on the guidance and
the use of surveys and I wanted to find out from you this
morning what the status is of that?
Secretary Spellings. We'll be completing that next month. I
believe you all gave us a deadline for March sort of timeframe
there. We will be completing it then. I do want to note that
we've not had any complaints about the survey aspect yet, and
frankly as you know it is a legitimate prong to ascertain
interest. This is prong three.
Senator Murray. But the sole prong is a problem.
Secretary Spellings. We have about 116 schools around the
country that do that now. But your report is due March 17, and
we intend to meet that deadline.
Senator Murray. Okay, well there's a lot of confusion on
behalf of schools about the guidance. I want to know what your
department is doing regarding technical assistance to schools
on the guidance of that?
Secretary Spellings. You have recently confirmed Stephanie
Monroe as AS for OCR. I've had a vacancy in that job for a long
time, and we are providing technical guidance around that
issue. I'm a mother of two daughters, I'm very committed to
their opportunities as well, and so----
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Murray. Well, we all are. But if we base compliance
on an e-mail survey to women in college expecting that their
response back as students is going to decide whether or not a
school is compliant, I think that is just not a very smart way
to go. I'm going to continue to work with other likeminded
Senators to make sure we don't somehow use that information to
take away the ability of many young women in this country to be
able to access sports in colleges.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray
Secretary Spellings, thank you for coming today to talk with us
about the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the
Department of Education. I want to take this opportunity to say that I
have always believed that the federal budget is more than just a
compilation of numbers. Rather, it is a collective statement of the
values and priorities of our nation. Looking at the figures included in
the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of
Education--which is the largest cut in federal education funding in 26
years--I have to say that I question the value that the President is
placing on educating our nation's youth this year.
As a country, we are required to articulate and defend our values
and priorities, particularly as we undergo the annual budget process.
While I share the President's stated commitment to preparing our nation
and workforce for the competition of the 21st century, I am
disheartened to see that his rhetoric about the importance of leaving
no child behind is not matched by the budget numbers this
administration put forward in its fiscal year 2007 request.
I want to remind my colleagues that what we do in the next few
weeks will affect us--and the American people--for a long time. The
budget decisions we make now will either empower us--or tie our hands--
when we turn to determining funding levels in this appropriations
committee later this year. That is why I must say I strenuously object
to the request put forward by the President.
While it's true that the President's budget includes increased
dollars for math and science education, these funds come at the expense
of cuts or elimination to other important programs. I view new
initiatives in math and science as complements to, but in no way
substitutions for, the other federal education investments we have made
over the past 40 years. While science and math competence are
undoubtedly a critical piece of what our students need to compete
globally, it cannot come at the expense of helping disadvantaged
students succeed academically, investing in our high schools, and
ensuring our college students have the financial means to attend
postsecondary education.
I am particularly disheartened that the administration continues to
fall behind in meeting its commitments under the No Child Left Behind
Act. The President's fiscal year 2007 request does not include any
increases in NCLB's cornerstone program, Title I. The administration's
decision to recommend level funding--at a time when requirements and
accountability provisions for our schools continue to grow--essentially
asks our schools to do more with less resources. This inconsistent
messaging is disingenuous and unfair. What's worse, our students,
parents, teachers and schools suffer as a result.
I also want to express my concern about the High School Reform
package the President is promoting. As you know, I have been an
advocate for focusing federal education resources to our nation's high
schools. That is why last year I introduced my Pathways for All
Students to Succeed (PASS) Act, to provide targeted resources to our
nation's high schools. The PASS Act would help America's teenagers
graduate from high school, go on to college, and enter the working
world with the skills they need to succeed.
While I appreciate the President's interest in high school reform,
the reality is that he elected to pay for these reforms by cutting
important programs. The $1.475 billion he is proposing for his high
school package doesn't come close to replacing the money we currently
spend on the 42 programs, including vocational and technical education,
GEAR UP and TRIO, proposed for elimination. At a time when 3,000
students drop out of high school each and every school day and when
half of our nation's African American and Latino students do not
complete high school, we need to be doing more, not less, to make our
high schools places where all students can learn.
In addition to stemming the tide of high school dropouts, we must
assist students in the transition from high school to college by
providing financial resources to facilitate access to higher education.
Yet recently the federal government cut $12.7 billion from student
loans that help low- and middle-income families pay for college. This
decision, during a year in which tuition and fees increased by 7.1
percent for four-year public universities and 5.9 percent for private
universities, does not reflect our national priorities. In the same
vein, the value the President purports to place on higher education is
not reflected in his budget, which level-funds the Pell Grant program
for the fourth year in a row.
As we work together in the next few weeks to prepare the budget
resolution, I will do my best to ensure that the values and priorities
of our nation and my state of Washington are reflected in the numbers
to which we will hold ourselves. As a policymaker and parent, I know
that American competitiveness demands a more comprehensive approach to
education. We must match our rhetoric with the necessary resources to
support all of our students, at all grade levels, in all subject areas.
Our children--and our country--deserve nothing less.
Thank you.
PROPOSED GEAR UP PROGRAM ELIMINATION
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Murray. Madam
Secretary, what participation did you have in the elimination
of the program known as ``GEAR UP'' that's been in existence
for about 7 years? On the ratings by OMB, they say ``GEAR UP''
is based on successful models for increasing the college
enrollment rate of at-risk students. Initial program results
suggest that grantees have been more successful in increasing
the percentage of students taking a more challenging course
load, better preparing these students for future college
enrollment.
It was an idea advocated by Congressman Chaka Fattah, who
has had a lot of experience in government in Philadelphia,
where there are tough schools with a lot of dropouts and a lot
of students with problems. It has been a program which has been
funded principally out of the Senate that I have spoken about
repeatedly. Let me ask you a two-part question. What do you
think the chances are that ``GEAR UP'' is going to be dropped
by the Congress? Second, what did you have to do with dropping
it, if anything?
Secretary Spellings. Well, Senator, first let me say that
you know ``GEAR UP'' was invented in Houston, Texas, I mean
when President Bush was Governor, we were strong supporters of
it.
Senator Specter. Does President Bush know that?
Secretary Spellings. Yes. President Bush, then Governor
Bush.
Senator Specter. Does President Bush know it's being
dropped?
Secretary Spellings. I presume he does.
Senator Specter. I'm going to tell him.
Secretary Spellings. I presume he does.
Senator Specter. Have you told him?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir. But let me tell you what
his----
Senator Specter. No, no. Have you--well you can tell me,
but first tell me, have you told him?
Secretary Spellings. Have I told him specifically ``GEAR
UP'' is not in the budget?
Senator Specter. Yes, ma'am, specifically. Have you told
him that ``GEAR UP'' has been dropped?
Secretary Spellings. I don't believe that I have told him
that specifically.
Senator Specter. Do you know if anybody has told him that
specifically?
Secretary Spellings. I do not.
Senator Specter. Get the President on the phone.
Secretary Spellings. I certainly will tell him.
START OF GEAR UP PROGRAM
Senator Specter. He calls me with some frequency when he
wants Supreme Court Justices confirmed. Next time he calls, I'm
going to parry him with this question about ``GEAR UP''; I
didn't know it was started in Houston.
Secretary Spellings. By Jim Ketelsen. The former CEO of
Tenneco.
Senator Specter. The first question I'm going to ask him
is, Mr. President, do you know ``GEAR UP'' was started in
Houston? Second question I'm going to ask him is, do you know
that ``GEAR UP'' has been dropped? The third question is, do
you know the Secretary of Education didn't personally tell you
that it was being dropped?
Secretary Spellings. You can tell him that.
Senator Specter. Okay. It's your turn.
HIGH SCHOOL REFORM INITIATIVE
Secretary Spellings. But let me say this, the President's
philosophy here around this high school reform issue is that
you need a block grant kind of program. That we ought to gather
secondary school resources into a $1.5 billion title that we're
saying would get results. That we shouldn't sit up here and
say, here's how you should get results. Now I fully believe
that in Houston, Texas, in Philadelphia, and places where these
programs are working well, and effectively, they will continue
to do those. I can't say that that's necessarily true in the
aggregate. Where they're going to be effective they'll be
maintained. I'm confident of that. The President's philosophy--
--
Senator Specter. How will they be maintained without
funding?
Secretary Spellings. They will be paid for then out of the
high school initiative.
Senator Specter. So you rob Peter to pay Paul, which is
what I said on my last round of questions, I'll probably say it
in my fourth round, too.
Secretary Spellings. I mean, I guess you could look at it
that way. We're gathering resources out of silos, out of
specific prescribed programs.
Senator Specter. So you think really, you ought to keep
``GEAR UP'' but under another name?
Secretary Spellings. No. I'm saying that States and local
school districts ought to have the opportunity to design and
choose programs as they see fit, including GEAR UP, Vocational
Education, or others.
Senator Specter. But, when it's been a successful Federal
program, and has all the backing from the Members of the House
and Senate, why submit a budget which cuts it?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think the President believes
that successful programs will be invested in with Federal
dollars and maintained and enhanced at the State and local
level.
Senator Specter. Federal programs will be invested with
Federal dollars and maintained, and enhanced at the State and
local level?
Secretary Spellings. That where--in Philadelphia where this
is working well, they will use their high school resources to
invest in ``GEAR UP'' and they'll probably use State and
local----
Senator Specter. What resources? They're strapped to the
edge now.
Secretary Spellings. Under the high school reform block
grant, if you will, the $1.5 billion in Federal funds that
would be invested in high school reform, this program would
absolutely be an allowable purpose.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 FUNDING LEVEL OF PROPOSED TERMINATIONS
Senator Specter. Well, since that will happen I can rest
easy seeing it cut, I guess. Except that I won't. Senator
Harkin, why don't you do that on your time. Harkin wisely
points out. What was it you wisely pointed out?
Senator Harkin. That their reform package is $1.5 billion,
but the total amount that gets cut out of all these other
programs is $2.1 billion.
Senator Specter. How about that, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think it's more like the $1.5
billion that we have gathered up. I don't know what all the
elements are that are in the $2 billion estimate that you have,
Senator Harkin, but it depends on what's on the list, I guess,
is the short answer.
Senator Specter. Madam Secretary, you can see the smooth
coordination. I frequently use the expression that when we
change chairman and ranking member that it's a seamless passage
of the gavel, which I now undertake to do, so that he can
follow up on his Charlie McCarthy, Edgar Bergen question that I
asked on his behalf. Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Wait a minute. Which one am I?
Senator Specter. You're Edgar Bergen, I can tell you that.
Senator Harkin. Okay, well, to follow up on this.
Senator Specter. Secretary Spellings is too young to really
know who either is.
Secretary Spellings. I was just going to say you're dating
yourselves. But I wasn't going to say anything.
Senator Harkin. But to follow up on it, Madam Secretary. I
understand the High School Initiative program is at $1.475
billion. But there are 40 some programs that were eliminated.
All the TRIO programs, Talent Search, Upward Bound, Smaller
Learning Communities, that's $2.1 billion. So you've taken away
$2.1 billion that goes out to these high schools, and saying
now, here's $1.5 billion.
HIGH SCHOOL REFORM INITIATIVE
Secretary Spellings. Here's the difference. Part of the
Perkins Vocational Education Program goes into community
colleges and is in the postsecondary education environment, if
you will, and so the high school reform proposal at $1.5
billion reflects the investments that are currently going to K-
12 schools. The difference, the additional funds, can be found
in community colleges, which is obviously higher education.
Senator Harkin. Oh, so you're saying that Talent Search,
Upward Bound and all those programs are now shifted somehow to
community colleges?
Secretary Spellings. No, sir. I'm saying that the Perkins
Voc Ed Program, some of those resources end up in community
colleges, some end up in high schools. Trio, GEAR UP, those
sorts of programs that are high school programs, would, could
be funded from the $1.5 billion high school side of it.
Senator Harkin. Okay. I understand what you're saying now.
Please understand what I'm saying, that you add up all those
cuts in those programs, it's $2.1 billion. You replace that
with $1.475 billion for your high school initiative. So when
you say that schools, well, if they want to continue the
successful programs, they could. Well, I guess what I would ask
you to submit to this committee is which of these, is it 42
programs, 40 some, I forget what it was, that you're asking to
be eliminated--I mean, which of those are you saying are not
successful?
Secretary Spellings. Well----
Senator Harkin. Which of them are not successful? Please.
Secretary Spellings. We have a PART process that rates the
programs. I certainly could give that PART list for the 42
programs and will. The difference I want to say on the $2
billion worth is that, in the Perkins Program, part of those
resources go to community colleges, so the high school
initiative at $1.5 billion is, it reflects the resources that
are spent in K-12 schools.
[The information follows:]
OMB PART Ratings for Programs Proposed for Termination in the Fiscal
Year 2007 Budget Request
OMB developed the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) in order to
assess and improve program performance so that the Federal Government
can achieve better results. Ratings are based on questions in four
critical areas--purpose and design, strategic planning, management, and
results and accountability. The answers to questions in each of the
four areas result in numeric scores, which are combined to achieve an
overall qualitative rating that ranges from Effective, to Moderately
Effective, to Adequate, to Ineffective. Programs for which we have
insufficient evidence from either performance data or rigorous program
evaluations cannot be assessed and receive a PART rating of Results Not
Demonstrated. PART assessments help our Department and OMB improve the
performance of Federal programs by identifying flaws in program design,
management, or implementation that undermine effectiveness. PART
assessments also help inform funding decisions, but a program's PART
rating would not dictate budget policy. For example, the Administration
might not request funding for a program for which there is not a clear
Federal role or which is duplicative of other programs, even if it is
rated Effective or Moderately Effective.
The following chart shows whether programs proposed for termination
in the fiscal year 2007 budget request have been assessed using the
PART, and if assessed, the year of the assessment and the rating the
program received.
OMB PART FINDINGS FOR EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS
PROPOSED FOR TERMINATION IN FISCAL YEAR 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Year assessed Rating \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRIO Talent Search.............. 2003/2005........ Moderately
Effective
Comprehensive School Reform..... 2002............. Adequate
GEAR UP......................... 2003............. Adequate
Projects with Industry.......... 2004............. Adequate
Even Start...................... 2002............. Ineffective
Safe and Drug-Free Schools State 2002............. Ineffective
Grants.
TRIO Upward Bound............... 2002............. Ineffective
Vocational Education State 2002............. Ineffective
Grants.
B.J. Stupak Olympic Scholarships 2004............. Results Not
Demonstrated
Byrd Honors Scholarships........ 2004............. Results Not
Demonstrated
Educational Technology State 2005............. Results Not
Grants. Demonstrated
Leveraging Educational 2004............. Results Not
Assistance Partnership. Demonstrated
National Writing Project........ 2004............. Results Not
Demonstrated
Parental Information and 2004............. Results Not
Resource Centers. Demonstrated
Smaller Learning Communities.... 2005............. Results Not
Demonstrated
Teacher Quality Enhancement..... 2003............. Results Not
Demonstrated
Tech-Prep State Grants.......... 2002............. Results Not
Demonstrated
Academies for American History ................ Not Assessed
and Civics.
Arts in Education............... ................ Not Assessed
Civic Education................. ............... Not Assessed
Close Up Fellowships............ ............... Not Assessed
Demonstration Projects for ............... Not Assessed
Students with Disabilities.
Elementary School Counseling.... ............... Not Assessed
Excellence in Economic Education ............... Not Assessed
Exchanges with Historic Whaling ................ Not Assessed
and Trading Partners.
Federal Perkins Loans ............... Not Assessed
Cancellations.
Foundations for Learning........ ............... Not Assessed
Javits Gifted and Talented...... ............... Not Assessed
Mental Health Integration in ............... Not Assessed
Schools.
Ready to Teach.................. ............... Not Assessed
Safe Drug-Free Schools Alcohol ............... Not Assessed
Abuse Reduction.
School Dropout Prevention....... ............... Not Assessed
School Leadership............... ............... Not Assessed
Star Schools.................... ............... Not Assessed
State Grants for Incarcerated ............... Not Assessed
Youth Offenders.
Thurgood Marshall Legal ............... Not Assessed
Educational Opportunity Program.
Underground Railroad Program.... ............... Not Assessed
Vocational Education National ................ Not Assessed
Programs.
VR Migrant and Seasonal ................ Not Assessed
Farmworkers.
VR Recreational Programs........ ................ Not Assessed
VR Supported Employment State ................ Not Assessed
Grants.
Women's Educational Equity...... ................ Not Assessed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects the most recent rating for programs that were reassessed.
NOTE: A total of 74 ED programs have been assessed since 2002 using the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART); additional programs will be
rated in the future.
Senator Harkin. So in your opinion the $2.1 billion and
$1.5 billion that's just money that normally goes to community
colleges, is that right?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir.
Senator Harkin. Well, I'll have to take a look at that. I'm
not certain about that one but give me some documents on that
and I'll----
Secretary Spellings. I'll definitely do that.
Senator Harkin. Let me ask you, but one thing I did want to
cover is this what's happening with special education. I said
earlier it goes from 19 percent to 18 percent, now down to 17
percent and, right, but here's the real problem, as bad as that
is, there's another hit coming to these schools outside your
jurisdiction but you should be cognizant of it, Medicaid pays
for the cost of coverage services for eligible children with
disabilities. School districts can be reimbursed by Medicaid
for transportation costs they incur in providing services if
this works. The administration wants to prohibit schools from
getting reimbursed for transportation and in fiscal year 2007
schools are expected to receive $615 million from Medicaid for
that purpose. If this change goes through then they're going to
have to pay the $615 million in transportation costs
themselves. So while you might say that there's been a slight
increase in IDEA funding from $10.583 to $10.683, a $100
million increase, still not keeping up with inflation or
anything, there's going to be another cut from Medicaid
reimbursement for these kids. Where are these schools going to
get that $615 million, $650 million, $615 million, can't read
it, $615 million for transportation? Did I make myself clear?
Secretary Spellings. You did. Senator, as you know, those
are reimbursements through HHS and I'm sure you'll discuss that
with Secretary Leavitt. My understanding is, those are places
where they found a lot of fraud and abuse with respect to those
reimbursements and, you know, with respect to IDEA funding
overall we've had a 68.5 percent increase in funding since 2001
and, you know, we continue investments on the education side
for special education. With respect to the transportation
funding, my understanding is that it's been a place where
there's been some fraud and abuse and that that needs to be
curtailed.
Senator Harkin. I'm all for cutting fraud and abuse but
when you disallow the whole thing, I mean, you're saying that
every dollar's being abused. I mean, you're not saying it----
Secretary Spelling. I'm just not very familiar with the
particulars, since we don't run that program.
Senator Harkin. You're not saying that but OMB or the
administration's saying that and since there's a close
correlation here between the two, between you and HHS on this,
I mean, somehow we've got to bring that together because if we
cut the $615 million COLA, that's going to be a big hit.
ESEA TITLE I PROPOSED FUNDING DECREASE
Title I, let me just say one thing about Title I. Right now
29 States will get less Title I funds under the budget, than
they did last year. My State, Iowa, was one of 15 States that
will get less Title I funding than they did 3 years ago in
fiscal year 2004. On the district level it's even bleaker. This
fiscal year was the third year in a row that most districts got
less Title I funding than they did the year before. Fiscal year
2007 will be the fourth straight year. In my State, two-thirds
of Iowa districts got less Title I funding this year than they
did 3 years ago. So how can you say you're giving schools
enough money for No Child Left Behind when our budget once
again cuts Title I funds the most to the districts?
Secretary Spelling. Well, as you know, under Title I the
distribution formulas follow the kids and the poorest kids as
they move around and as those populations shift. There are also
obviously States who are getting additional Title I resources
owing to the distributional mechanics of Title I funds
following those poorest, neediest kids.
SCHOOLS CATEGORIZED AS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT
Senator Harkin. I'm told there are about 11,000 schools in
this country that have been designated in need of improvement,
is that about right?
Secretary Spellings. That's sounds about right----
Senator Harkin. 11,000.
Secretary Spellings [continuing]. That sometimes gets
characterized as failing schools. I think, you know, we all
know that there are schools that need improvement when half the
minority kids aren't getting out of high school. We have work
to do with special ed students and limited English speakers and
so on and so forth, so, it doesn't surprise me that 11,000
schools need improvement.
ESEA TITLE I FUNDING
Senator Harkin. Yeah, but again how are we going to help
these schools when we're cutting Title I funding? I mean, you
say it follows the kids around and I know poverty's gone up in
some areas but I can tell you we still have, I suppose, kids in
Iowa and rural areas and places like that that are getting cut
out, because it's almost like you're assuming there's a static
level of poor kids just goes to this level and they shift
around but it always stays static, I mean the total number
stays static. That's not true. I don't think there's any
figures that show that. The number of poor kids in this country
has gone up.
Secretary Spellings. Right. That's why we supported
increases in Title I for the poor through the course of the
present administration.
Senator Harkin. Well, we're getting less Title I money.
Secretary Spellings. I'm talking about in the entirety of
the President's term, Title I funding is up about 45 percent.
Senator Harkin. Oh, I see. So it went up a couple of years
in a row. Now we can sit back and we don't have to increase it
any more.
Secretary Spellings. Well, I'm not suggesting that we can
sit back by any stretch but----
Senator Harkin. We hear that when we double the funding for
NIH and we got it up there, now we say, well they did that, now
we don't have to worry any more and we just sit back. I think
what we were doing in the first couple of years is trying to
play catch-up ball in funding these kids in Title I. That
doesn't mean it's remained static and I just think the program
funds Title I.
Secretary Spellings. Well, we've also called for $200
million for School Improvement. You talked about the 11,000
schools.
Senator Harkin. I know about the $200 million. I just
divide that out to 11,000, it's about $20,000 per district.
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think we can learn from each
other. I think States will be doing more systematic and
systemic work at a State level that will leverage some of those
resources.
Senator Harkin. Our time is up. Madam Secretary, you said
quite frankly in your opening statement that the Federal
Government's role is providing help to States for under-
privileged, poor kids and kids with disabilities. Well, this is
it, right here, and I think we're shirking our responsibility
in that area to provide that kind of help to the States. Thank
you.
HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS--THE SILENT EPIDEMIC
Senator Specter. Thank you, Senator Harkin. One final
inquiry and, Madam Secretary, we're having votes about to
begin, force back votes on the PATRIOT Act. The publication of
The Silent Epidemic is out on dropouts--I see you nodding in
the affirmative--thanks to the Gates Foundation on funding it,
and it shows that about 3.5 million young people between the
ages of 16 and 25 have dropped out of high school, were not in
school in the year 2003, the most recent year in which such an
estimate is available. What in the budget is being directed to
that major problem?
ADDRESSING THE HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUT PROBLEM
Secretary Spellings. Well, Senator, a few things. One, as
that study observes, and I'm meeting with one of those authors
of the report this afternoon, I think, of the things we know is
that kids drop out because they don't have the necessary
reading and deciphering skills, particularly reading skills, to
do high-school-level work. That's why we support the Striving
Readers Initiative for a $100 million, so we can take some of
our reading research and extend it in the middle schools and
get these kids caught up so that they can do more rigorous
work. The other thing, as the report observes, and I think it
speaks to boredom and a lack of rigor sometimes in high school,
is that many of the students that drop out, you know, are
passing. They are kids that are effective in attending school
and they're just completely disengaged and tend not to find it
very satisfying. So I think if we expand Advanced Placement, if
we expand dual enrollment, and provide some of these things
that are more engaging and more interesting and more rigorous,
and more relevant to kids--I think those are some things we can
do to guard against dropouts.
Senator Specter. What do you think the prospects are of
ameliorating that problem?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think it's, you know,
obviously going to be a journey. I don't think this is
something that happens overnight. I think we need to know more.
This is why the President has called for enhanced
accountability in high schools. We don't know very specifically
as policy-makers what is it about high school that's working
and not working and for whom. Is it reading? Is it rigor? Is
it, you know, disengagement? Is it a lack of vocational----
Senator Specter. How do you propose to find out?
Secretary Spellings. Well, what the President has called
for is additional accountability, more measurement in high
school. We only test in one grade in high school. Typically
States have elected to do that in the 10th or the 11th grade.
So after 8th grade we lack information about what the state of
high schools really is and an ability to parse that down for a
policy tool.
Senator Specter. Where the President has called for it,
what has the response been?
Secretary Spellings. Many States have put high school
assessments in place. I would say half or so have a full
complement of assessment through high school. That's the
Governor's----
DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS ON THE SILENT EPIDEMIC
Senator Specter. Madam Secretary, we're going to have to
recess here in a moment but what I would ask you to do is to
give us your evaluation, your Department's evaluation of this
report on dropouts and what is currently being done and what
you think ought to be done. That's a gigantic problem which we
really ought to address.
Secretary Spellings. I agree.
[The information follows:]
SCHOOL DROPOUTS
"The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts,'' a
March 2006 report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D.
Hart Research Associates for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is
based on a series of focus group interviews conducted with young people
aged 16-25 who identified themselves as high school dropouts from
public schools in large cities, suburbs, and small towns. As the report
notes, the study's purpose was to approach the dropout problem from the
perspectives of the former students themselves, to better understand
the lives and circumstances of students who drop out of high school and
to help ground the research in the stories and their reflections.
Though the study is primarily anecdotal and was not designed to be
nationally representative, its findings are consistent with the
Administration's emphasis on the need for high school reform in the
2006 and 2007 President's Budget proposals, as well as the effort to
bring more rigor to the high school curriculum through such initiatives
as the expansion of support for Advanced Placement courses.
For example, fully one-third of those surveyed said that they
dropped out of high school because they were ``failing in school,'' and
45 percent said they lacked academic preparation for the challenges of
high school. In response, The Silent Epidemic recommended the
development of ``early warning systems'' to help identify students at
risk of failing in school, the provision of intensive assistance to
struggling students, and research on what works in high school. The
Administration's $1.5 billion High School Reform initiative, first
proposed in the President's 2006 Budget, would address each of these
recommendations. Grantees would use test scores of incoming high school
students to identify those most at risk of not meeting State standards
and potentially dropping out, develop individualized performance plans
to meet student needs, and support research on specific interventions
and strategies for improving student achievement in high school.
The 2007 request also includes two other proposals specifically
targeted to the needs of students like those discussed in The Silent
Epidemic. First, a $70 million increase for the Striving Readers
program would significantly expand the development and implementation
of research-based interventions to improve the skills of teenage
students who are reading significantly below grade level. And a new,
$125 million Math Now for Middle School Students initiative would
support research-based math interventions in middle schools.
In addition, the proposed $90 million increase to expand the
availability of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
programs in schools with large populations of low-income students would
help ensure that such students are able to prepare for and successfully
complete challenging, college-level curricula.
Finally, the Department already has played a key leadership role in
working with the National Governors Association (NGA) to reach a common
definition for calculating high school graduation rates. In particular,
the National Governors Association also agreed on the use, while States
ramp up their own capacity for a long-term solution, of an Average
Freshman Graduation Rate, an interim calculation developed by the
Department to provide comparable State-level graduation data.
The Department believes that momentum is building for a serious,
nationwide effort to improve the performance of our high schools.
President Bush has provided strong leadership in this area for the past
two years, and The Silent Epidemic should contribute to that momentum
and help persuade Congress that the time for action is now.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Specter. We have received the prepared statement of
Senator Thad Cochran which will be placed in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I welcome Secretary Spellings to the subcommittee and
look forward to her testimony about the fiscal year 2007 Budget
proposal for the Department of Education.
I first want to thank the Secretary for her extraordinary efforts
and those of her staff following Hurricane Katrina. The first questions
our school superintendents in Mississippi had as they began recovering
were about being able to comply with the No Child Left Behind standards
and regulations. The Secretary showed understanding and compassion for
the difficulties faced by these administrators who still are simply
trying to get schools back in operation and students back in their
classrooms. Her actions to waive and provide flexibility under these
trying circumstances are greatly appreciated. Her visits to Southaven,
Pass Christian, and Jackson and those of the Assistant Secretary for
Elementary and Secondary Education, Henry Johnson to Biloxi and others
to my State have been well received and again, appreciated. An
especially helpful gesture to my staff was detailing Beverly Ward, a
Department employee here in Washington, to my Mississippi Gulf Coast
office. She is still there, and has helped to provide coordination,
communication, and a sense of comfort to those in both K-12 and higher
education. Thank you very much for that assistance, Madam Secretary.
While the overall budget for the Department of Education is $2.2
billion less than last year, I am happy to see the budget proposal
includes continuation and even some increases in important programs
such as, Title I grants to schools for disadvantaged students this is
especially important in my State; an increase of $100 million for
Special Education grants; continuation of Ready to Learn Television;
and a $2 million increase in the Foreign Language Assistance Program
grants to schools.
The budget is challenging again this year, and the President has
proposed a number of reductions and eliminations that include programs
that have proven to be popular and successful, so we will work to find
a consensus agreement on what and at what amounts programs should be
funded. I note for example, the National Writing Project, Arts
Education, Gifted Education, and Civic Education are among the proposed
program eliminations. I'll be working with you, Mr. Chairman, in an
effort to ensure those programs are continued.
We will discuss the details of these programs over the next few
months. As always, we begin the process of the appropriations cycle
with a number of competing interests: those from the administration,
members of this Committee, other Senators, and the members of the
House. We will work to accommodate as many of those priorities as
possible, and come to decisions as a committee that will reflect what
we ascertain as the best course of action.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Specter. There will be some additional questions
which will be submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
Question. The budget proposes to strengthen math and science
achievement of K-12 students through a new $380 million American
Competitiveness Initiative. I am a co-sponsor of S. 2198, which
addresses many of the same issues identified in this Initiative. My
concern is that this worthwhile Initiative is funded through reductions
in programs that many members of Congress support. Can you explain how
this budget will accommodate both this new initiative and the other
priority programs of various members of Congress?
Answer. We very much appreciate the strong support that you and
other Members of the Senate have shown for our efforts to improve math
and science education, as shown by the very similar goals of S. 2198
and the ACI. As for your concerns about funding the ACI proposals, I
would point out that at seven-tenths of 1 percent of our discretionary
budget, the $380 million request for the ACI represents a modest,
targeted approach to improving math and science education. The Congress
should be able to finance this initiative by reducing funding for less
needed or less effective programs. I understand very well that trade-
offs will be required by the Congress to fund the ACI, because we made
those very same trade-offs in preparing our 2007 request. At the same
time, we know that in negotiating the 2006 appropriations bill, your
Subcommittee demonstrated a willingness to balance funding for priority
programs with reductions and eliminations in other activities. We hope
to work with you to achieve that same kind of funding discipline for
2007, and our request includes many examples of programs that could be
reduced or eliminated to pay for new initiatives like the ACI.
FEDERAL PERKINS LOANS
Question. Your budget includes $664 million in spending that is
offset by the recall of the Federal contribution to the Perkins Loan
program. During last year's session, the House and Senate Authorizing
Committees agreed to extend the Perkins Loan program, not phase it out,
as your budget assumes. Can you tell me how my subcommittee should
make-up for the fact that this $664 million offset is not a viable
mechanism for additional spending proposed in your budget request?
Answer. The administration continues to believe needy students
would be better served by redirecting Perkins Loan funds to more
broadly available student aid programs, such as the Pell Grant, Federal
Family Education Loan (FFEL), and Direct Loan programs. With the number
of Perkins Loan institutions declining from 3,338 in academic year
1983-84 to 1,796 in 2003-04 and with only 3 percent of students
enrolled in postsecondary education receiving Perkins Loans each year,
the Administration believes the Federal share of funds held by this
small group of institutions would be more effective if used in a way
that serves all eligible students regardless of institution.
use of title i school improvement funds for comprehensive school reform
Question. In the last two Department of Education Appropriations
Acts, the conferees have included language in the statement of the
managers which encourages the Secretary to notify States of a priority
that they should place on the awarding of funds from the 4 percent
school improvement. Can you explain what actions your Department has
taken to comply with this language?
Answer. On March 9, 2005, the Department sent an e-mail to Title I
State directors to notify them of the provision in the fiscal year 2005
appropriations report language and to inform them of the conditions
that must be met for a State educational agency to use Title I school
improvement funds for comprehensive school reform (CSR) projects. A
Department official also discussed the directive at the Title I State
directors' meeting last year.
In addition, the Department has hosted three regional meetings of
State Title I directors and State CSR directors to talk about capturing
the lessons learned from CSR, building bridges between Title I and CSR,
and leveraging statewide systems of support to disseminate information
learned through CSR.
The Department will hold a meeting this spring focused on building
State capacity to improve schools using CSR and Title I to
institutionalize what has been learned about working with high-
performing, high-poverty schools. At the meeting Department staff will
discuss the fiscal year 2006 report language about using Title I school
improvement funds to support CSR projects.
COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM AS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGY
Question. Given that one rationale for the elimination of the
Comprehensive School Reform program was that States could use funds
under their 4 percent set asides for the same activities, do you have
any evidence that States have made or will make subgrants that support
comprehensive school reform activities in school districts, and if not,
why not?
Answer. We do not yet have any evidence, either from evaluation
data or other reports, that States or school districts are using
comprehensive school reform as part of their school improvement
strategy. In part, this may reflect the progressive nature of the No
Child Left Behind Act's (NCLB) school improvement requirements, which
gradually move from school improvement plans in the first 2 years to
replacement of curricula or staff under corrective action to
alternative governance during restructuring. Comprehensive school
reform generally represents the kind of thoroughgoing, fundamental
change called for under corrective action and restructuring and, thus,
may be adopted more frequently as increasing numbers of schools are
subjected to these more stringent improvement measures.
Also, while the school improvement requirements in NCLB are fairly
prescriptive, they do not specifically mention comprehensive school
reform as an improvement strategy. States and districts naturally look
to the statute for guidance as to what they must do to support schools
in the various stages of improvement, and will tend to adopt the
specific remedies found there.
Finally, comprehensive school reform is intensive and time-
consuming and requires considerable technical assistance from States
and school districts that have been focused in recent years on overall
implementation of NCLB. As States establish and strengthen their
statewide systems of support for LEA and school improvement, they are
likely to gain greater capacity to support activities like
comprehensive school reform. The President's School Improvement Grants
proposal would support this kind of evolution in State-level
improvement capabilities.
TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SET-ASIDE
Question. In the fiscal year 2007 budget request, you have proposed
overriding a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act to allow States
to reduce the grants to local educational agencies below the amount
they received in the 2006-2007 school year to generate sufficient funds
under the 4 percent school improvement provision of the law. Could a
State reduce the Title I grant funds of a school district identified
for improvement and subgrant those funds to another district?
Answer. Yes, that would be possible, but any such reduction would
be very small. Under the Administration's proposal, all districts would
contribute proportionately to the pool of funds available to support
State and local school improvement, not just those districts receiving
increased allocations under the Title I formulas. States would then
subgrant 95 percent of those funds to school districts with schools
identified for improvement, with priority on those districts with the
greatest need for such funds and the strongest commitment to using them
to raise the performance of the lowest-achieving schools. By the way,
the hold-harmless also leads States to reduce allocations to districts
identified for improvement and redirect funds to other districts; it
simply does so by disproportionately taking funds from districts that
otherwise qualify for more Title I funds.
LIMITATION ON REDUCTION OF TITLE I GRANTS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
PURPOSES
Question. Would this proposal establish any limit to the amount by
which a State could reduce a school district's Title I grant?
Answer. Yes, unlike current law, our proposal actually would limit
any reduction for school improvement purposes to 4 percent. Under
current law, districts that receive increased Title I funding often see
their allocations reduced by more than 4 percent to make up for those
districts protected by the hold-harmless.
Question. If not, why do you believe that is unnecessary?
Answer. As I said, our proposal actually would restore a meaningful
limit to the State reservation for school improvement.
TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT FUNDING GENERATED BY 4 PERCENT SET ASIDE
Question. With more than 9,000 schools identified for improvement
in the 2004-2005 school year, effective interventions that reduce this
number and lead to improved student outcomes would help States and
local school districts meet the goals of No Child Left Behind. How much
funding has been generated and allocated under the 4 percent set-aside
for each of the past 3 fiscal years?
Answer. We do not have actual data on the amounts reserved and
allocated by the States during this period. We estimate that States
reserved and allocated for school improvement purposes approximately
$484 million in fiscal year 2004 and $500 million in fiscal year 2005,
and will reserve and allocate roughly $499 million in fiscal year 2006.
Question. Is there any information about the reach of this funding
and the number of schools identified for improvement, or on watch
lists, that have not been assisted?
Answer. Earlier this year, the Department published a report,
``Title I Accountability and School Improvement from 2001 to 2004,''
which found that about 90 percent of school districts with schools
identified for improvement reported that they provided at least some
kinds of the assistance required by NCLB. At the same time, more than
half of ``continuously identified schools'' (those identified for
improvement throughout the period studied) reported that they did not
receive more intensive assistance, such as assistance from a school
support team or a school-based staff developer. The Department study
also found, however, that State practices for allocating school
improvement funds varied widely, partly because the study began prior
to the implementation of No Child Left Behind, which brought
significant changes to school improvement funding that were not fully
implemented when the study was completed.
The recently released report, ``National Assessment of Title I:
Interim Report,'' found that less than three-quarters of districts with
identified schools reported having the staff, expertise, time, or money
to improve the performance of those schools.
Question. Is there any information on how the 4 percent set-aside
for school improvement funds have been used to remove schools from
school improvement lists?
Answer. We currently do not have data directly linking school
improvement funding with success in exiting improvement status.
TITLE I SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT MONITORING
Question. Has the Department done any monitoring of the types of
activities funded with the 4 percent school improvement set-aside
established under the No Child Left Behind Act?
Answer. Yes. The monitoring indicators used by ED's Title I
monitoring team include a focus on whether SEAs have (1) reserved and
allocated Title I Part A funds for school improvement activities, and
(2) created and sustained a statewide system of support that provides
technical assistance to schools identified for improvement. The SEA
must provide documentation that it has established effective school
support teams with members who are knowledgeable about scientifically
based research and practices related to school improvement. Likewise,
the SEA must provide documentation that the teams provide support to
schools on such topics as the design and operation of the instructional
program and strategies for improving student performance. Monitors also
seek evidence that SEAs are ensuring that LEAs carry out their own
school improvement activities.
Another area reviewed is how the SEA distributes the 4 percent
school improvement funds. Of the amount it reserves, the SEA must
allocate not less than 95 percent directly to LEAs that operate schools
identified for improvement to support improvement activities. In most
cases, States are using these funds to provide special grants to
support improvement in those schools. In a few instances, States, with
the approval of the LEAs, directly provide improvement activities or
arrange to provide them through regional educational centers.
At the local level, ED's Title I monitors review how LEAs and
schools are using the funds for improvement activities. This
information is gleaned through interviews with LEA and school staffs.
Question. In particular, has the Department monitored the use of
funds for implementing required 2-year improvement plans incorporating
strategies based on scientifically based research and addressing the
specific issues that led to schools being identified for improvement?
Answer. Yes. The monitoring indicators used by ED's Title I
monitoring team seek information and evidence that the SEA has assisted
LEAs in developing or identifying effective curricula aligned with
State academic achievement standards and disseminated the curricula to
each LEA and school within the State. Additionally, monitors review and
discuss school improvement plans with LEA and school staffs to discern
how these plans address the 10 required components under NCLB,
including how the improvement plans incorporate strategies that are
research based and strategies that address the specific issues that led
to the school being identified for improvement.
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS PROGRAM AND EFFECTIVE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
ACTIVITIES
Question. What are your plans for using any knowledge generated
through research on effective school improvement activities; and how
will the fiscal year 2007 budget request support this goal?
Answer. The new $200 million request for School Improvement Grants
recognizes the critical need for State leadership and support in LEA
and school improvement. While States currently reserve 4 percent of
Title I, Part A allocations for school improvement activities--an
amount totaling more than $500 million annually, they must subgrant 95
percent of these funds to LEAs, leaving just $25 million available for
State-level school improvement activities. The request would provide
substantial new support for State-led LEA and school improvement
efforts and would help build State capacity to carry out statutory
improvement responsibilities.
One research based approach that the Department is considering for
the proposed School Improvement Grants program is requiring each State
to use diagnostic assessments in schools that repeatedly fail to make
adequate yearly progress. Such tests would help LEAs and schools
clearly identify student strengths and weaknesses in a particular
subject and develop appropriate instruction.
SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
Question. Budget documents supporting the budget request note that
``While many students attending schools identified for restructuring
receive SES, the services tend to be of limited duration.'' How does
the amount of funding generated from the appropriations for Title I
Grants to LEAs under the 20 percent SES/choice requirement relate to
this finding?
Answer. The statement in the budget request simply reflects the
reality that the duration and intensity of current supplemental
educational services (SES) are limited by the statutory cap on per-
pupil payments, with the current cap averaging about $1,500 nationally.
There are other factors that affect the duration of services, such as
the structure of SES programs and the actual costs charged by various
providers, but the general point is that the America's Opportunity
Scholarships for Kids proposal would roughly double the funding
available for SES, from $1,500 to $3,000 and, therefore, greatly
increase the intensity and duration of available services.
Question. If limited funding is not the reason for such limited
intensity, what are the primary causes of it?
Answer. The premise of our budget request was to enable parents to
purchase more extensive services with greater resources, and that
students in schools identified for restructuring are likely to be those
students who would most benefit from more extensive services than are
available under current law.
Question. What is the impact of this finding of limited intensity
on the effectiveness of the SES activity?
Answer. The SES program is still in its early years and we do not
yet have meaningful impact data.
Question. How is the Department monitoring the requirement in NCLB
that requires low-achieving students to receive priority for services
under choice and supplemental services options?
Answer. ED's Title I monitors review documentation to show that the
SEA has developed and disseminated guidance to LEAs outlining
requirements for implementing public school choice and supplemental
education services and that this guidance includes the requirement that
low-achieving students receive priority for these services. At the LEA
level, ED's Title I monitors review parent notification letters,
guidance documents, LEA contracts with SES providers, and other
documentation to determine if the LEA has complied with the required
priority for providing the choice and SES options.
SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PILOT PROGRAM
Question. You announced a number of pilots last year giving a
select number of districts in need of improvement the flexibility to
serve as supplemental educational service (SES) providers in exchange
for greater student participation and achievement data. All of your
other pilots invited interested States to ``apply'' before being
offered this sort of flexibility. Can you explain how you selected the
handful of districts that are in the SES pilot and why you circumvented
States altogether and negotiated with districts directly?
Answer. For each of the pilots that we started last year (allowing
Chicago and Boston to be providers although they are districts in need
of improvement and allowing four districts in Virginia to reverse the
order of choice and SES), the Department discussed and sought approval
from each of the States before the pilots began. In the case of the
Virginia pilots, we negotiated directly with the State throughout the
entire process. For Chicago and Boston, we sought and received approval
from their respective States for participation in the pilot. As for
selection of these particular districts for the pilots, in the case of
Chicago and Boston we worked with the Council of the Great City Schools
to help us identify districts that were willing and able to participate
in the pilot. Virginia had been in communication with the Department
about ways to strengthen SES in the State, and came to the Department
with a formal request to reverse the order of choice and SES. It was
the first State to do so, and we granted this flexibility on a trial
basis.
SELECTION OF DISTRICTS FOR SES PILOT PROGRAM
Question. Why was Chicago selected as opposed to districts such as
Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, for instance?
Answer. As I mentioned, the Department worked with the Council of
the Great City Schools to identify districts that had the ability to
provide high-quality SES services and would meet the terms of the
pilots. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were not identified at the time as
districts meeting these conditions.
STUDENT PARTICIPATION AND ACHIEVEMENT UNDER THE SES PILOT PROGRAM
Question. How many additional students are benefiting from each of
the 3 pilots, which waive your regulation around prohibiting districts
in need of improvement from serving as an SES provider?
Answer. Chicago and Boston are the two districts participating in
this pilot. New York City was invited to participate but declined for
this year. In Chicago, approximately 55,000 students are participating
in SES through Chicago's program and private providers' programs; this
compares to about 40,000 last year. In Boston, about 3,700 are
participating, compared to about 2,000 last year.
Question. When will we be able to see the data on the benefits of
SES on student achievement from these pilots?
Answer. We anticipate that this summer, after the spring State
assessment results are in, we should be able to collect data on student
achievement.
Question. How are you assuring high-quality tutoring programs in
SES?
Answer. As a condition of participation in these pilots, each
district had to meet a set of guiding principles that the Department
identified as key elements of high quality SES programs. These included
communicating to parents about SES through multiple venues and in
languages that parents could understand, holding extended windows for
enrollment, and allowing providers to serve students at school
facilities for a reasonable fee.
EXPANSION OF THE SES PILOT PROGRAM
Question. Do you plan to expand this pilot to additional districts
in the next school year?
Answer. We have monitored each of the pilot districts and collected
data on their implementation this year. We are now in the process of
reviewing these data and making determinations as to whether the
Chicago, Boston, and Virginia pilots will continue, and whether
additional sites will be added.
Question. If you do plan to expand the pilot program, what will be
the selection process and how many do you anticipate selecting?
Answer. In the near future, we will be making determinations as to
whether these pilots continue and the criteria we will use to select
sites for participation.
Question. Do you plan to put any additional requirements on school
districts serving as SES providers and, if so, what changes might there
be next year?
Answer. We are considering whether to add any additional criteria
to sites that participate in the pilots next year. We are using the
information we have gained from this year's pilot sites to consider
ways to strengthen the agreements with districts and help ensure that
more students are receiving quality SES services.
AMERICA'S OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS FOR KIDS
Question. The Department's budget includes $100 million for a
proposed voucher program that could be used by students in schools
identified for restructuring so that they can transfer to a private
school or receive intensive tutoring services. Why does the budget
request $100 million for vouchers for an estimated 2 percent of Title I
schools and request no increase in the amount of funds available for
the Title I grant program, the cornerstone of Federal assistance for
helping disadvantaged students?
Answer. Congress has invested nearly $200 billion in Title I Grants
to LEAs over the past 40 years, including $12.7 billion in the current
fiscal year. While we agree that Title I is the cornerstone of our
efforts to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education,
particularly for low-income and minority students in high-poverty
schools, the size of the program limits the impact of additional
funding available under current budget constraints. For example, the
$100 million proposed by President Bush for the America's Opportunity
Scholarships for Kids program represents less than one-tenth of one
percent of the funding provided for Title I Grants to LEAs, and would
have little or no impact when spread across 14,000 school districts.
However, this amount is sufficient to permit a meaningful demonstration
of the potential for expanded choice and tutoring options to improve
the achievement of students attending chronically low-performing
schools. Moreover, these funds would be targeted to the same students
who are the focus of the Title I program and, in the case of students
who select the tutoring option, would help improve the performance of
Title I schools undergoing restructuring.
Also, the President is requesting first-time funding for School
Improvement Grants, which would provide an additional $200 million for
State-led efforts to turn around low-performing school districts and
schools. These funds would directly benefit participating Title I
districts and schools that have been identified for improvement. For
this reason, it is not entirely accurate to say that the President's
2007 budget includes no increase in the amount of funds available for
Title I.
MEASURING PERFORMANCE OF THE IMPACT AID PROGRAM
Question. The Administration has been undertaking an examination of
how to measure performance under the Impact Aid program and has
identified a model for estimating unmet need of eligible school
districts. Please provide information on the findings of unmet need for
various types of Impact Aid districts.
Answer. In 2005, the Department created a simplified model to
analyze the effectiveness of the Impact Aid formulas and, more
specifically, address the question of whether or not funds are
adequately compensating for a Federal presence and the associated tax
burden. The Department sent a review and analysis of the model to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in January 2006.
The report applied the simplified model to calculate the gap
between available revenues to the LEA and the amount needed to fund
schools at the State average per-pupil expenditure for Florida,
Alabama, and Wyoming, three States for which adequate data were
available. Comparing this gap to the actual payments made to Impact Aid
districts revealed that there was very little correlation between the
computation of local need from the simplified model and actual
payments.
The model incorporates tax data into the analysis and, while it
brings us closer to being able to compute valid economic analyses of
the program, because of data limitations the model has not yielded the
desired results. In order to answer these questions properly, more
sophisticated analysis with better data will likely be needed.
IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY PROGRAMS
Question. In November 2005, the Government Accountability Office
released report GAO-06-25, which relates to State implementation of
teacher qualification requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.
This report noted that some teachers who provide instruction in more
than one core academic subject-such as special education teachers and
those in rural schools-and secondary math and science teachers might
not meet the teacher qualification requirement by the current deadline.
What activities are funded currently and proposed in the fiscal year
2007 budget to help States and districts ensure that all students are
taught by a highly qualified teacher?
Answer. In 2007, the administration is requesting funds for several
programs that focus on improving teacher quality to help ensure that
all teachers are highly qualified. These include: Improving Teacher
Quality State Grants ($2.9 billion), Title I Grants to Local
Educational Agencies ($624 million--the estimated professional
development portion), Mathematics and Science Partnerships ($182.2
million), Transition to Teaching ($44.5 million), Teaching of American
History ($50 million), Troops-to-Teachers ($14.6 million), and Advanced
Placement ($122.2 million).
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
Question. What specific steps will be taken to ensure that the
disparity between the proportion of highly qualified teachers in lower
income school districts and higher income schools is eliminated?
Answer. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, establishes the important goal
that all students be taught by a ``highly qualified teacher'' (HQT) who
holds at least a bachelor's degree, has obtained full State
certification, and has demonstrated knowledge in the core academic
subjects he or she teaches. Further, the ESEA requires States and LEAs
to include, in their annual report cards, information on the percentage
of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers, disaggregated by
high- and low-poverty schools. In addition, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 reinforced the NCLB goal
by aligning the requirements for special education teachers with the
NCLB requirements.
The Department has been requiring States to submit data as part of
their Consolidated State Performance Reports on the percentage of core
academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high- and low-
poverty schools, as well as the reasons why, for classes taught by
teachers who are not highly qualified, the teacher is not highly
qualified. In addition, States must have an equity plan in place to
ensure that poor or minority children are not taught by inexperienced,
unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than are other
children. The Department will be looking at States' progress in both of
these areas this spring and summer. Although States and school
districts are making significant progress in meeting the HQT
requirement, there is still a lot of work to do to ensure that each
State can meet the goal that every child is taught by a highly
qualified teacher by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
Meeting the NCLB Highly Qualified Teacher Requirement
In the Department's ongoing visits and communications with State
and local officials, we are often asked what will happen if, despite
their best efforts, districts cannot hire a highly qualified teacher
for every class in a core academic subject by the end of the 2005-2006
school year. Personnel decisions are made at the State and local
levels, and the law relies on education leaders in the States to make
the best educational decisions for improving student achievement. Last
fall, I sent a letter to the chief State school officers to assure them
that States that did not quite reach the 100 percent goal by the end of
the 2005-2006 school year would not lose Federal funds if they were
implementing the law and making a good-faith effort to reach the HQT
goal in NCLB as soon as possible.
The letter also stated that the Department will determine whether
or not a State is implementing the law and making a good-faith effort
to reach the HQT goal by examining four elements of implementation of
the HQT requirements: (1) the State's definition of a ``highly
qualified teacher,'' (2) how the State reports to parents and the
public on classes taught by highly qualified teachers, (3) the
completeness and accuracy of HQT data reported to the Department, and
(4) the steps the State has taken to ensure that experienced and
qualified teachers are equitably distributed among classrooms with poor
and minority children and those with their peers. In addition, the
Department will look at States' efforts to recruit, retain, and improve
the quality of the teaching force. If States meet the law's
requirements and the Department's expectations in these areas but fall
short of having highly qualified teachers in every classroom, they will
have the opportunity to negotiate and implement a revised plan for
meeting the HQT goal by the end of the 2006-2007 school year. However,
for States that either are not in compliance with the statutory HQT
requirements or are not making a good-faith effort to meet the goal of
having all teachers highly qualified, the Department reserves the right
to take appropriate action, such as the withholding of funds.
Departmental Review of States' Efforts to Meet the NCLB Highly
Qualified Teacher Requirements
In March 2006, I sent a follow-up letter to the chief State school
officers with timelines and additional information about the
Department's review of States' efforts to meet the HQT requirement. By
the middle of May, the Department will assess States' Consolidated
State Performance Report data for the 2004-2005 school year, HQT data
for previous years, and supporting information that we have obtained
through State monitoring visits and the review of publicly available
records. The Department will then make determinations about whether the
State is on track to meet the highly qualified teacher requirement.
Using the protocol ``Assessing State Progress in Meeting the Highly
Qualified Teacher Goal,'' the Department will determine whether each
State's 2004-2005 data indicate that the State has a reasonable
expectation of meeting the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the 2005-
06 school year and is faithfully implementing the law. If this is the
case, the State may not be required to submit a revised plan, though it
certainly may.
It is likely, however, that the Department will request most States
to submit a revised plan detailing the new steps they will take to
reach the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the 2006-2007 school year.
As part of the plan, each State will explain how and when the SEA will
complete the High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation
(HOUSSE) process for those teachers not new to the profession who were
hired prior to the end of the 2005-2006 school year, and how the SEA
will limit the use of HOUSSE procedures for teachers hired after the
end of the 2005-2006 school year to those secondary school teachers
teaching multiple subjects in eligible rural schools (who, if highly
qualified in at least one subject at the time of hire, may use HOUSSE
to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within 3 years), and
those special education teachers teaching multiple subjects (who, if
they are new to the profession and highly qualified in language arts,
mathematics, or science at the time of hire, may use HOUSSE to
demonstrate competence in additional subjects within 2 years). Peers
and teacher-quality experts will review the State's revised plan and
evaluate how effectively the plan addresses the State's challenges in
reaching the 100 percent HQT goal.
Corrective Steps for Districts not Meeting Highly Qualified Teacher
Requirements
Finally, if the Department determines that a State has not
fulfilled its obligations under the statute and is not on track to have
all teachers highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year,
the Department will take corrective actions in addition to requiring
the State to submit a revised plan.
By the middle of May, the Department will notify States, in
writing, of the results of the assessment of their HQT progress and
will request the States, as appropriate, to submit revised plans.
States will have until July 7 to submit their revised plans to the
Department, and the Department then will determine whether a revised
State plan is sufficient to attain the HQT goal in 2006-2007 and
beyond. In August, the Department will begin a new cycle of State
monitoring visits to ensure that States are implementing their revised
plans.
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION ON HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER REQUIREMENTS
Question. The report also identified some information dissemination
challenges. What actions has the Department taken or planned for making
helpful information available?
Answer. The GAO report recommended that the Department ``explore
ways to make the Web-based information on teacher qualification
requirements more accessible to users of its Web site. Specifically,
the Secretary may want to more prominently display the link to state
teacher initiatives, as well as consider enhancing the capability of
the search function.''
As noted in the GAO report, the Department agrees with the
recommendation and has been working to improve the Department's website
so that it is more user friendly for teachers and officials who are
trying to find information about the highly qualified teacher
requirements. For example, the website now directs students, teachers,
parents, and administrators to specific pages for materials of interest
to them. The teacher page has a section that describes State and local
initiatives to improve teacher quality, and both the teacher and
administrator web pages have direct links to information about the
highly qualified teacher provisions.
STATES' REPORTING OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER DATA
Question. The Congressional Justification states, ``The Department
is not entirely confident that all States are reporting accurately on
the highly qualified status of their teachers, particularly special
education teachers.'' This statement is consistent with the Government
Accountability Office's recent report regarding teacher quality issues.
What actions are you taking to specifically address this issue and what
plans do you have for future actions?
Answer. Under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants section of
the congressional justification, we did report that the Department is
not entirely confident that all States are reporting accurately on the
highly qualified status of their teachers, particularly special
education teachers. To address this concern, the Department has been
working closely with States, especially through monitoring visits, to
help them improve the quality of the data that they report. As of late
March 2006, the Department has monitored all but three States
concerning their highly qualified teacher status and will monitor the
remaining States this spring.
We will also be looking very carefully at States' efforts to report
accurately HQT data this spring and summer when we review their
progress in meeting the requirement that all teachers of core academic
subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.
After that review, we will likely require many States to submit revised
State plans, and we may take corrective actions against any States that
are not making a good-faith effort to improve their data collection and
reporting. The Department also plans to begin a new round of State
monitoring visits late this summer.
Question. How does your budget support your current and planned
actions?
Answer. The Department is planning to use Salaries and Expenses
funds to review States' HQT data and their efforts towards meeting the
goal of having all teachers of core academic subjects highly qualified.
ENFORCEMENT OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS REQUIREMENT
Question. In your October 21, 2005 policy letter regarding the
``highly qualified teacher'' issue, you assured States they would not
lose Federal funds if they failed to meet the 100 percent requirement
and were making a good faith effort to implement the law. One of the
ways you will make such a determination is by evaluating whether States
take action to ensure that inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field
teachers do not teach poor or minority children at higher rates than
other children. How are highly qualified teachers distributed currently
between low-income and high-income school districts?
Answer. States are reporting steady improvement towards meeting the
goal of having all teachers of core academic subjects highly qualified
by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Data for the 2005-2006 school
year will be reported in 2007. For 2003-2004, the data indicate that 81
percent of core academic classes in high-poverty schools were taught by
highly qualified teachers, an increase of 7 percentage points over the
baseline of 74 in 2003. 2004 data for the percentage of core academic
classes taught by highly qualified teachers in low-poverty, elementary,
and secondary schools was 89 percent, 89 percent, and 84 percent,
respectively.
ENSURING HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS FOR STUDENTS OF ALL SOCIOECONOMIC
STATUS
Question. What steps is the Department taking to ensure
socioeconomic status does not determine whether a student has access to
a qualified teacher or not?
Answer. For the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program, the
Department requires States to report on teachers' highly qualified
status at the classroom level. For example, in the 2003-2004 school
year, 81 percent of core academic classes in high-poverty schools were
taught by highly qualified teachers. We believe that, by requiring
States to report on all classrooms, we are sending the message that we
expect all core academic teachers to be highly qualified, whether they
are teaching in a high- or low-poverty school, or whether at the
elementary- or secondary-school levels.
As mentioned earlier, the Department will closely evaluate States'
progress in meeting the HQT requirement this spring and summer as part
of our determination of whether they are making a good-faith effort to
meet the 100 percent objective. This will include a review of their
Title I equity plans, which are meant to ensure that poor or minority
children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field
teachers at higher rates than are other children.
FEDERAL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED
AND UNQUALIFIED TEACHERS
Question. How have States used Federal funds to address this issue?
Answer. The Department sponsored a 2-day meeting for State
coordinators in March 2006 that focused on the inequitable distribution
of teachers who are unqualified, inexperienced, or out-of-field.
Working with experts and researchers from the National Comprehensive
Center for Teacher Quality (at Learning Point, Inc.), the Educational
Testing Service, and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the
Department provided the State coordinators with a series of written
tools they can use to examine the inequity issue and begin to prepare
State plans to address the issue. The Department also provided all of
the States with a protocol that will be used to examine whether revised
State plans, which must be provided to the Department this summer, will
satisfactorily address this issue.
For most States, this is the first time they will be preparing
formal, written equity plans. In previous years, States had difficulty
determining if there was an equity distribution problem, so they were
unsure how to best address concerns about the unequal distribution of
highly qualified teachers. The availability of valid data about the
distribution of highly qualified teachers is now helping States to
think about the problem and develop equity plans.
Although States are just now developing their equity plans, many
States already have incentive programs and strategies to encourage
teachers to take on more challenging assignments. The Department is
highlighting some of these strategies at the following weblink: http://
www.teacherquality.us/Public/PublicHome.asp.
TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM AND TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND
RETENTION
Question. In recent years, Congress has tried to affect teacher
recruitment and retention through a number of legislative efforts,
including scholarships for those who commit to teaching in certain
geographic or content areas, loan forgiveness programs, and other
efforts. In addition, there are new requirements that districts and
States are trying ardently to meet as required by No Child Left
Behind's ``highly qualified teacher'' provisions. Why is the Department
acknowledging the crucial role teachers play in maintaining the
country's competitiveness, while at the same time it is proposing
elimination of the Higher Education Act's Teacher Quality Enhancement
program? Can you explain these seemingly conflicting efforts?
Answer. We do not believe that there is any conflict in the
Department's efforts to improve teacher recruitment and retention and
the Department's proposal to terminate duplicative programs, such as
the Teacher Quality Enhancement program. The Department continues to
recognize that the quality of the teacher is one of the most critical
components in how well students achieve and that improving efforts to
recruit and retain top quality teachers, especially in geographic and
academic areas of high need, is critical to improving the overall
quality of the Nation's teachers. The Department's proposal to
terminate the Teacher Quality Enhancement program is based, in part, on
the fact that State and local entities may already use funds they
receive under a number of other Department programs to carry out the
activities supported through the Teacher Quality Enhancement program.
Both the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program and the
Transition to Teaching program include provisions designed to improve
teacher recruitment and retention, including all of the activities that
are allowable under the Teacher Quality Enhancement program. The
Department's proposal to eliminate funding for the Teacher Quality
Enhancement program would reduce unnecessary duplication, improve
programmatic efficiency, and simplify the grant process for potential
recipients.
DATA MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE
Question. The Government Accountability Office report (GAO), GAO-
06-06, released in October 2005, included an assessment of the
Department's efforts to identify performance-related data items that
could be collected and reported by States that would promote the
evaluation of the effectiveness of Federal programs. This report
identified several challenges with respect to the participation of and
perceived benefit for States and quality and consistency of data
collected through the system. What is the Department's plan for
addressing the challenges identified in the GAO report and how much
funding is being allocated in fiscal year 2006 and requested in fiscal
year 2007 for this initiative?
Answer. The GAO report recommended that the Department develop a
strategy to help States improve their ability to provide quality data.
As described in the Corrective Action Plan we submitted to the GAO in
response to their report, we have taken several steps to improve the
quality of the data the Department collects. By the end of this fiscal
year, we will have awarded nearly $50 million in grants to States under
the Statewide Data Systems program to develop and implement statewide
longitudinal data systems. The President's 2007 budget requests a $30
million increase for this program.
The National Center for Education Statistics is working with the
staff of the Department's central database, the Education Data Exchange
Network (EDEN), to provide technical support and oversight for our
grantees. The Department provides additional technical assistance to
States through the Data Quality and Standards Contract with the Council
of Chief State School Officers. The Department is also a contributing
partner in the Data Quality Campaign, a partnership of more than 10
national organizations that helps States implement high-quality
statewide information management systems. Finally, the Department has
established a Partner Support Center that provides expert technical
assistance to States on data submission processes and quality issues
related to EDEN.
The Department is conducting a rigorous assessment of the quality
of our data collection and reporting. As part of this process, the
Department recently announced the launch of EDFacts, a new reporting
and analysis tool for data collected and compiled through sources such
as EDEN. In 2006, $5.705 million is being allocated for enhancements to
the EDFacts and EDEN systems, and $6.244 million is requested for 2007.
Question. Specifically, how will these funds be utilized?
Answer. These funds will be used to support the operation of the
Partner Support Center, development of new enhancements for the EDEN
and EDFacts systems (including this year's successful online collection
of the Consolidated State Performance Report), maintenance of these
systems, and development of new reports and tools that enhance program
offices' efficient use of collected K-12 performance data.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Question. The budget proposes a $2 million increase for the Foreign
Language Assistance program. Budget documents supporting this request
state that beginning with the 2006 competition, the Department will
focus this program on providing incentives for States and districts to
provide instruction in critical needs language, especially those
programs using technology. Please explain how the 2006 competition will
be structured to address the issues raised in the fiscal year 2006
Senate Committee Report and the Statement of the Managers accompanying
the fiscal year 2006 Conference Report. Specifically, what type of
priority are you proposing for the 2006 competition, and what is the
complete list of foreign languages that will be eligible for such a
priority?
Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring that all school
districts that demonstrate the capacity to successfully implement a
program receive consideration for competitive grant funds. In response
to the concerns raised both in the Senate Committee Report and the
Statement of Managers that the poorest districts may be shut out of
Foreign Language Assistance grants due to their inability provide the
required 50 percent match, the Department has taken active steps to
increase awareness of waiver availability for eligible grant
applicants. The application package for grants includes detailed
information about what resources may contribute to a grantee's matching
requirement, and the Department considers waivers for any district that
can demonstrate financial hardship. The program office also has
expanded its outreach efforts to include details about the waiver
process and eligibility on the Department's web page, at professional
workshops, and in fact sheets about the program. The combination of
improved grant application materials and increased public awareness
about waivers will help ensure that disadvantaged districts are not
precluded from participating in the program.
Foreign Language Assistance Program--Critical Need Languages Priorty
In addition to giving increased attention to grantees that may be
eligible for waivers, the Department established a priority relating to
critical need languages for the 2006 grant competition. In conjunction
with the President's National Security Language Initiative, the
Department will give preference to grant applicants that demonstrate
the ability to build programs and courses in languages that have
significant political or economic importance. The specific languages
that have been identified as critical are Arabic, Chinese, Korean,
Japanese, Russian, and the languages in the Indic, Iranian, and Turkic
language families.
ARTS EDUCATION
Question. The No Child Left Behind Act recognizes the arts as a
core academic subject and studies show that the arts are proven to help
close the achievement gap and improve essential academic skills. You
have stated previously that a ``well-rounded curriculum that includes
the arts and music contributes to higher academic achievement.'' If
arts have been proven to be essential to the learning process, why has
the President proposed the elimination of arts education in the fiscal
year 2007 budget?
Answer. Our request to zero-fund Arts in Education reflects the
Administration's policy of increasing resources for high-priority
programs by eliminating categorical programs that have narrow or
limited effect. These categorical programs siphon off Federal resources
that could be used by State and local educational agencies to improve
the academic performance of all students.
Districts desiring to implement arts education activities may use
funds provided under other Federal programs. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act also provides LEAs with flexibility to
consolidate certain Federal funds to carry out activities, including
arts education programs, that best meet the needs of their district.
For example, under the State and Local Transferability Act, most LEAs
may transfer up to 50 percent of their formula allocations under
various State formula grant programs to their allocations under: (1)
any of the other authorized programs; or (2) Part A of Title I.
Activities to support arts education are an allowable use of funds
under the State Grants for Innovative Programs authority. Therefore, an
LEA that wants to implement an arts education program may transfer
funds from its allocations received under the authorized programs to
its State Grants for Innovative Programs allocation, without having to
go through a separate grant application process.
In addition, under the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
program, local educational agencies can use their funds to implement
professional development activities that improve the knowledge of
teachers and principals in core academic subjects, including the arts.
The flexibility that is available under these Federal programs provides
additional justification for the Administration's policy of eliminating
discrete categorical grant programs such as Arts in Education.
Question. As a ``core academic subject,'' the arts should be
included in all research and data collection. The No Child Left Behind
Act and current Department of Education policy make it clear that
decisions regarding education are made on the basis of research. The
FRSS report, ``Arts in Education in Public Elementary and Secondary
Schools,'' is the only research report produced by the Department on
the status of how arts education is delivered in America's public
schools. The last report was for data collected in the 1999-2000 school
year and the fiscal year 2006 statement of the managers urges IES to
repeat this comprehensive data collection and report. When is the
Department planning on another round of data collection for an updated
report, which will help study and improve access to the arts as a core
academic subject?
Answer. We agree that having periodic information about arts
education is important. The next National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) arts assessment is scheduled for 2008. It will be an
8th-grade assessment that will include components for music, theater,
and the visual arts, as was the case with the last arts assessment in
1997. Work on the 2008 assessment began last year with item
development, and we will conduct a field test this year.
The Department has not budgeted for an arts education survey in the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Fast Response Survey
program for fiscal year 2007. The expense of replicating a survey
involving multiple samples of teachers in the visual arts, music, and
dramatic arts is too great, given competing demands for funds and the
costs of the ongoing data collection programs of NCES. The National
Endowment for the Arts requested the earlier 1999-2000 arts education
survey and paid for it in part.
READY TO TEACH PROGRAM AND MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Question. Madam Secretary, the fiscal year 2007 budget allocates
$380 million for new or increased funding for math and science programs
aimed at giving students the skills they need to become competitive
workers in the global economy of the 21st century. Specifically, part
of this funding is targeted to address the critical shortage of
qualified teachers for math and science education, particularly in
high-concentration areas for low-income students.
The Ready To Teach program funds the development of digital
educational content and online professional development in partnerships
with the public television community. Congress has invested in this
program over several years to ensure that it is easily accessible,
flexible and tailored to local, State, and national standards. The most
recent grant competition recognized the continued success of PBS
TeacherLine service, and technology-based programs that offer a cost-
effective complement to off-campus training. In a difficult budget
environment, the Department should work to utilize the assets of
programs such as Ready to Teach in its effort to strengthen math and
science education, especially in the area of teacher training. How will
the Department utilize this investment in advancing math and science
education?
Answer. The Department has no plans to utilize the Ready to Teach
program to advance math and science education. There is limited
information on the effectiveness of professional development activities
supported through this small technology program. It's also not at all
clear that nonprofit telecommunications entities, like Ready to Teach
program grantees, are very well equipped to address the critical
training and professional development and training needs of current and
future math and science teachers.
In past years, Ready to Teach has played a very limited role in
helping schools and districts address professional development needs,
and next to no role in actually providing teacher training. In light of
recent research findings on the critical influence of highly qualified
teachers on student learning, and the seriousness of the on-going
teacher shortage crisis, the Administration believes that funds should
not be provided for small categorical programs like this one that have
limited impact and that siphon off Federal resources that could be used
by States and districts to pursue more important goals.
READY TO LEARN PROGRAM
Question. Madam Secretary, last year the Department restructured
the Ready to Learn educational television program to focus solely on
programming that teaches literacy, and eliminated much of the
widespread community outreach portion of the program. We all agree that
literacy proficiency is central to fulfilling the goals of No Child
Left Behind, and we applaud the Administration's including funds for
Ready to Learn in the Administration's budget request. However, the
elimination of the outreach activities concerns many of us here in
Congress. How does the Department plan to build upon the successes of
the local outreach activities by public television stations across the
country?
Answer. Over the current 5-year budget period, the Department
intends to dedicate approximately $20 million to support on-going Ready
to Learn (RTL) community outreach activities. While it's true that the
Department restructured the Ready to Learn educational television
competition, it's not true that ``much of the widespread community
outreach portion of the program'' was eliminated. In fiscal year 2005,
the Department made three new awards under the Ready to Learn program,
including one 5-year outreach award to the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (CPB). Under this outreach award, CPB will continue to
work strategically with public television stations across the country
to support a variety of local outreach activities.
WORKSHOP APPROACH TO OUTREACH AND IMPACT ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Question. A recent evaluation of ``the workshop approach'' to
outreach supported by previous RTL grantees (entitled ``Using
Television as a Teaching Tool: The Impacts of Ready to Learn Workshops
on Parents, Educators, and the Children in Their Care'') suggests that
RTL has yet to achieve intended results in key areas of outreach
implementation. Although a link between RTL workshops and adults' self-
reported behaviors at 3 and 6 months after the workshops was
established, the effect sizes were small and the impacts on adult
behaviors did not translate into impacts on children. This study
concluded that the workshop approach to outreach had no measurable
effects on student learning outcomes and only moderate impacts on
parent/caregiver behaviors. As the study pointed out, enhancing
children's school readiness to the point of significant, measurable
improvement usually requires large investments in child-focused
interventions over extended periods of time. Thus, it's not surprising
that the workshops, which necessarily cannot be implemented at the
level of intensity usually associated with most interventions that
improve student-learning outcomes, showed no measurable effects on
student behaviors and learning outcomes. Based on the findings of this
rigorous 5-year evaluation, we believe that RTL outreach activities can
be targeted far more effectively, to the end of ensuring that all
children read on grade level by the third grade.
Because outreach is such a critical component of the RTL program,
under the new outreach award CPB plans to use the latest evidence from
social marketing research to target their efforts more effectively. CPB
will continue to rely heavily on community partnerships, and will
strategically partner with public broadcasting stations as local
community hubs. However, unlike in past outreach work, CPB will partner
with PBS to promote public awareness of RTL at the national and local
levels through press and media outlets such as newspapers, television,
and radio, emphasizing those most likely to reach the target audience
of low-income parents and caregivers.
More specifically, isn't there a way to combine the educational
television programming on PBS funded by Ready to Learn, with local
workshops for parents and teachers and other outreach activities by
local public stations, such as free book distribution.
Answer. As indicated in our response to the previous question, a
recent evaluation of ``the workshop approach'' to outreach supported by
previous RTL grantees (entitled ``Using Television as a Teaching Tool:
The Impacts of Ready to Learn Workshops on Parents, Educators, and the
Children in Their Care'') suggests that RTL has yet to achieve intended
results in key areas of outreach implementation. Based on this
evaluation, we believe that RTL outreach activities can be targeted far
more effectively, to the end of ensuring that all children read on
grade level by the third grade.
Under the new outreach award, CPB plans to change its outreach
strategy by using the latest evidence from social marketing research to
inform its work. CPB will continue to rely heavily on community
partnerships, and will strategically partner with public broadcasting
stations as local community hubs. However, unlike in past outreach
work, CPB will partner with PBS to promote public awareness of RTL at
the national and local levels through press and media outlets such as
newspapers, television, and radio, emphasizing those most likely to
reach the target audience of low-income parents and caregivers.
READY TO LEARN CONTINUATION PROJECTS
Question. Additionally, given the President's emerging initiative
in math and science education, would you support a proposal to expand
the focus of Ready to Learn to include, in addition to literacy, math
and science education programming?
Answer. All of the Ready To Learn funds requested for fiscal year
2007 are needed to cover the continuation costs of current grantees,
which were awarded 5-year grants in 2005. Both programming awards must
focus on utilizing the principles of scientifically based reading
research to improve literacy outcomes for young children, consistent
with the priority established for last year's competition and the
cooperative agreements. By 2010, however, when the awards under this
program will be re-competed, it is possible that the research base on
how children acquire math and science knowledge will be sufficiently
well-developed to support the development of new children's educational
programming in these areas.
MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION--MATH NOW PROGRAM AND MATH AND SCIENCE
PARTNERSHIPS
Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes to establish Math
Now for Elementary and Secondary School programs, which are intended to
improve math instruction for elementary and middle school students.
What is the potential overlap between the proposed math programs and
the existing Math and Science Partnerships program?
Answer. The administration believes that Mathematics and Science
Partnerships, a formula-grant program that promotes strong teaching
skills for elementary and secondary school teachers, is important for
ensuring that all States have high-quality mathematics and science
professional development programs that focus on implementing
scientifically based research and technology into the curriculum.
The Math Now programs, which will implement proven practices in
mathematics instruction, including those recommended by the National
Mathematics Panel, will go one step further by helping to ensure that
American students are prepared to take and pass algebra courses in
middle school, which will encourage them to take and pass higher-level
mathematics and science courses in high school. They will focus more
precisely than does Mathematics and Science Partnerships on the need to
ensure that elementary-school students receive what the best research
indicates is the most effective math instruction and for middle-school
students who are struggling in math to receive the interventions they
need.
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIPS AND MATH NOW PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Question. The States have some flexibility on how they target those
funds through their sub-granting process. Is there any information
about the extent to which States have targeted funding to the same
issues proposed to be addressed by these new programs?
Answer. The Department began collecting data from States and
partnerships this year that will describe how Mathematics and Science
Partnerships (MSP) subgrantees are implementing the program. These data
will include information about the kinds of activities MSP subgrantees
are conducting with program funds, and the information should be
available this summer.
Although we do not have a better sense of the activities MSP
grantees are conducting, it is possible that there may be some overlap
between the MSP and Math Now programs. However, we expect that it will
be minimal. For example, the MSP program focuses on providing
professional development for mathematics and science teachers, while
the Math Now programs would have several allowable uses of funds,
including professional development, but focusing more on improving
elementary-school math instruction and helping middle-school students
who are significantly below grade level in math. The Math Now grantees
would also implement instructional principles and promising practices
developed by the National Mathematics Panel, which is not a requirement
of MSP subgrantees.
NATIONAL MATHEMATICS PANEL
Question. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget proposes to
establish a National Mathematics Panel to identify approaches and
interventions that meet either the scientifically based research
standard, as defined in the No Child Left Behind Act, or ``promising
practices.'' How will the selections for the National Mathematics Panel
be made, so that individuals with diverse backgrounds are represented
on the panel?
Answer. In order to ensure a diverse pool of expertise, the
Secretary will appoint no more than 20 members from the public and
private sectors, as well as no more than 10 members from the Department
of Education and other Federal agencies to the National Mathematics
Panel. Panel members may include researchers who study mathematics,
professors of mathematics and mathematics education, professors of
psychology and/or cognitive development, practicing teachers,
principals, State or local education officials, parents, business
leaders, foundation representatives, members of education associations,
and other individuals selected on the basis of their expertise and
experiences as appropriate.
Question. How will ``promising practices'' be defined for purposes
of identifying approaches and interventions?
Answer. Once it has been convened, members of the National
Mathematics Panel will meet and determine the appropriate definitions
and methodology for their review and synthesis of the evidence base on
mathematics education. One of their charges will be to recommend, based
on the best available scientific evidence, instructional practices,
programs, and materials that are effective for improving mathematics
learning. Since the scientific evidence base in mathematics education
is inadequate in many areas, we anticipate that the Panel will also
provide guidance that will help States and districts determine which
approaches and interventions have some evidence-even through it does
not yet meet the standards for scientifically based research-that
indicate that the interventions will improve student outcomes.
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Question. The President's Academic Competitiveness Initiative (ACI)
clearly emphasizes the need for improved science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. The Department of
Education's 2007 budget request makes substantial improved mathematics
education via the Math Now program, but does not make a comparable
investment in science education. What is the Department's plan for
investing in science education?
Answer. Both mathematics and science are important subjects for our
students to learn well if we are to remain competitive in the global
economy. Because we need to set priorities within our budget, we are
focusing on mathematics first through the Math Now programs.
Mathematics is a ``gateway'' course for upper-level mathematics and
science learning, so we believe that it is crucial for students to
first have a firm foundation in mathematics. In addition, because Title
I mathematics assessments are already in place (while the science
assessments will not come on line until 2007-2008), we have an
immediate source of information for measuring the effectiveness of new
strategies in teaching mathematics, but not in science.
Science Education Support
Finally, the budget request includes either increases or level
funding for a number of programs that focus on science, including
Mathematics and Science Partnerships and Graduate Assistance in Areas
of National Need. The new Advanced Placement and Adjunct Teacher Corps
proposals would target science, in addition to mathematics and critical
foreign languages. Other Department programs that allow grantees to
focus on science include Transition to Teaching, Troop-to-Teachers, and
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants.
INVESTMENTS IN ADVANCED PLACEMENT
Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes to expand the reach
of the Advanced Placement program by requiring grantees to offer
incentives for teachers to become qualified to teach Advanced Placement
and International Baccalaureate Organization classes in mathematics,
science, and foreign languages and to teachers whose students pass
tests in those subjects. The budget also proposes to require grantees
to secure public and private matching funds to leverage the Federal
investment. How much money does the Department expect the private
sector to contribute toward the matching requirement for the Advanced
Placement (AP) program?
Answer. The Department expects the private sector to invest roughly
$114 million in the AP program, which matches the Department's funding
request for AP Incentive Grants. Based on conversations with potential
donors, who are very excited about this initiative, we believe this
assumption is realistic.
Question. What is the basis for that projection?
Answer. Conversations between Department officials and
representatives of private companies indicate that very substantial
non-governmental support will be forthcoming. Senior officials are
encouraging supporters of the proposal to publicize their commitment,
and we hope to provide more information in the coming weeks.
Question. Please provide the same information for State
contributions.
Answer. The Department is aware that many States are already
committed to investing in the AP program, and believe that States will
contribute their support and resources to increasing low-income
students' access to challenging coursework. Our expectation is that
State and local funds will amount to approximately $114 million,
resulting in roughly a one-third/one-third/one-third split in Federal,
State and local, and private-sector contributions.
Question. Also, does the Department plan to institute a
maintenance-of-effort requirement for States; why or why not?
Answer. No, because the statute already includes a ``supplement,
not supplant'' provision, which will prevent the Federal funds from
merely supplanting existing State and local efforts.
ADVANCED PLACEMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Question. How will the Department ensure that the proposed
incentive for teachers whose students pass AP/IB tests will not lead to
the unintended consequence of discouraging students from taking these
tests?
Answer. Providing a bonus to teachers for each student who passes
an AP test should be an incentive for teachers to get more students to
take and pass AP exams. According to ``Do What Works: How Proven
Practices Can Improve America's High Schools,'' written by Tom Luce,
now our Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy
Development, and Lee Thompson, the AP incentive program increased the
number of students taking AP courses and passing AP exams in Texas. The
Department's proposal would extend the opportunities granted to
students in Texas to young people across America.
FEDERAL STUDENT AID
Question. Budget documents supporting the recall of the Federal
portion of repayments made under the Federal Perkins Loans program
indicate that, ``the Administration believes the Federal share of funds
held by this small group of institutions might more effectively help
students if used in a way that serves all eligible students regardless
of institution.'' In addition to the $664 million proposed recall of
Perkins proceeds, the proposed budget includes a reduction of $436
million in funding from the Student Financial Assistance account. How
does the proposed budget more effectively serve all eligible students
by recalling $664 million from the Perkins loans program and reducing
the Student Financial Assistance account by $436 million?
Answer. It is important to look at the Federal investment in
student aid from a broad perspective. Overall, the President's Budget
would build on student benefits included in the Higher Education
Reconciliation Act (HERA) to provide a record $82 billion in new
student grant and loan assistance in fiscal year 2007. The HERA created
Academic Competitiveness Grants, a new need-based program supported
with mandatory funding that will award annual grants of up to $1,300 to
high-achieving first- and second-year students who have completed a
rigorous high school curriculum or up to $4,000 for third- and fourth-
year students majoring in mathematics, science, technology,
engineering, or critical foreign languages. In 2007, the program would
provide $850 million in grants to 600,000 low-income postsecondary
students. Over 2006-2010, grant awards would total more than $4.5
billion.
In addition, the HERA makes student loans more affordable by
phasing out student origination fees and fixing student interest rates
at 6.8 percent, reducing the maximum rate from the previous 8.25
percent. (If calculated today, the current variable rate formula--which
will continue to apply for loans originated prior to July 1, 2006--
would be 7.11 percent; if recent trends continue through June, the
actual rate may be even higher.) The HERA also expands loan limits for
first- and second-year students and graduate students and permanently
expands loan forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,500 for math, science and
special education teacher serving low-income communities.
Within the Student Financial Assistance account itself, most of the
$436 million reduction you mention reflects the effect of the new
scoring rule for the Pell Grant program, which reduces the need for
current year budget authority by allowing the use of excess funds from
the previous fiscal year. The balance of the reduction reflects
revised, lower estimates of fiscal year 2007 Pell Grant program costs
and the elimination of two redundant, ineffective, or unnecessary
programs: Federal Perkins Loans and Leveraging Education Assistance
Partnerships.
COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Question. Specifically, how will low- and middle-income students
achieve the same access to postsecondary education as high-income
students have, which is an objective of the Department of Education?
Answer. In today's highly competitive global economy it is vital
that no American student be denied access to effective postsecondary
education due to high costs. Accordingly, in September 2005 the
Secretary's Commission on the Future of Higher Education was created to
examine how we as a Nation can keep higher education affordable and
accessible. The Commission, made up of experienced leaders from
education, business, and government, is holding a series of meetings
around the country and gathering data from respected experts on higher
education. A final report with the commission's findings is expected by
August.
FUNDING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Question. In ``Cracks in the Education Pipeline: A Business
Leader's Guide to Higher Education Reform,'' it is stated that low-
income families, those with incomes in the bottom 40 percent of the
earnings distribution, spend one-third of their income to send a child
to community college and 43 percent to enroll in a public 4-year
school. Further, the document states that, ``Student aid has the
greatest impact when targeted on low-income students who otherwise
would not enroll in college.'' What is proposed in this budget to help
such families finance their goals for postsecondary education?
Answer. The President's 2007 Budget for student aid builds on a
number of significant accomplishments in 2006 to provide a record $82
billion in assistance to more than 10 million students and parents.
Adopting a proposal from the 2006 President's Budget, Congress
appropriated $4.3 billion in mandatory funding in 2006 to eliminate a
long-standing funding shortfall in the Pell Grant program, putting this
vital program--the foundation of Federal need-based aid--on a firm
financial footing after years of growing fiscal instability. Congress
also adopted new budget rules proposed by the President to prevent
shortfalls from occurring in the future. In addition, the Higher
Education Reconciliation Act, signed by the President in February,
would further help the neediest students by phasing out origination
fees for Stafford Loans and providing over $4.5 billion over 5 years in
new need-based Academic Competitiveness and SMART Grants.
ADVANCING AMERICA THROUGH FOREIGN LANGUAGE PARTNERSHIPS
Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget proposes a new program,
through appropriations language, to establish partnerships between
institutions of higher education and school districts that support
programs of study in grades K-16 in critical need languages.
Specifically, how will this proposed program complement existing
Department programs, such as those authorized and funded under title VI
of the Higher Education Act and the Fulbright-Hays Act?
Answer. The Advancing America Through Foreign Language Partnerships
program is intended to complement, not duplicate, existing Department
programs that provide support for foreign language and areas studies
education. Distinctive elements of the Advancing America Through
Foreign Language Partnerships program, compared to the Title VI of the
Higher Education Act and those authorized by the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act (Fulbright-Hays), include partnerships between
institutions of higher education and school districts; the degree of
focus on ``critical need languages'' such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian,
Hindi, Farsi, and others; and unique language programs of study that
enable successful students to advance from early learning in elementary
school through advanced proficiency levels in high school to superior
levels in college. The Title VI and Fulbright-Hays programs support 14
distinct yet interrelated programs designed to strengthen the
capability and performance of American education in foreign languages
and in area and international studies in a number of world regions.
These programs do not establish articulated programs of study in grades
K-16 in critical need foreign languages.
In addition, the objectives of this proposed program that relate to
establishing fully articulated K-16 programs that produce college
students who achieve a superior level of proficiency cannot be
accomplished through grants to local and State educational agencies
under the Department's Foreign Language Assistance program (FLAP). FLAP
is focused on improving the quality of foreign language instruction in
elementary and secondary schools. Institutions of higher education are
not eligible to apply for funding under the FLAP program. Moreover,
FLAP is not an appropriate vehicle for establishing the kind of
partnerships needed between school districts and institutions of higher
education to ensure an articulated curriculum and consistent goals and
continual progress toward the required outcomes at all educational
levels, including the postsecondary level.
The Advancing America Through Foreign Language Partnerships program
fits within the Department's mission and complements Title VI and other
Department activities relating to the teaching and learning of foreign
languages.
ADVANCING AMERICA THROUGH FOREIGN LANGUAGE PARTNERSHIPS AND DOD
NATIONAL FLAGSHIP LANGUAGE INITIATIVE
Question. How will this new program complement related programs
administered by other Federal agencies?
Answer. The Advancing America Through Foreign Language Partnerships
program would operate following the model created under the National
Flagship Language Initiative at the Department of Defense. The
Administration seeks to expand on DOD's pilot K-16 Mandarin Chinese
program by awarding an additional 24 grants to institutions of higher
education for partnerships with school districts for programs of
language study in a variety of languages critical to national security
such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Hindi, Farsi, and others. The
Administration is proposing that ED (and not DOD) undertake the
expansion of this program because the goals of the program fit within
the Department's mission and the program complements other ED
activities relating to the teaching and learning of foreign languages.
REQUIREMENTS OF ADVANCING AMERICA THROUGH FOREIGN LANGUAGE PARTNERSHIPS
GRANTEES
Question. Supporting budget documents note that applicants would
have to demonstrate the long-term success of their project, as well as
commit to a significant amount of cost sharing. Would you please
provide more information about each of these proposed requirements?
Answer. To address the need for skilled professionals with superior
competency in foreign languages critical to U.S. national security,
such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Hindi, Farsi, and others,
participants in the Advancing America Through Foreign Language
Partnerships program would be expected to make significant commitments.
We would expect that institutions of higher education applying for
grants would be able to identify each local educational agency partner
and describe each partner's responsibilities (including how they would
be involved in planning and implementing program curriculum, what
resources they would provide, and how they would ensure continuity of
student progress from elementary school to the postsecondary level).
Participating institutions of higher education would be expected to
work with partner school districts to develop and implement an
articulated curriculum with consistent pedagogical philosophy and goals
throughout all educational levels of the program. To ensure long-term
success of the project, we would expect applicants to be able to
describe in their applications how they would support and continue the
program after the grant has expired, including how they would seek
support from other sources, such as State and local government,
foundations, and the private sector. We would also expect grantees to
provide a non-Federal contribution, in cash or in kind, that would help
carry out the activities supported by the grant.
STATEWIDE DATA SYSTEMS PROGRAM
Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget requests $54.6 million for
the Statewide Data Systems program, an increase of $30 million over the
fiscal year 2006 amount. Budget documents supporting this request
indicate that 14 States are receiving funds from this program, although
all States need assistance to develop or refine and fully implement
systems that allow them to track the progress of individual students
statewide. Budget documents also state that the requested increase for
fiscal year 2007 would focus on the issue accelerating the capacity of
high schools to report and use accurate high school graduation and
dropout data. How are States utilizing funds from fiscal year 2005 and
fiscal year 2006?
Answer. The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant
program is supporting State educational agencies in designing,
developing, implementing, and using longitudinal individual student
data and linking the student data to other contextual and management
data, such as program, staffing, facilities, financial, early
childhood, or post-secondary data. The resulting data systems will
allow States to evaluate learning of all students and track the
effectiveness of schools, programs, or interventions. Under the grant
program, States are required to provide data and meaningful analyses
back to local stakeholders, including teachers, principals, and
districts. States are also required to develop ongoing evaluation
procedures to ensure that the data collected are: (1) of high quality,
(2) responsive to local information needs, and (3) useful for improving
instruction and student learning.
States receiving SLDS grant money are required to incorporate data
from kindergarten to 12th grade in their data systems. Most have also
proposed to incorporate preschool and even birth-to-preschool data.
Similarly, most grantees propose to incorporate postsecondary data in
their systems, spanning prekindergarten-16 and even prekindergarten-20.
Some States will also link their data to those from non-education
agencies, such health or labor. These longitudinal student data,
especially with links to rich contextual data, will for the first time
allow States and districts to reliably link student outcomes to
different variables, including curricula, educational environment,
funding, socioeconomic background, and other factors that affect
student learning.
STATEWIDE LONGITUDINAL DATA SYSTEMS
Question. How does this proposed priority fit with the basic needs
of States for developing longitudinal data systems?
Answer. Statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) grants enable
States to have more informative and reliable data on what is happening
and what works in high schools, including the ability to evaluate and
track how students' pre-high school experience affects how well they do
in high school. These funds also enable States to understand how what
happens in high school affects students' success in postsecondary
education and/or employment. Grant funds support data system
development and enhancements that enable States to conduct a wide range
of rigorous longitudinal analyses, including computations of a standard
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, as adopted by the National
Governors Association (NGA). Most of the first cohort of grantee States
have not collected and compiled these data before. Some States in the
first cohort of grants can currently compute the NGA graduation rate,
but these States still depend upon their grant funding to ensure the
quality of their data collection.
The requested increase in funding for this program will enable more
States that do not currently have this capacity to collect data
necessary for the computation of accurate high school graduation and
dropout rates necessary data on high school. For States that already
collect these data, the requested funding will enable them to connect
all relevant data in one longitudinal data system with better and more
efficient verification of data over time and across different
educational and other data systems. In these States, the SLDS grant
will result in better data faster.
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS
Question. The budget requests an additional $4 million to allow the
Department to begin work on essential activities for implementing in
2009 State-level assessments at the 12th grade level. What activities
will be funded by this requested increase?
Answer. The funds requested for fiscal year 2007 would be used to
conduct validation studies to ensure that the assessment has predictive
validity and is an appropriate measure of readiness for work,
postsecondary education, or military service. The funds would also be
used for the development and pilot testing of new mathematics and
reading frameworks.
12TH GRADE NAEP INITIATIVE--READING AND MATH ASSESSMENTS
Question. What is the total cost of the 12th grade NAEP initiative,
and what is the range of options being considered for implementing this
new policy?
Answer. Assuming that State participation is mandatory, the
estimated total cost of the 12th grade State-level assessments in
Reading and Math for 2009 would be $45 million above the current NAEP
appropriation.
The following chart presents estimated costs for an assessment in
the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; as well as
for a non-mandated assessment, with 45 States volunteering to
participate; and for a pilot State assessment, with 10 States selected
to participate. Once the development and phase-in of the 12th grade
State-level assessments are complete, we estimate that the annual cost,
beginning in 2010, of conducting State-level assessments in Reading and
Mathematics would be $22.5 million for the mandatory scenario and $20.5
million for the voluntary scenario.
[Estimated cost, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th Grade State-Level Reading and Math Assessments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Mandatory (52 Voluntary (45 Pilot (10
jurisdictions) jurisdictions) jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007................................. 4.0 4.0 4.0
2008................................. 18.5 18.5 4.0
2009................................. 22.5 18.5 3.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 45.0 41.0 11.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH
Question. Budget documents supporting your fiscal year 2007 budget
request indicate that staffing for communications and outreach will
change from 14 FTE in 2005 to 140 in fiscal year 2006. Will you explain
the need for 140 FTE's in this office, instead of utilizing these staff
in grants monitoring and other program administration capacities?
Answer. Staffing for communications and outreach did not increase
from 14 to 140. The reason there appears to be an increase is that we
took staff from other areas and consolidated them under a new
centralized communications office. In an effort to better coordinate
the communication functions of the Department to ensure clear,
consistent communications, a new Office of Communications and Outreach
(OCO) was created. It now includes the former Office of Public Affairs
(OPA), most of the functions of the former Office of Intergovernmental
and Interagency Affairs (OIIA) and the function of internal
communications. The new Office of Communications and Outreach
encompasses speechwriting, public affairs, web site, publications,
event services, external affairs and the Secretary's 10 regional
offices. The Office of Communications and Outreach is responsible for
creating and distributing appropriate education materials to inform the
work and decision-making of educators, policymakers, government
officials, parents and students.
DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS AND OUTREACH
Question. How much did your Department spend on public relations
and outreach in fiscal year 2005?
Answer. In fiscal year 2005, the Department spent $1,132,246 on
public relations and outreach, in procurement of items and services
such as speeches and editing for senior staff, logistical outreach
event support, webcasting, and the monthly ``Education News Parents Can
Use'' satellite broadcasts.
Question. How much do you plan to spend in fiscal year 2006 and
fiscal year 2007, and what are the primary outcomes intended to be
achieved by these expenditures?
Answer. The Department plans on spending $1,025,000 in fiscal year
2006 and $1,100,000 in fiscal year 2007 on public relations and
outreach events which are designed to inform members of the public
about No Child Left Behind and other Department programs, the monthly
``Education News Parents Can Use'' satellite broadcast, and technical
support for webcasting.
Each ``Education News Parents Can Us'' broadcast explains U.S.
Department of Education programs to parents using practical, plain-
language discussions of topics such as ensuring safe and drug free
schools, teaching reading, serving students with disabilities, and
using new education technology. Each broadcast offers this information
in a format that features short segments, including one-on-one
interviews, ``how-to'' demonstrations, and brief conversations with
parents, educators, education experts, and community, business and
religious leaders.
Technical and production support is needed for the creation of high
quality, live, or previously videotaped multi-media programs that can
be broadcast over the Internet. These productions are for the purpose
of raising the general public's awareness of and encouraging
participation in programs associated with ED's education reform
initiatives.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION
Question. First and foremost, I'd like to express my sincere
appreciation for the continued funding of Native Hawaiian Education.
This funding facilitated uninterrupted curricula development, teacher
training and recruitment programs as well as scholarship offerings.
Programs such as these allowed many young Hawaiians' the opportunity to
fully realize their dreams. Through continued support of Native
Hawaiian Vocational Education, countless individuals can now
successfully enter, compete and advance in the ever-changing and
competitive technological workplace.
I would also like to extend my personal thanks to your Department
administrators who have traveled to Hawaii to meet our local program
coordinators and provide technical assistance to our remote
communities. No doubt, your staff has seen first hand the tremendous
impact and success these funded programs have had on the people of
Hawaii.
Madam Secretary, what are the indicators or measures your
Department uses to manage existing competitive grantees under the
Native Hawaiian Education Act?
Answer. The Department has established three performance measures
for the Native Hawaiian Education program authorized under Title VII of
the ESEA. The measures are:
--The percentage of teachers involved with professional development
activities that address the unique educational needs of program
participants.
--The percentage of Native Hawaiian children participating in early
education programs who improve on measures of school readiness
and literacy.
--The percentage of students participating in the program who meet or
exceed proficiency standards in mathematics, science, or
reading.
The Department collects data on these measures through the annual
performance reports submitted by grantees.
Question. Please also describe the process by which these
indicators were selected.
Answer. The development of the performance indicators for the
Native Hawaiian Education program was based on an analysis of the
program's purpose, priorities and authorized activities, and how those
align with the overall priorities and purpose of the No Child Left
Behind Act. As the program authorizes a wide number of project
activities, we also had to narrow somewhat the areas for performance
measurement for the program, in order to minimize the burden of data
collection and reporting. Since we were unable to arrive at one
performance indicator that would be appropriate for all projects
possible or allowed under the program, we conducted an analysis of
grantee activities and goals. The analysis showed that most grantees
are implementing projects around a small number of areas (early
childhood, teacher professional development, and math and science
education) and, thus, we developed indicators to track program
performance in those areas.
WOMEN IN TECHNOLOGY
Question. The Women in Technology (WIT) program originated in Maui
5 years ago as a workforce development project initially funded through
a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor. A core mission component of
the program was to partner with educators and industry to create a
pipeline from education to employment in science, technology,
engineering and math. This concept was first introduced in our local
middle and high schools, to increase the confidence and interest of
under represented populations in math and science studies and expose
them to educational and professional opportunities in high-tech
professions. This was accomplished at no cost to the students.
Elementary school is a critical time to begin outreach efforts to
attract students into the science, technology, engineering and math
pipeline. National research indicates that gender identities and
stereotyping about career roles are set by age seven. One of the goals
of Women in Technology includes training elementary school teachers in
``inquiry-based learning'' methods. In this method, teachers learn how
to harness the natural inquisitive nature of their students and nurture
it into scientific questions/hypothesis and self-directed activities to
prove/disprove the students' questions. The inquiry-based activities
are integrated into the teaching curriculum and align with grade level
and standards. This method of teaching is well suited to children of
both genders and stimulates all styles of learning. A pilot program,
recently launched in Maui, included a professional development workshop
for one dozen elementary teachers.
Madam Secretary, Women In Technology is a critically important
program to securing a more prosperous future for many young Hawaiians.
So strong is my belief in the value of this program, that in years
past, I sought funding for it via my earmarks. As such are no longer
available, will the Department of Education provide funds for the
expansion of science, technology, engineering and math ``inquiry-based
learning'' curriculum and training to all elementary school teachers
throughout the State of Hawaii?
Answer. The agency operating the Women in Technology (WIT) program
may pursue discretionary funding opportunities under a number of
Department of Education programs that support activities such as the
ones you describe. WIT may apply, for example, for funding under the
Native Hawaiian Education program, which supports innovative projects
to provide supplemental services that address the educational needs of
Native Hawaiian children and adults. Authorized activities under that
program include development and implementation of professional
development programs to prepare teachers to address the unique needs of
Native Hawaiian students.
WIT may also be eligible for funding under the Mathematics and
Science Partnerships program. Funds for the program are distributed to
States based on a formula, and each State then administers a grant
competition for the funds. The program supports State and local efforts
to improve students' academic achievement in mathematics and science by
promoting strong teaching skills for elementary and secondary school
teachers, including integrating teaching methods based on
scientifically based research and technology into the curriculum.
Grantees may also use program funds to develop more rigorous
mathematics and science curricula that are aligned with challenging
State and local content standards; establish distance learning programs
for mathematics and science teachers; and recruit individuals with
mathematics, science, and engineering majors into the teaching
profession through the use of signing and performance incentives,
stipends, and scholarships. Professional development can include summer
workshops, or institutes and programs, that bring mathematics and
science teachers into contact with working scientists, mathematicians,
and engineers in order to expand teachers' subject-matter knowledge.
WIT administrators should contact the Hawaii Department of Education
for information on applying for this program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
SPECIAL EDUCATION FULL FUNDING
Question. Many of us here have worked hard every year to increase
funding for Special Education. Year after year, school districts in
Wisconsin tell me that this is one of their top concerns. But this
year's budget is especially worrisome. It proposes to cut the Federal
share of IDEA costs from 18 percent to 17 percent--that is less than
half of the 40 percent ``full funding'' level that Congress committed
to paying when IDEA was first adopted 31 years ago. This deliberate
step backward begs the question: does this Administration plan to ever
fully fund IDEA?
Answer. Under the President's leadership, funding for the Grants to
States program has increased by 67 percent since 2001. The President's
2007 request for the Special Education--Grants to States program of
$10.7 billion, which includes an increase of $100 million, would
provide about 17 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure
(APPE) for 6.9 million children with disabilities receiving special
education, compared to about 14 percent of the APPE in 2001. No
Administration has come close to requesting 40 percent of APPE, but
this Administration has proposed record-high increases in funding for
the program and has achieved record-high levels of the Federal
contribution.
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION FUNDING
Question. While I support the President's proposals to increase
resources to support math and science education at the high school
level, I am concerned about the decrease in funding for programs that
support early childhood education. Research shows that 80 percent of
brain development takes place during the first 3 years of a child's
life. In light of this research, please explain the Administration's
rationale for funneling resources away from programs that support our
youngest learners--like the Foundations for Learning and Even Start
programs--and putting those funds into our high school age programs.
Answer. The Department remains dedicated to the goal of promoting
cognitive development for all children, and the President's budget
request reflects a strong commitment to programs that have a proven
record of success in serving our Nation's youngest citizens. Neither
Even Start nor Foundations for Learning has a track record of
demonstrated effectiveness. While some local Even Start programs are
successful at supporting the development of children's early academic
skills, the program's overall reliance on the family literacy model has
not been shown to be effective. In addition, the Foundations for
Learning program is duplicative of other programs that serve very young
children and its size precludes any large impact on the populations to
which it is targeted. Other programs, such as Early Reading First and
the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development program, focus on
proven methods of addressing the cognitive development and school
readiness needs of young children
PERKINS LOANS AND OTHER STUDENT AID PROGRAMS
Question. Not only does this budget cut Pell Grants, but it also
calls for the elimination of the Federal Perkins loan program. This
academic year, the University of Madison-Wisconsin served 5,202
students with $13.2 million in Federal Perkins Loans. These loans
helped students cover the gap between other financial aid and the
actual cost of attendance. They are also a good option for low-income
students because they are not dependent on credit history. Secretary
Spellings, if Congress were to agree to the President's recommendation
and eliminate Perkins loans, what do you suggest these students do to
pay for higher education?
Answer. First, to clarify, the President's Budget does not cut Pell
Grants; current estimates indicate every eligible student would receive
his or her full award under our proposal. The reduction in budget
authority compared with fiscal year 2006 reflects the new scoring rule
under which an estimated $273 million in unused funds from fiscal year
2006 can be used to reduce the need for new appropriations, as well as
a slight reduction in the estimated cost of the Pell Grant program.
More broadly, even with the Perkins Loan proposal, student aid
would increase under the President's Budget by more than $4.6 billion
in fiscal year 2007 over the previous year, including $790 million in
new need-based Academic Competitiveness and SMART Grants. In addition,
student loans under the Federal Family Education Loan and Direct Loan
programs will be a better bargain for borrowers due to lower interest
rates and reduced origination fees.
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL COUNSELING PROGRAM
Question. School counselors play a vital role in the lives of
American youths by providing guidance on issues both academic and
personal. During times of war and the ongoing fear of terrorism, the
need for effective school counseling is clearer than ever. In addition,
counselors continue to guide students in career, academic and social
development. That's why I am very concerned that the President's budget
again eliminates funding for the School Counseling Program. In
Wisconsin, each public school counselor oversees 461 students--a
caseload that already leaves many students underserved.
School counselors play an important role in helping students meet
the goals of No Child Left Behind. Why would the Administration cut a
program that is helping to make its signature education policy work?
Answer. The budget request to eliminate funding for the Elementary
and Secondary School Counseling program is part of an overall budget
strategy to discontinue programs that duplicate other programs that may
be carried out with flexible State formula grant funds, or that involve
activities that are better or more appropriately supported through
State, local, or private resources. Specifically, the 2007 budget
proposes termination of 42 programs in order to free up almost $3.5
billion (based on 2006 levels) for reallocation to higher-priority
activities within the Department. These higher-priority activities
include the Administration's $1.5 billion High School Reform
Initiative. Under this Initiative, local educational agencies will be
able to include student counseling services as part of the
comprehensive strategies they adopt to raise high school achievement
and eliminate gaps in achievement among subgroups of students.
In addition, if school districts choose to do so, they may support
counseling programs with the funds they receive under the State Grants
for Innovative Programs authority, which allows them to implement
programs that best meet their needs. Furthermore, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides school districts with
additional flexibility to meet their own priorities by consolidating a
sizable portion of their Federal funds from their allocations under
certain State formula grant programs and using those funds under any
other of these authorized programs. A school district that seeks to
implement a school counseling program in some or all of its schools may
use funds from those programs to do so.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
ACADEMIC COMPETITIVENESS/SMART GRANTS
Question. The fiscal year 2006 Budget Reconciliation bill created
Academic Competitiveness grants and the National Science and
Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grants. To receive the
Academic Competitiveness grants, students must have completed a
rigorous secondary-school program of study. While I agree that we need
to be doing all we can prepare students for a job in a global economy,
a student's luck in where they attend high school shouldn't determine
whether or not the Federal Government helps them attend college. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only 9.9 percent of Pell
eligible students will be able to take advantage of the Academic
Competitiveness and SMART grants in 2007.
The maximum Pell grant has not increased for years despite tuition
rising at our Nation's public colleges rising by over 7 percent last
year. If the $850 million that these grants cost in fiscal year 2007
were spent on Pell grants, students would receive an additional $200 in
aid.
How do you anticipate judging what constitutes a rigorous
secondary-school curriculum?
Answer. The Department of Education is working with all States to
help them identify high school programs of study they can submit to the
Secretary of Education for recognition as rigorous secondary programs
of study. In addition, there will be alternative eligibility provisions
for students from States that have not yet submitted designated
programs to the Secretary. These State-identified, eligible rigorous
secondary school programs or acceptable alternatives will soon be
posted on a Department web site.
Question. Particularly in such tight budget times, shouldn't we be
spending our resources on helping all students attend college
regardless of their circumstance, not benefiting the few who are lucky
enough to attend the ``right'' high school?
Answer. Taken together, the Federal student aid programs under the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request would provide over $82
billion to students and families, much of it focused on the neediest
Americans. Within this larger investment, we believe it is appropriate
to target a portion of need-based aid--Academic Competitiveness/SMART
Grant recipients must be eligible for a Pell Grant--to encourage the
type of rigorous high school study and challenging college coursework
that is linked to success both for individuals and, ultimately, for our
Nation.
TITLE IX REPORT
Question. On March 17, 2005, the Department of Education released
new guidance on the interest prong of the three-part test which schools
use to show compliance with Title IX in athletics. As you are aware, I
have grave concerns about the new guidance because I believe it sets a
new low bar for compliance with a Federal civil rights law. Schools
would now be allowed to use an email survey to show compliance with
Title IX. Further, the school would only have to send that survey to
women and a lack of response could be determined as lack of interest in
sports. Surveys have been used in the past to show compliance with
Title IX, but not as a sole means and other factors such as emerging
sports had to be taken into consideration.
Because of concern over this new guidance, a bipartisan group of
Senators on this subcommittee asked for a report on the guidance and
use of surveys due March 17. What is the status of the requested
report?
Answer. The report in response to guidance and the use of surveys
for Title IX was submitted to the Committee on March 17, 2006.
TITLE IX TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Question. Clearly, there is a lot of confusion on behalf of schools
about this new guidance. What is the Department doing regarding
technical assistance on the guidance?
Answer. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) regularly provides
technical assistance on a variety of issues to interested parties,
including elementary and secondary schools and colleges and
universities. Assistance is an important method to help educational
institutions achieve voluntary compliance with the civil rights laws
and assist in preventing civil rights violations by educating schools
about their responsibilities. OCR provides guidance through a variety
of methods, including responses to thousands of requests for
individualized technical assistance, via phone, email, or mail, each
year from individuals, recipients, and groups representing recipients
and beneficiaries. Our technical assistance also includes on-site
consultations, conferences, training, community outreach, publishing
and disseminating materials, through the Department's website and
direct mailings, and issuing guidance.
With respect to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title
IX), the Department issued the Additional Clarification of
Intercollegiate Athletics Policy (Additional Clarification) to clarify
one method schools may choose to use to assess athletic interests and
to provide a practical tool they may choose to use to conduct that
assessment.
To further assist schools, OCR has been and continues to actively
seek out opportunities to provide technical assistance on a continuous
basis. In the year since the Additional Clarification was issued, OCR
has provided technical assistance on the Additional Clarification to
more than a thousand coaches, athletic directors, Title IX coordinators
and legal advisors, in addition to regularly providing individualized
technical assistance. These presentations have included secondary
schools, 2- and 4-year colleges and universities, and conferences
sponsored by umbrella organizations responsible for developing and
implementing the governing rules and procedures for national and
regional athletics at the secondary, junior college, and 4-year college
levels. We will continue to proactively seek out opportunities to
educate recipients, educational and athletic organizations,
administrators, parents and students regarding nondiscriminatory
implementation of Title IX and the Additional Clarification.
AMERICA'S OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS FOR KIDS
Question. The President's budget again proposes school vouchers
through the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids program. The
President's education budget also eliminates 42 programs. We often hear
that the programs are proposed for elimination because they are
ineffective. However, there is no evidence that private school vouchers
do anything to improve achievement for any students. Further, we still
have yet to see any real evaluation of achievement under the D.C.
voucher program.
In such a tight budget, how does the Administration justify
spending $100 million on a program that has yet to be found effective?
Answer. To offer the opportunity of a high-quality education to
more students who attend schools in restructuring around the country,
the Department proposes the creation of a national school choice
program that gives parents the choice to send their children to any
public or private schools that they believe would better serve their
student's needs. Though it is too early to know the potential effects
on academic achievement of the D.C. School Choice Incentive Program, we
do know that the program has generated significant support among
parents of students in low-performing schools in Washington, DC. The
America's Opportunity Scholarships program would extend that option to
parents whose children attend low-performing schools across the Nation.
In addition, several research studies, such as ``Private School
Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee
Parental Choice Program'' by Cecilia Rouse, and Jay Greene's ``The
Effect of School Choice: an Evaluation of the Charlotte Children's
Scholarship Fund,'' suggest that participation in the private school
choice programs leads to improvements in student achievement.
IMPACT OF MEDICAID CHANGE ON CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
Question. The Department of Health and Human Services reflects a
change in how Medicaid is dealt with at schools. While I understand
this change is proposed in the HHS budget and not the Department of
Education, the impact will be felt by students and schools. The HHS
budget says that certain costs associated with services provided to
special education students who are also on Medicaid will no longer be
reimbursed to the schools through Medicaid. The estimated savings to
HHS is over $600 million for fiscal year 2007 and the 10-year savings
is over $9 billion. The President's budget proposes only a $100 million
increase to IDEA. While we will certainly fight for increasing funding
for IDEA and other education programs, given these tight budget times,
I have a feeling IDEA won't receive $9 billion in the next 10 years.
I am concerned that students will feel the impact of this change.
The Federal Government has yet to live up to the promise of funding 40
percent of the cost of educating a special education student and
schools will not be able to absorb the costs associated with this
change. Students will be told to get such services outside of school
hours.
How do you propose ensuring that students get all the necessary
service they receive now if this change happens at HHS?
Answer. The President's 2007 Budget includes a proposal that would
prohibit Federal Medicaid reimbursement for Medicaid administrative
activities performed in schools. It additionally provides that Federal
Medicaid funds will no longer be available to pay for transportation
required to be provided to children with disabilities by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. HHS has had long-standing
concerns about improper billing by school districts for administrative
costs and transportation services. Both the HHS Inspector General and
the Government Accountability Office have identified these categories
of expenses as susceptible to fraud and abuse. Schools would continue
to be reimbursed for direct Medicaid services identified in an
Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Individualized Family Service
Plan (IFSP) and provided to Medicaid-eligible children, such as
physical therapy, that are important to meeting the needs of Medicaid-
eligible students with disabilities.
A shift in funding responsibility for administrative and
transportation costs associated with Medicaid eligible children with
disabilities should not affect services for these children. State and
local governments are responsible for ensuring that needed services are
provided for all children with disabilities, regardless of whether they
are Medicaid eligible. The change in policy would treat Medicaid
eligible children with disabilities the same as other children with
disabilities with regard to administrative and transportation costs.
The Department of Education and HHS intend to work together to ensure
that implementation of this change in policy is done in an orderly and
sensible fashion.
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS
Question. The President's budget would freeze funding for the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers Program for the fifth year in a row.
Furthermore, NCLB's fiscal year 2007 authorization level for the
program is $2.5 billion. This is a program that enjoys extraordinary
public and bipartisan congressional support. All of us hear from
constituents who want and need more funding to develop more afterschool
programs in their communities. These programs help working families,
provide vital additional academic support to students and provide safe,
supervised environments for kids afterschool--priorities that appear to
match many of the President's major goals.
With such diverse, bipartisan support, why has the Department
continued to propose only $981 million for the program? That gap leaves
the States, communities, families and students--as many as 1.4 million
children--behind and more than 25 States unable to offer new grant
opportunities in fiscal year 2005.
Answer. The program does, indeed, enjoy bipartisan support in
Congress, and we do receive many letters from Members asking us to
increase funding. However, in a tight budget environment, we need to
target the limited available funding on programs that show evidence of
success or that have a strong potential to fill major unmet needs. The
results of the only national evaluation of 21st Century Community
Learning Centers were not very positive and did not present a case for
increasing the funding. However, the Department's Institute of
Education Sciences has launched a study of specific math and reading
interventions that will determine after-school programs' potential
impact on academic achievement. We will review the results of that
study, and also the program performance results that States submit, in
determining whether to request increases in future years.
CIVIC EDUCATION
Question. As you know, we face a crisis today with young people who
are disenchanted with politics; they are apathetic and cynical about
Government and its institutions. I was disappointed to discover the
elimination of the Education for Democracy Act in the President's
budget request. This program funds domestic civic and international
civic and economic education programs. The Civic Education program is
successful in helping American students understand and appreciate
fundamental values and principles of our Government.
Can you comment on why a program that is consistent with the
Administration's desire for American students to have a basic
understanding and appreciation of the workings of our Nation's
Government and politics along with its values and principles was
eliminated in the President's budget?
Answer. The Administration agrees that there is a critical need for
education programs that effectively promote basic understanding and
appreciation of the workings of our Nation's Government and politics,
along with it values and principles. However, we question the efficacy
and wisdom of statutorily mandating that 100 percent of funds available
for domestic civic education activities must go to a single
organization, particularly when so little is known about the efficacy
of civic education interventions developed and supported by this
organization. The Administration believes that a more effective
approach to addressing the issue is to invest in programs that make
competitive awards to local schools districts and other eligible
entities to help create safe learning environments where students
understand, care about, and act on core ethical and citizenship values,
such as Character Education (which would receive $24.2 million under
the President's request) and Safe Schools/Healthy Students (which would
receive $79.2 million under the President's request).
While the Civic Education program, as currently authorized,
supports some worthwhile activities, there are no reliable measures of
overall effectiveness of interventions supported using program funds.
Studies and evaluations conducted by the Center for Civic Education
provide limited information on program performance, but none are
sufficiently rigorous to yield reliable information on the overall
effectiveness or impact(s) of the various interventions supported
through this program.
The administration does not believe additional funding is necessary
for the implementation of activities currently supported by the Center
for Civic Education--an established non-profit organization with a
broad network of program participants, alumni, volunteers, and
financial supporters at the local, State, and national levels. The
Center also has a long history of success raising additional support
through such vehicles as selling program-related curricular materials,
training and workshops, partnering with non-profit groups on core
activities, lobbying, and seeking support from foundations.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Specter. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will
stand in recess to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 3, in
room SD-226. At that time we will hear testimony from the
Honorable Michael Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services.
[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Wednesday, March 1, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday,
May 3.]