Education

A well educated workforce is one of the key drivers of strong economic growth.  In the face of global and technological advances that have made the modern economy more complex and dynamic, it is imperative that Americans have access to a high-quality education.  Despite record investment in public education by federal, state, and local governments over the past few decades, academic achievement has not seen a commensurate improvement, and the state of the American education system is sobering.  Stagnant student achievement levels and exploding deficits have demonstrated that massive amounts of federal funding and top-down interventions are not the way to provide America’s students with a high-quality education. It is imperative, then, that we allocate our limited financial resources effectively and efficiently to improve education in this country and ensure the continued success of future generations of Americans.

Education in the House-passed Budget

The House-passed budget offers a sensible path forward to expand opportunity and chart a brighter future for the next generation. 

The budget calls for reorganization and streamlining of K–12 programs and anticipates major reforms to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA], which was last reauthorized as part of the No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB].  These reforms are necessary because the current structure for K–12 programs at the Department of Education is fragmented and ineffective.  Many programs are highly restricted, serving only a small number of students, or duplicative, such as the 82 programs that are designed to improve teacher quality. Given budget constraints, Congress must focus resources on programs that truly help students and reduce programs that are failing to improve student achievement.   

Moreover, this budget ensures higher-education assistance programs are put on a sustainable funding path, better focusing aid on those in need and better addressing the root drivers of tuition inflation for all students.  While financial aid is intended to make college more affordable, there is growing evidence that it has had the opposite effect: college costs have risen at twice the rate of inflation for about thirty years and economists have pointed out that these rapid increases would have been constrained if the federal government had not stepped in so often to subsidize rising tuitions.

Spending on the Pell Grant program, for instance, has more than doubled since 2008. The President has increased the maximum Pell Grant by more than $900 since 2008, and he has called for another increase to $5,635 next year. However, the President’s budget only provides funding for that level of award through the 2014-2015 academic year, creating a “funding cliff” that puts the program at risk of breaking its promises to students.  Absent reform, this funding cliff could force sudden, steep cuts in Pell Grant support for eligible students or necessitate cuts to other education programs to prop up this out of control spending.  The House-passed budget takes the necessary next steps to take the Pell program off auto-pilot, bring spending under control and target the award to the truly.  At the same time, the proposed reforms ensure that the current maximum Pell award ($5,550) is maintained throughout the next decade, ensuring a more consistent maximum grant award that will help students and families plan for the cost of college.        

H.R. 4628 – Interest Rate Reduction Act

In January 2007, Democrats chose temporary relief over lasting solutions on college costs.  In an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise, the new House Democratic majority passed legislation to phase-in reductions to interest rates on certain student loans.  Under that law, students with certain loans issued for the 2011-12 school year received a 3.4% rate.  This rate was only in effect for one year and is scheduled to return to 6.8% in July 2012.  Because students should not pay the price for the failures of those congressional Democrats who structured the law as they did, with a sudden expiration date and no plan for what might come next, the current House Republican majority passed H.R. 4628, which extends the 3.4% rate for another year and pays for it by reducing a slush fund in the President’s health reform law- a fund that the President has suggested cutting in both his Fiscal Year 2013 Budget and his September 2011 deficit reduction proposal.  Moreover, House Republicans have presented the President with two additional proposals to pay for a one-year extension of the interest rates with policies that have had bipartisan support in the past.  I remain hopeful that the Senate and the President will take action on H.R. 4628 so it can be signed into law prior to the July 2012 deadline.

H.R. 2055 – Consolidated Appropriations Act

The H.R.2055 conference report – a new bill reflecting changes passed in the Senate – passed the House on December 16, 2011, and provides a total of $71.3 billion for the Department of Education, a $153 million less than Fiscal Year 2011. This funding level includes $14.5 billion for Title I Grants to local school districts, a continuation of the current maximum Pell Grant level of $5,550, $11.6 billion for Special Education programs and eliminates funding for the “Race to the Top” initiative. This bill provides the Department of Education with the necessary resources to continue to ensure an effective educational system nationwide, and was signed into law on December 23, 2011.

Student achievement and increases in spending have not correlated with rising academic success.  The education of an individual student can be centered on the academic institutions and educators available but without the support system of parents, family and community mentors, the educational system in this country will continue to fall short. Rather than relying on the federal government to ensure that students are given the capability to fulfill their potential, education ought to be governed by state and local boards more ably qualified to determine student need.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Reauthorization

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 reauthorized virtually all ESEA programs through 2008. On June 16, 2011, H.R.2218, the Empowering Parents through Quality Charter Schools Act was introduced. The bill would modify the existing Charter Schools Program, Per-Pupil Facilities Aid program, and Credit Enhancement Initiatives to Assist Charter School Facility Acquisition, Construction and Renovation program currently authorized under ESEA. Substantial changes would be made to Title V-B-1 and 2, while preserving many of the provisions of the current law. The bill was passed in the House on September 13, 2011 and is now pending in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

A-PLUS

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act first passed in Congress in 1965. The most recent reauthorization –NCLB – increased federal funding from K-12 education and established new requirements for state and local school systems nationwide. Despite spending nearly $2 trillion, there have been few demonstrable improvements to educational outcomes.

Introduced by Representative Bishop (R-UT) in July 2011, H.R.2514, the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) Act, would allow states to opt out of NCLB, giving them greater flexibility to appropriately meet state educational needs. With the approval of at least two of three state entities (Governor, State Legislature, state education agency), states would enter into a five-year performance agreement with the Secretary of Education and would be required to demonstrate uniform increased academic achievement as well as provide disaggregated performance data from various demographic groups.

A-PLUS limits federal influence over state education programs and provides relief from the imposition of NCLB’s top-down reform policies, and I have signed on as a co-sponsor of this bill. Most recently, it is currently pending in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce where.

DREAM Act

The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, H.R. 1842 in the 112^th Congress, has been introduced several times in recent years.  This bill amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit states to determine state residency for the purpose of higher education benefits.  Additionally, it grants conditional permanent residency to undocumented students who entered the United States as children.  While the DREAM Act has been promoted as an alternative to comprehensive reform, and I understand the points that DREAM Act supporters have raised, I believe this legislation attempts to treat a symptom – rather than the root cause – of our current problems. We must first secure the border and stem the flow of illegal immigration. Then we can work to increase legal immigration through an enforceable guest worker program and by developing a more secure employee verification system. I believe it would be a serious mistake to pursue piecemeal reforms like the DREAM Act without first putting in place these fundamental components of immigration reform.

Conclusion

As the 112^th Congress continues to consider legislation that affects education, please rest assured that I remain committed to ensuring that we have an efficient educational system that makes appropriate use of taxpayer dollars as we aim to serve the individual needs of our children and students. Both Republicans and Democrats alike can and should share the bipartisan goal of ensuring that educational opportunities adequately prepare future generations of America to support not only themselves, but to contribute to the continued academic and economic success of our nation.

Additional Information