[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2020
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:08 a.m. in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Blunt, Alexander, Capito, Kennedy, Hyde-
Smith, Lankford, Murray, Shaheen, Merkley, Schatz, Baldwin,
Murphy, and Manchin.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. BETSY DeVOS, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator roy blunt
Senator Blunt. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies will
come to order.
Secretary DeVos, we are glad to have you here with us
again. Thanks for appearing at the subcommittee today to talk
about your budget request.
I would say that the budget request--the one word I came up
with when I looked at it is bold--it is a bold request. It
makes some significant recommendations about what we ought to
do.
Now, similar to previous requests, there is a 9 percent cut
to the discretionary funding for the Department, and we will
talk about that, and I will talk about that in a minute, and I
am sure you will hear a lot about that this morning.
But it also proposes a significant change in the Federal
Government's role in elementary and secondary education.
Consolidating almost every elementary and secondary program,
approximately 29 of them, putting that in a new formula block
grant that would go directly to school districts.
I am not quite sure whether that proposal is to go through
States or literally go directly to school districts. And then,
frankly, educational performance including that performance
that is measured by the National Assessment Education Program
has been stagnating.
No matter how much money we spend, we do not seem to be
making the improvements we would like to make. Doing more of
what you have been doing is unlikely to produce anything
different than what you have been getting.
And so I like the idea, frankly, of looking at this in a
bold and innovative way. Average math and reading scores as
measured by the NAEP (National Assessment of Educational
Progress) have been mostly flat for a decade now.
There is a growing divergence between the highest scores
and the lowest scores. I think at the end of the day, we will
find in our work here in this committee that it is not our job,
frankly, to make these kind of authorizing and policy
decisions.
Now, the good thing about this committee in many cases
including this one is that whatever you say to us you are also
saying to the ranking member of the Authorizing Committee and
the chairman, Senator Alexander, of the Authorizing Committee.
So whether we can have much more than a discussion showing
interest on my part, at least, in what you are proposing to do,
I don't know. But we are going to write the fiscal year 2021
appropriations bill under current law.
But, personally, I am glad to talk to you about your idea
of how we can do this or other things to get different results.
Now, because we are going to be talking about current law,
we will have a conversation not unlike some of the others we
have had about the cuts proposed. I think it is unlikely that
this committee will accept limitations to large formula grants
that support after-school programs or STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education, school
safety, teacher professional development.
I think almost certainly we would not cut programs like
TRIO and campus-based student aid programs like Federal Work-
Study. But, again, we are glad to talk to you about why you
think those programs aren't doing what they should be doing.
So, really, my goal is for us to work together on these
issues. The budget does propose some increases in areas that I
think we have shown interest in in the way we have appropriated
money in the committee.
In particular, the budget proposes a $763 million increase,
which would be a 60 percent increase for Career and Technical
Education (CTE).
I am interested in the ideas you have of what we can do to
provide students more insight earlier into what jobs are out
there, meaningful workplace-based learning opportunities, and
exposure to different career paths.
So we put some money in last year's budget to do exactly
that, certainly, in secondary education and even in middle
school to begin to create a stronger sense than we have had for
at least a generation about what opportunities are out there,
what kind of fulfillment there is available in different jobs,
what those jobs pay, how long it takes you to get to that
point, how far along you can be by the time you get out of
secondary education--all areas that I want to see more of.
I think the committee has shown a real willingness to work
with you on that and that is one area where you are proposing a
big increase in the budget that you are working with right now.
We gave Labor $10 million to work in this area and the
Department of Education $10 million to look at ways to develop
new pathways to work. I think we increased the technical and
career State grants, the CTE grants, in this budget as well.
The request for CTE also includes dedicated funding for
innovation and modernization grants focused on STEM education
and computer science.
This year's budget included similar funding to what you are
asking for next year. I am interested in how you think the
money we provided last year is being spent and what you see
happening there.
And, finally, we hope to work closely with the Department
as it reforms and modernizes Federal student loan servicing
programs from the time a student gets that loan until the time
they come to the end of the process involving that loan.
This budget includes review of the Office of Federal
Student Aid. That office is responsible for managing that
process for 43 million Federal student loan borrowers. I am
certainly interested to know what you intend to do with that
review of how that office works.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
Good morning. Thank you, Secretary DeVos, for appearing before the
Subcommittee today to discuss the Department of Education's fiscal year
2021 budget request.
This budget request is bold.
While it is similar to previous requests in many respects, with a 9
percent cut to discretionary funding for the Department of Education,
it also proposes a significant change to the Federal Government's role
in elementary and secondary education. The request consolidates almost
every elementary and secondary education program, approximately 29 in
all, into a new formula block grant that goes directly to school
districts.
At a time when student educational performance, including as
measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is
largely stagnating, any discussion of how to help schools improve
educational opportunities and outcomes for all students is welcome.
Average math and reading scores as measured by the NAEP (pronounced
nape) have been mostly flat over the last decade, and there is a
growing divergence between the highest and lowest-performing students.
However, it is not this Committee's role to consider the policy
implications of consolidating 29 distinct programs into a single
district-level block grant. That is an issue that will need to be
addressed in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act and this Subcommittee will write a fiscal year 2021
appropriations bill under current law.
Accordingly, as in previous years, there are cuts in this request
that we will not support. As we have done previously, this Subcommittee
will not accept eliminations to large State formula grants that support
afterschool programs, STEM education, school safety, and teacher
professional development. We will not cut programs like TRIO and
campus-based student aid programs like Federal Work Study that help
students get into college, succeed when they are there, and graduate
with less debt.
It is my goal for us to work together on many of these and other
important issues. In particular, the budget proposes a $763 million, or
60 percent, increase for career and technical education (CTE). I am
interested in your ideas for how this and other efforts could improve
educational opportunities for students beginning in high school, or
earlier, to pursue the full-range of post-secondary college and career
opportunities.
Providing students meaningful work-based learning opportunities and
exposure to different career paths early in high school can help them
identify interests that lead to good well-paying jobs and careers. Too
often individuals only find opportunities through apprenticeships or
high-quality credential programs paired with associate's degrees that
lead to jobs in in-demand fields later in life, in their late twenties
or thirties. I want to give more students exposure and access to these
opportunities in high school or even middle school.
To that end, the fiscal year 2020 Labor/HHS bill included $10
million at the Department of Education and $10 million at the
Department of Labor to expand and improve career pathways, guidance,
and exploration systems. It also included an increase for CTE State
grants, building on increases made the several years previously. I
believe this is consistent with what you are envisioning with a
significant increase for CTE in this budget request.
The request for CTE also includes dedicated funding for innovation
and modernization grants focused on STEM education, and computer
science education in particular. The fiscal year 2020 Labor/HHS bill
included similar funding within the Education Innovation and Research
program. I am interested in how you think funding provided last year
and requested this year can improve access to computer science
education.
Finally, this Committee has worked closely with the Department as
it reforms and modernizes the Federal student loan servicing system,
from when a student first applies for financial aid through making
their last payment, and everything that might happen in between. The
budget includes a review of the Office of Federal Student Aid that is
responsible for managing that process for 43 million Federal student
loan borrowers. I am interested to know more about what you envision
there.
Madame Secretary, thank you again for being here today. I look
forward to hearing your testimony and appreciate your dialogue with us
about these and other important issues.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. So, again, Madam Secretary, glad you are
here. Look forward to our discussion this morning. Let me turn
to Senator Murray for any comments she has.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. This is really an
important opportunity for all of us to hear from you about your
budget proposal and get answers to our questions and understand
more about the Department's use of taxpayer dollars. So I
appreciate you being here.
CORONAVIRUS AND SCHOOL CLOSURES
First of all, I do want to talk about coronavirus. It is an
issue that families and students and teachers and educators
across the country are, obviously, worried about, especially in
my home State of Washington.
Schools across my State have had to cancel classes. One
will remain closed for at least the rest of this week, and I
had a message sent to me in the middle of the night by my own
daughter that her school district is closing down for 2 weeks
at least. So this is really impacting families.
Tragically, as of today 11 deaths have already been
reported and, 10 of those have been in my State. So this is
truly a serious crisis and we need every agency and this
administration to respond quickly and thoroughly.
We need to plan properly for continued school operations
and make sure in the event of school closures the millions of
families who do rely on school meals, for example, continue to
have access to those nutrition programs and that to every
extent possible schools can still provide educational services
to students and their families.
I am also concerned by media reports describing bullying,
harassment, and discrimination in schools targeted at students
of Asian descent at this time.
The Department needs to ensure school districts understand
their responsibility to prevent and address this type of
harassment and discrimination, and I do appreciate that you
reminded education leaders of their role to prevent
discrimination yesterday.
I know you established a task force to help schools prepare
for the coronavirus----
[Laughter.]
Senator Murray. I have said it so many times I can't say
it. Coronavirus outbreak. But the administration's response so
far has, I have to tell you, not inspired confidence, and there
is a lot more unknowns than knowns.
Parents, students, and teachers got to have the facts. They
need to know what to do so they can respond effectively. So I
wanted to make certain today that you are doing everything you
can to support our school districts and our colleges, our
teachers, and school and staff during this time.
I can tell from what I already know, President Trump's
budget for America's future presents a vision that is deeply
harmful to students and family. It cuts vital services for
families who have low incomes.
It requests another $2 billion for the unnecessary border
wall the President promised Mexico would pay for, and it breaks
the budget deal that we just reached on the discretionary
spending caps by proposing to reduce nondefense discretionary
spending by $37 billion in fiscal year 2021.
CONCERNS REGARDING PROPOSED CUTS
So as a result, the fiscal year 2021 budget for the
Department of Education is slashed by more than $6 billion.
That is 8\1/2\ percent below the bipartisan bill that we agreed
to last December.
The proposed budget you are here to defend fails to invest
in public schools, and educators and students and families and
really ignores the voices of educators in my State and across
the country.
Schools and educators have voiced their concerns time and
again: they do not have the resources they need to meet the
needs of every student, nor are they properly compensated for
the important work they do.
Instead of helping educators and students, your budget
proposes to consolidate 29 elementary and secondary education
programs into an unauthorized block grant that would cut $4.8
billion below current funding for the programs you propose to
consolidate.
That proposal will eliminate more than $91 million in
formula grant funding for elementary and secondary education
for Washington State public schools. That is about a quarter of
what Washington schools are currently getting to support public
education for--particularly for students with low incomes.
This is just in Washington State. Every member here would
see similar reductions in their State. It appears President
Trump has no concern about increasing the Federal deficit when
it involves giveaways to the wealthy in the Republican tax bill
but chooses to cut billions from public schools around the
Nation, all in the name of fiscal discipline.
EDUCATION FREEDOM SCHOLARSHIPS
To make matters worse, at the same time the President's
Budget proposes providing $5 billion annually for a Federal
private school voucher tax scheme called Education Freedom
Scholarships.
That proposal would divert Federal tax revenues that could
be used to invest in public education by establishing a new tax
credit for individuals and corporations that make donations
that expand State-developed private school voucher programs.
This tax credit scholarship scheme is just another attempt
to advance a disastrous privatization agenda by shifting
resources away from public education and into unaccountable
private schools.
The Orlando Sentinel investigated one of these programs in
Florida and found the program allowed the participation of 83
private schools that refused to admit LGBTQIA students or could
expel them if their sexual orientation or gender identity was
made public.
It is appalling this budget could dedicate Federal
resources, our tax dollars, to programs that support blatant
discrimination against schools, students, and staff, yet cuts
billions from Federal support for public schools attended by
more than 90 percent of our Nation's students.
COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY AND FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES
The budget also does nothing to address the college
affordability crisis that is facing our Nation. Instead, it
proposes to cut more than $1.6 billion from grants and work-
study that will force students to borrow more while
dramatically reducing benefits for student loan borrowers, even
eliminating loan forgiveness for student borrowers who become
teachers or enter their other public service professions.
I also have a concern--concerns about a range of your
policies and, specifically, I am concerned about your partial
relief formula that would eliminate $11 billion in relief for
more than 210,000 borrowers around our country, including more
than 6,000 in my home State.
Time and again, it seems that you put the interests of
predatory for-profit colleges ahead of our students. I have
serious concerns about the fact that you reinstated the failed
accreditor ACICS (Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges
and Schools) that accredited Reagan National University, which
an investigation by USA Today recently reported does not even
have any faculty or staff.
CAMPUS SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT
I am also deeply concerned about your proposed Title IX
rule that would weaken protections for survivors of campus
sexual harassment and assault and make it easier for K-12
schools, colleges, and universities to avoid accountability for
student safety.
Let me be clear. This is not about restoring balance. This
is about silencing survivors. Your rule will make it harder for
a student to report an incident while making it much easier for
a school to sweep it under the rug.
Mr. Chairman, we have worked together previously to reject
the administration's harmful budget requests from proposals to
cut funding for students, teachers, and public schools or to
gut funding for students who are struggling to afford college,
and I hope that, again, as we have in the past, we will work
together to restore these cuts in this budget.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Secretary DeVos, glad you are here. We have your statement
for the record, but we will take some time for you to share as
much of that with us as you would like to.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. BETSY DEVOS
Secretary DeVos. Thanks so much, Chairman.
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Murray, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
President's fiscal year 2021 Budget.
While we are discussing a budget, it is important to
remember that, as it has been said, the size of the Federal
budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience.
Federal Government spending does not determine everything that
is important to us, nor is it the only solution when we
encounter challenges and opportunities.
SCALING BACK FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION
Instead, we, the people, overcome challenges and seize
opportunities. That is why this Department's budget is focused
on returning power to the people, to those closest to students
and to students themselves.
Our budget begins by recognizing that education is a local
issue. Congress codified that truth when it created the U.S.
Department of Education 40 years ago. It promised the move
would, and I quote, ``not increase the authority of the Federal
Government over education nor diminish the responsibility for
education, which is reserved to the States,'' end quote.
This administration proposes Congress align the budget with
that 40-year-old promise. Our budget would take a big step
toward right-sizing the Federal role in education so that
families, teachers, States, and local leaders are free to do
what is right for students.
The budget would expand education freedom for students so
that they can prepare for successful careers, and it would
refocus our approach to higher education so that students are
at the center of everything we do.
First, let us consider recent history. Over 40 years
Federal taxpayers have spent more than $1 trillion trying to
fix K-12 education. Each year Congress grew the budget from
nearly $7 billion in 1980 to more than $41 billion in 2010 for
K-12 education alone.
What have we bought with all that spending? Just open up
the latest Nation's Report Card to see the sad results. No real
improvement in student achievement in decades.
So instead of holding fast to what we know does not work,
let me suggest we find the courage to do something bold and
begin a new era of student growth and achievement.
The Every Student Succeeds Act gives us good insights into
where we should go. ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) became
law because many of you on both sides of the aisle realized
Federal overreach in education had failed.
So you moved to restore the proper roles in education. The
bipartisan K-12 law affords States and communities more
flexibility to address local challenges. This administration
proposes Congress complement its work on ESSA and make the
budget match the law.
States must work with local communities and families to
develop comprehensive plans that best meet the needs of their
students, and States should be able to target their Federal
taxpayer dollars accordingly.
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED BLOCK GRANT
To that end, we propose putting an end to education
earmarks by consolidating nearly all Federal K-12 programs into
one single block grant.
To be clear, this proposal does not eliminate any program.
It simply affords States the flexibility they need to enhance
programs that work for their students. Overall, Americans spend
about $860 billion on K-12 education every year.
Last year, Congress appropriated about $24 billion of that
through the programs in our proposed block grant, or merely 2.5
percent of total education funding.
And yet, each year teachers and school leaders spend more
than 2 million hours complying with Federal reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for that small slice of the pie. Two
million hours, more than 83,000 days, more than 225 years--time
that could have been focused on helping students learn and
grow.
Teachers, administrators, and State leaders need to be free
to focus on people, not paperwork. Results, not regulations.
Different States will invest their share of the block grant
differently, and that is okay.
In fact, that is what we hope they do. They can better
figure out what their students need because they know their
students. Every student is unique, and each one of them learns
differently. Every child needs the freedom to learn in places
and in ways that work for them.
EDUCATION FREEDOM SCHOLARSHIPS
That is why the President's 2021 Budget also renews its
call for a historic investment in America's students, Education
Freedom Scholarships.
Our proposal is a dollar-for-dollar Federal income tax
credit for voluntary contributions to State-based nonprofit
organizations that provide scholarships directly to students.
I like to picture kids with backpacks representing funding
for their education following them wherever they go to learn.
The budget also requests a $100 million increase in supporting
children with disabilities, amounting to a total of $14 billion
for IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)
programs.
CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
There is also a request for a dramatic expansion of Career
and Technical Education programs, an overall increase of nearly
$900 million. It is the largest investment in CTE ever.
It includes a total of $2 billion for Perkins and State
grants, which is an increase of nearly $800 million.
Additionally, we are requesting $150 million, an increase of
more than $135 million, to fund STEM activities led by HBCUs
(Historically Black Colleges and Universities) and other
Minority-Serving Institutions located in Opportunity Zones.
This administration wants every student in America to have
more education options that focus on preparing them for
successful careers. That goes hand in hand with our
groundbreaking initiatives at Federal Student Aid.
FEDERAL STUDENT AID
Consider that FSA (Federal Student Aid) is essentially a
$1.5 trillion bank that has dramatically outgrown its
governance structure. We propose evaluating a new governance
structure and whether FSA should be a stand-alone entity.
In the meantime, we are continuing to build on our
important reforms that establish one platform, one operating
system, one website and, importantly, on providing customers--
students and their families--with a seamless student loan
experience.
In the end, our budget is about one thing: putting students
and their needs above all else. It is a budget that recognizes
that no student and no State, no teacher and no town, are the
same.
States need to be free to address the particular problems
and possibilities of their people, and students of all ages
need the freedom to find their fit. This budget proposes that
Congress give it to them.
Thanks for this opportunity to testify. I will be happy to
answer your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Betsy DeVos
Good morning Chairman Blunt and Ranking Member Murray.
I'm pleased to be here today to present the President's fiscal year
2021 Budget Request for the Department of Education. I'm excited about
our 2021 Budget proposal because it puts a clear focus on helping
students achieve better outcomes by ending the Washington-knows-best
controls of the past and restoring authority to States and local
communities. At the same time, our request would invest in supporting
continued economic growth and significantly improving services to
recipients of postsecondary student financial aid.
President Trump and I are asking Congress to take several bold
steps in our request. As the president urged in his recent State of the
Union, we ask you to help approximately one million students find the
right education fit by creating a Federal income tax credit for
voluntary contributions to State-based, non-profit organizations that,
in turn, provide scholarships directly to students. To help students
enter high-demand careers, we ask you to make a historic investment in
Career and Technical Education State Grants so that every student has
access to a high-quality CTE program. To better serve students with
disabilities, we ask you to increase funding for State Grants under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. And to unleash innovation
by giving local educators more control of their Federal K-12 funds, we
ask you to consolidate several programs into a block grant for
elementary and secondary education.
But before I get into those and other proposals, I want to remind
the committee that none of us should be comfortable with the dismal
results in the latest ``Nation's Report Card.'' We have not seen
meaningful progress in a decade, and worse yet, the most vulnerable and
disadvantaged are actually performing worse. The failures of our
education system are dooming too many students as they pursue further
education, meaningful work, and successful lives.
Our education system is demonstrably not preparing all students for
today's workforce, much less tomorrow's. There are nearly 7 million
jobs left unfilled today because employers are unable to find the
workers with the needed skills and education.
This skills gap is the inevitable result of America's antiquated
approach to education. Can we really be surprised that employers have
trouble finding workers with the needed education and skills when the
Nation's Report Card tells us that more than 25 percent of our 8th
graders cannot read a basic, grade-level passage? ``The system'' is
failing far too many children, and they need something far better.
The Members of this Subcommittee should recognize that the answer
is not merely supplying more Federal taxpayer dollars. You have nearly
doubled spending on K-12 education since 2000, from $23 billion in 2000
to just over $41 billion in 2020. You've increased funding six-fold
over 40 years. The Federal taxpayer has been asked to invest $1
trillion over the past half-century, and the achievement gap has failed
to budge. I could go on, but suffice it to say, there is no evidence at
all that the Federal Government can simply spend its way to better
educational outcomes.
We must try a new approach, and I have a two-part prescription for
change.
First, we need to expand education freedom for all students. Every
family in America should be able to choose the education setting that
they believe is best for each child. Assigning students to schools
based on district boundaries may be convenient for public school
systems, but it clearly doesn't work for our children, our economy, or
our Nation.
Second, the Trump Administration wants to empower State and local
leaders and educators by dramatically reducing the Federal Government's
prescriptive, compliance-driven role in K-12 education. Fifty-five
years of steadily increasing Federal involvement in K-12 since
enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has not
improved outcomes or reduced the achievement gaps for our disadvantaged
students. Federal rules and regulations often make it harder for local
officials to target taxpayer resources optimally.
You will see both of those solutions--education freedom and local
control--throughout the President's fiscal year 2021 request.
Overall, the President's Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request includes
$66.56 billion in new discretionary budget authority for the Department
of Education, an 8.4 percent reduction below the fiscal year 2020
appropriation. This is consistent with the Administration's belief that
we cannot continue to increase Federal spending for K-12 education and
simultaneously expect to shift power and control back to local
educators. Federal money inevitably comes with Federal rules,
regulations, and burdens that constrain local educators and students.
If you doubt this, remember that only about 3 percent of total K-12
spending is tied to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Any
superintendent will tell you that ESEA represents far more than 3
percent of the administrative burdens placed on them.
education freedom scholarships
The most transformative proposal in the Administration's Fiscal
Year 2021 Budget is our Education Freedom Scholarship tax-credit
proposal, which would encourage voluntary contributions to State-based
elementary and secondary education scholarship programs. States could
create scholarship programs that give families more education options,
including public, private, home schooling, or all of the above. My goal
is to help States create more options for families, and the Federal
Government should be agnostic about which types of options are offered.
Because the scholarships would be funded by private donations,
Education Freedom Scholarships would not divert a single dollar away
from public school students or public school teachers. Nor would they
create any Federal entanglements for students or schools.
elementary and secondary education for the disadvantaged block grant
Our 2021 Budget also would build on the 2015 Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA), which reauthorized the ESEA and sought to restore State and
local control over education by significantly reducing the mandates
from Washington that accompany Federal education funds. As ESSA expires
in 2020, we ask Congress to take the next logical step and block-grant
Federal funds to States and local districts, so that people closest to
students can determine how best to use those funds to improve student
outcomes.
Our proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the
Disadvantaged Block Grant would consolidate 29 Federal elementary and
secondary education programs into a single$19.4 billion formula grant
program. Funds would be allocated to the district level through the
same need-based formulas used by the Title I program, and grantees
would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of
the onsolidated programs. We believe this would unleash new innovation
at the State and local level, and continue to expand proven reforms,
including public charter schools, magnet schools, and student-weighted
funding.
Under the new block grant, States and school districts would
continue to meet key ESEA accountability and reporting requirements
aimed at protecting students, supporting meaningful school improvement
efforts, and giving parents information they need to support a high-
quality education for their children. In addition to eliminating
Federal overreach and empowering State and local educators, the
consolidation of 29 formula and competitive grant programs into a
single formula grant would allow the Department, State educational
agencies, and local districts to reduce staffing and administrative
costs over time by streamlining program administration.
career and technical education
President Trump has compiled an extraordinary record in spurring
strong economic growth, creating new jobs, and increasing wage growth.
The 2021 Budget would double down on this commitment to ensuring that
every American can pursue success by increasing our investment in
Career and Technical Education (CTE) by nearly $900 million. In
particular, a $680 million or 53 percent increase in CTE State Grant
funding supports the Administration's goal of ensuring that every high
school student in America has access to CTE programs that provide
multiple high-quality pathways to high-paying, in-demand jobs. The
Request also renews the President's proposal to double fees under the
H-1B visa program and redirect a portion of the proceeds--totaling an
estimated $117 million--to the CTE State Grants program. Finally, we
are seeking $90 million for CTE National Programs, an increase of $83
million, to spur the development and implementation of high-quality CTE
programs in STEM fields and careers, including computer science.
special education programs
We also are proposing to increase support for programs that serve
more than 7 million children with disabilities in our Nation's schools.
The Request would provide $12.9 billion for Grants to States under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), an increase of $100
million over the 2020 enacted level, while maintaining level funding
for all other IDEA programs. Our Budget proposal urges Congress to
provide more resources for States and school districts to ensure every
student with a disability receives a high-quality education.
higher education programs
Our Request for higher education programs also reflects our
continued effort to consolidate duplicative programs and funding
streams, reduce administrative burden for applicants and grantees, and
streamline the Federal bureaucracy. The Request renews and expands our
proposal for a Consolidated Minority-Serving Institutions (MSI) Grant
program, which for fiscal year 2021 would combine 11 discretionary and
mandatory MSI funding authorities into a single institutional formula
grant funded at $336.3 million.
Title III funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs) and Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) would
continue to be delivered through existing authorities at the 2020
enacted levels.
In addition, the President's Budget would transform the Minority
Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) through a $150
million investment--an increase of $137.4 million. These competitively
awarded grants would fund STEM activities led by HBCUs and MSIs located
in Opportunity Zones, with the goals of both preparing the future
generation of STEM professionals and promoting technology-based
economic development in some of our Nation's most distressed
communities. The expanded MSEIP would target $50 million to HBCUs, $50
million to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), and $50 million to all
other MSIs.
The Request also renews last year's $950 million proposal for a
TRIO Student Supports Block Grant that would transition the TRIO
programs from a complex and difficult to administers et of Federal
competitive grant programs into a single State formula grant program.
Under this proposal, States would have discretion to use their funds to
implement the best mix of activities, including those currently
authorized under TRIO, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for
Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), and the College Assistance Migrant
Program, that will improve postsecondary access and attainment for
their low-income and disadvantaged students.
federal student aid
Finally, I want to talk about Federal student aid. I'd like to
first thank Ranking Member Murray and Senator Alexander for their
leadership in passing the bipartisan FUTURE Act, which included the
Faster Access to Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Act, that was signed into
law this past December. This important law marks a long-sought victory
for simplifying and improving the FAFSA for the nearly 20 million
students and families who complete it each year. From day one, I have
been committed to advancing these common-sense reforms, and I want to
assure you all that my team is hard at work implementing this new law.
However, students and families continue to face numerous challenges
in financing postsecondary education so we must continue to rethink and
modernize the Federal financial aid system. Our 2021 Request includes
proposals to simplify the Federal student loan programs and student
loan repayment, establish reasonable loan limits for all Federal
student loans, and afford postsecondary institutions more flexibility
to help students avoid borrowing more than they will be able to repay.
The Request also would expand Pell Grant eligibility to students
enrolled in high-quality short-term programs offered by institutions
that provide students with a credential, certification, or license in a
high-demand field, make Pell Grants available to certain incarcerated
students to improve employment outcomes, reduce recidivism, and
facilitate their successful reentry to society, and make crucial
reforms to the Federal Work Study program to support workforce and
career-oriented training opportunities for low-income undergraduate
students.
We hope you will continue to support our transition to the multi-
year Next Generation (Next Gen) student aid platform, which includes
building the technology and operational components that will help us
deliver world-class services to postsecondary students and their
families while continuously enhancing cyber security and improving
accountability for taxpayer funds. Key enhancements include the
development and implementation of an improved loan servicing platform
and the consolidation of all customer-facing websites into a single,
user- friendly hub to complement our new mobile platform and the highly
successful myStudentAid mobile app. These changes will give students,
parents, and borrowers a seamless experience from application through
repayment. Our request includes $1.9 billion for such improvements
through the Student Aid Administration account, $114 million more than
fiscal year 2020 enacted levels.
To carry out these reforms, we also need to ensure that the Office
of Federal Student Aid has the professional leadership and independence
needed to efficiently and effectively deliver each year more than $120
billion in new Pell Grants, Campus-Based Aid, and Direct Loans, while
managing a student loan portfolio of more than $1.5 trillion held by
over 42 million borrowers. In total assets, the Office of Federal
Student Aid is the country's biggest lender. But unlike banks, it does
not have a clear governing structure with deep financial experience to
provide strategic direction and oversight. Instead, the Office relies
mostly on the Secretary of Education, along with Congress and others,
for these critical roles. In 1998, when the Office of Federal Student
Aid was established as a performance-based organization, annual aid was
less than half of what it is today, and the Office was largely tasked
with overseeing and guaranteeing privately issued student loans. Many
of the complex programs we are familiar with today-- TEACH grants,
Public Service Loan Forgiveness, most income-based repayment plans--
didn't even exist. While just about everything in world of student aid
has changed, the Office of Federal Student Aid's structure and
governance has stayed the same. Moreover, we should all be concerned
that political interference could distract the Office from what should
be a laser-like focus on delivering world-class service to help
students and their families finance postsecondary education.
For all of these reasons, we believe it is time to consider whether
the Office of Federal Student Aid would be a stronger and more
effective organization if it had a reformed governance structure. As
part of this discussion, we also believe Congress should consider
whether FSA would work better as a separate organization from the U.S.
Department of Education. Managing one of the world's largest consumer
loan portfolios requires a different set of skills than managing the
distribution of grants to local and State educational agencies. Our
Budget proposes to launch this overdue discussion by evaluating these
issues in order to ensure that we best serve students and taxpayers
alike.
Each of these bold proposals marks a significant change from the
status quo. I know that will invite criticism and handwringing. But let
me urge all of us to move beyond the immediate discomfort of change and
instead focus on the needs of the rising generation. A generation who,
by most accounts, will be less literate than the generation before it
if we do not implement significant changes to our approach to
education. A generation who will face unprecedented economic change and
need more nimble education options. A generation who will be more
mobile and more connected than any in history. What they need from
American education is not the programs we fund today, simply because we
funded them yesterday and the year before that and the decade before
that. What they need is a complete rethinking and challenging of
everything we do so that nothing stands in the way of their continued
growth and success.
Thank you again for this opportunity to lay out our 2021 Budget
proposals and related reforms. I look forward to discussing these
proposals further with you over the coming weeks and months as we work
together to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for all
Americans.
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Secretary. Again, we are
glad you are here today.
ELIGIBILITY FOR RURAL EDUCATION REFORM
First question. Last month, the Department notified States
that some rural school districts would no longer be eligible
for funding under the Rural Low-Income School Program because
they were using the wrong data to demonstrate eligibility. You
and I talked about this Tuesday, and your view was that is what
the law says.
Last night, the Department announced that they had found an
alternative way to move forward on this. Do you want to talk
about how you found that and maybe why you didn't find it
before you announced that they were going to have cuts in all
these districts?
I know Senator Collins from Maine on the full committee has
worked very vigorous about this. I think Oklahoma also was
really impacted. Missouri districts were impacted. Tell us how
you found the flexibility to not make the reductions that you
said were going to have to be made.
Secretary DeVos. Well, thanks, Senator, and let me just
back up a little bit to help you better understand how we
actually got there in the first place.
We did a review of many of our grant programs in this last
year, and then it was discovered that States had, indeed, since
the inception of the program, been using the wrong data, and in
order to comply with the law, that was the move we had to make.
However, understanding that States had for now 17 years
been operating under one thesis and theory, we also are very
concerned about the impact on schools and districts in rural
communities, and having received expressions of concern that
schools were budgeting on those for this next year, we felt
that using a transition authority to allow for this to ease
into for a year to happen and Congress being able in this next
year to do a relatively simple fix to have the law comply with
what apparently is the intent of the law, that there would be
ample time with a transition year to be able to do that so
students aren't impacted this year.
But it is something that Congress is going to have to act
upon in order to continue to comply with the law.
Senator Blunt. Well, apparently not, since you found the
transition way to do it, and they have done it the other way
for 17 years. Did nobody recommend this to you before you
announced you were going to make the cuts?
Secretary DeVos. Well, unfortunately, it is one of those
things that got communicated, probably prematurely, directly to
the involved individuals rather than coming to my attention and
others'. We clearly don't want to see individuals and students
in rural areas hurt.
That said, clearly, for this long period of time, the data
on which the grants have been let out has been inaccurate and
not in compliance with the law.
And so having a year of transition--and I think the defense
for it is the disruption that would take place for those
schools that have been budgeting accordingly for this period of
time--is an appropriate transition. But it is something that is
going to have to be fixed in the law.
Senator Blunt. But not for this year?
Secretary DeVos. Well, again, I think we feel that there is
a valid reason to use a transition authority for a limited
period of time.
Senator Blunt. Well, we will see what the authorizers
decide about that.
CAREER PATHWAYS
On Career Pathways, what are you doing? As I suggested
earlier, we gave the Department $10 million in the budget we
are in right now to begin to look for ways to create
opportunities earlier.
The Department of Labor has increased their funding
request, at least, for Career and Technical Education State
Grants by 15 percent. I think this is an area where you and
Labor both have responsibility and opportunity.
What are you encouraging to happen in the next few months
that wouldn't have been happening a year ago before we got to
where we are? Apprenticeships at the Department of Labor have
been an area of great growth. But what are you doing at the
Department of Education?
Secretary DeVos. Well, we are continuing to support and
promote under the existing budget, and with the additional
funds that you appropriated last year, we have begun a
competition for those grants to encourage the exploration of
multiple--supporting these multiple pathways. And our budget
this year, as you noted, takes--it requests a significant
uptick increase in current technical education funds.
With the reauthorization of the Perkins Act, States have
been working on their plans for this year. Those plans are
coming due this spring, and many of them are very ambitious
around expanding these opportunities for students not only in
high school but reaching down, as you noted in your opening
comments, into the middle school years to begin helping
students understand what multitude of options they have.
And I had the opportunity just late last week to visit
another career and technical facility in Tennessee that is
doing tremendous work to provide options for students of all
ages, frankly, so it would--you know, what they do would span
both the elementary and secondary funding but also the Labor
Department funding into these career and technical options that
are so needed.
The demand for them is great and they are great
opportunities for students. So we are continuing to focus very
keenly on all of these opportunities.
Senator Blunt. Great. Thank you, Secretary.
There will be a second round of questions if anybody wants
to stay for that. But let us try to stay as close as we can to
the questioning time.
And Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Again,
Madam Secretary, thank you.
CORONAVIRUS
As you know, 10 people in my home State of Washington have
already died from coronavirus, and it is really a frightening
time for students and families in my State, and it will be
across the country.
I understand you created a task force and launched a
webpage with some information and resources and, as you know, I
sent you a letter yesterday with questions about those and
other efforts to prepare for this continued spread and
communicate with the frontline stakeholders--school districts,
State educational agencies, institutions of higher education--
about how they can best protect their students, their teachers,
and other staff.
Given the urgency of this issue, I hope you can respond
fully to my letter. But I wanted to ask you a few questions
today. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) has
urged schools to prepare for the continued spread of
coronavirus.
How is the Department coordinating now with Federal, State,
and local public health officials to develop preparedness and
response plans related to the virus?
Secretary DeVos. Senator, from the start, President Trump
and the whole administration have been focused very keenly on
preparing individuals and at the most local level, preparing
them with information and preparing across government.
So the working group that has been stood up in the
Department of Education is in regular, frequent, multiple-
times-daily contact with the CDC for updates from them on
latest developments.
As you noted, we have created a webpage for schools and
districts for anyone affiliated with education to go and see
the latest information from the CDC, links to that. We have
established a dedicated email at the Department and can help
refer on specific questions through that email.
And then as you noted in your opening comments, we have
just released guidance from the Office for Civil Rights
reminding schools of their responsibilities around ensuring
that students are not discriminated against based on their
ethnicity or heritage, and we have also released guidance for
the higher education world, talking about the multiple
different flexibilities that we will be, you know, open to and,
again, depending on the development of the circumstances, that
we will ensure happen.
INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC REGARDING VULNERABLE STUDENT POPULATIONS
And then I think also, importantly, Mark Schultz, the
Assistant Secretary for OSERS (Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services), is working on updating the 2009 H1N1
plan and guidance around students with disabilities.
Senator Murray. Do you know when that will be available?
Secretary DeVos. It should be very soon. I know it was--it
did not seem that there had to be a lot of amendments or
changes made.
Senator Murray. Okay. Because as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, I know North Shore School District in my home State
has now announced in the middle of the night that they will be
closed for 2 weeks.
They said 26 of the schools in their district had been
affected via direct or indirect exposure at that point. The
absentee rate was 20 percent, and 16 percent of their employees
are over 60, and in Washington State right now, if you are over
60 they are asking you to stay home. So we will see more of
this.
And because of that, I wanted to ask you specifically, and
we need information quickly, as this continues to spread, how
are you talking to districts about students with particular
needs, students with disabilities, students who are--come from
food insecure families, students experiencing homelessness?
As school districts close, what is your guidance to those
schools to deal with those difficult populations?
Secretary DeVos. Well, thank you. I would, you know, refer
to some of the things I just mentioned and we are working hard
to make sure the guidance around students with disabilities is
updated and released very soon here.
I know that that is a need and a necessity. We are going to
continue to be working very hard along with all of my
colleagues across government to ensure that all of the
resources and information that we have here is made available
as quickly and as promptly as possible to those at the local
district.
You know, local communities being able to have that
information and updated regularly to make the best decisions
for their communities is certainly our goal.
Senator Murray. Well, the challenges are going to be real
and I would just let all my colleagues know there is a lot of
parents going, how do I deal with day care, how do I go to
work, I don't have paid sick leave, I don't have the ability to
stay home from work and care for my kids and pay rent. So
this--the impacts of this are going to grow.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Alexander.
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. Glad to have you here.
Secretary DeVos. Thank you.
FREE APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL STUDENT AID
Senator Alexander. Last December, the Senate adopted an
amendment that Senator Murray and I made to a House bill that,
number one, permanently funded Historically Black Colleges, and
number two, simplified filling out the Federal aid application
form for college for 20 million American families.
You played a critical role in that, in getting the
administration to agree to that, and I want to give you most of
the time that I have here to allow you to talk about how you
are going to implement both of those.
But I want to take about a minute and remind everyone of
how important that is. I have held this up so often that people
are tired of seeing it. But in Tennessee there are 400,000
families that fill this out every year. If they do--this is a
FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid)--if they do,
they can get 2 years of free community college. That is the way
that works.
Former Governor Haslam says the biggest obstacle to that
two free years is this obstacle because it is so cumbersome.
The president of Southwest Community College, largely an
African-American population, says that he loses 1,500 students
a day because of the complexity of that. The way it works is
you fill this out in February.
You get notified, maybe in April through June, that you
have completed it, and then come something in the summer called
verification. For 5\1/2\ million American families, say,
100,000 in Tennessee where the IRS--where the Department checks
to see through the college that you are going to attend whether
you made a mistake in translating your IRS information to this
form.
Well, of course, many students do make a mistake, and that
slows down the money they get. At the East Tennessee State
University, the president told me 10,000 were subjected to this
verification.
What the amendment did that Senator Murray and I offered
and which was adopted and which you had a critical role in
signed by the president was to have the IRS fill out the 22
questions on this form so there won't be those mistakes in most
cases, thereby eliminating the so-called verification process
for, in our State, about 100,000 families every year.
What steps are you going to take to implement this, and
when can we see this law in place?
Secretary DeVos. Well, Senator, thanks so much for setting
that up, and thank you to you and Senator Murray for your
leadership here to ensure that that act was actually passed
into law.
STREAMLINING STUDENT AID APPLICATION AND LOAN DISCHARGE
It is a really big step in the direction of simplifying
FAFSA for students and, importantly, streamlining things like
Total and Permanent Disability, Income-Driven Repayments, and
just the whole application process.
So we have, immediately upon passage and signing of the
law, begun meeting with the IRS to work on implementation steps
and are diligently proceeding with those and hope to have a
timeline soon as to when it can all be fully implemented
because, importantly, this is going to be impactful for all
students, both current and prospective.
As you noted, I mean, I just want to run through a couple
of the benefits of full implementation. The streamlining will,
you know, populate 22 different questions directly from the IRS
and it will also, importantly, for Income-Driven Repayment
borrowers, eliminate the need to annually recertify their
income.
So another really important benefit: it will simplify the
Total and Permanent Disability discharge process, and it will
significantly reduce the burden on student applicants in
schools related to income verification.
As you have noted, that has been increasingly onerous. And
then, very importantly for everyone, it will ultimately reduce
improper payments because mistakes are made in manual
transmission. And so it is our goal, and I know that the folks
that our team has been working with at the IRS are fully
committed to implementing this as quickly as possible.
Senator Alexander. Well, I commend you for it. I commend
you also for putting the FAFSA on the device so students can
use it.
This should make it a lot easier, and I think it is
important to say that by adopting this law, by enacting this
law, we saved them enough money from improper payments,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, to fully fund
permanent funding for Historically Black Colleges.
Secretary DeVos. Absolutely.
Senator Alexander. So it was a significant----
Secretary DeVos. A win-win.
Senator Alexander [continuing]. Accomplishment and I
credit the administration as well as Senator Murray for
patience and persevering and making it happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
STUDENT SUPPORT AND ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT GRANTS
Secretary DeVos, once again, your budget proposes
eliminating the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant
Program under Title IV(a). This formula grant for which
Congress increased funding yet again last year in debating the
fiscal year 2020 budget to $1.21 billion.
This formula grant supports programs and provides for a
well-rounded education, safe and healthy schools, and effective
use of technology. This year your budget would consolidate this
program and many others into a new elementary and secondary
education for the disadvantaged block grant while slashing a
total of $4.7 billion in funding from the many programs that it
would combine.
You argue that this will provide greater flexibility for
school districts to meet their students' needs. But I fail to
see how cutting $4.7 billion in funding gives schools greater
flexibility when in fact it requires them to do more for their
students with fewer resources.
I certainly want to allow you the time to respond to defend
that assertion. But last year when you argued that Title IV(a)
was ineffective and underutilized, I asked whether the
Department had actually collected data on how districts are
using this money, and at that time last year you had not done
so.
I am curious to know whether that has changed. Do you have
data that supports your contention that there is insufficient
flexibility for districts that are using their Title IV(a)
money?
Secretary DeVos. Well, Senator, thanks for the--thanks for
those questions, and I would just take a step back and look
more broadly at our proposal that seeks to not eliminate any of
the elementary and secondary education programs but instead
combine them all together and give them to the States to then
fund the local districts and allow those--that flexibility at
the district level to prioritize what of those programs really
has been meaningful for the students in their district.
And we know from, you know, talking with many educators at
the local level, the difficulty with all of the siloed pots of
money. There is a less efficient and effective way to actually
meet the needs of the most vulnerable students they are
serving.
And as I said in my opening remarks, we have invested the
last 40 years at the Federal level alone over $1 trillion
seeking to close that achievement gap between those at the
highest performing end of the spectrum and those at the lowest
end of the spectrum, and not only have we not closed that gap
one little bit, by many measures and in many places, that gap
has actually widened.
And so our contention is that we need to do something
different. We can't keep doing the same things and expect a
different result, and allowing those closest to the students--
--
Senator Baldwin. Because I do want to ask another question,
let me just ask specifically, last year when I asked, the
Department had not collected data on how districts were using
the Title IV(a) money. Have you done that since? Yes or no.
Secretary DeVos. To the extent that we have been required
to, we certainly have. But I go back to the idea that----
Senator Baldwin. Well, I would like to see that, but I--
last year the answer was no, and so if you have started
beyond--since then I would like to see.
USE OF STUDENT SUPPORT AND ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT GRANTS FOR STUDENT
HEALTH
My second question is related to the first. Because Title
IV(a) gives school districts resources that they can use to
support student health and safety, there are more and more
demands, as you know, on schools every day regarding their
students' health and well being, and they now face a daunting
set of challenges related to the novel coronavirus, as you
heard from the ranking member in significant detail. At the
same time, schools are grappling with shortages of staff to
help meet those needs.
So, Secretary DeVos, by cutting funding the schools can use
for student health, aren't you making it harder for them to
respond to these new demands like the outbreak of the novel
coronavirus, and have you done any sort of assessment on what
those costs are going to be as we look at an all of government
response to the novel coronavirus?
Secretary DeVos. Well, Senator, as you know, you are the
appropriators and you decide where to set the budget, and our
proposal suggests, importantly, the policy around how local
districts will access funds.
In our proposal to combine all of those different line
items from the elementary and secondary education budget into
one to allow that flexibility for a district that does have a
high need and/or concern in the areas of health and safety for
their most vulnerable students, they could use more of those
resources in that way, and for another community that has a
different priority, they would have the flexibility to use
their funds, any one of those 29 programs, in that way.
So I think what the proposal suggests is that those closest
to the students are best able to target the resources to the
students that are most vulnerable in their area for whatever
reason and whatever supports are most beneficial for them.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary DeVos.
I would like to say to my friend from Washington State
that, you know, any way that we can be helpful because it can
be really critical what your response is in the education realm
and, really, all cylinders.
We want to be helpful, I think, and we wish--you know, we
want you to be strong and we want you to--and we want to help
you as much as we can. So our thoughts are with you. I am not
expressing myself as well as I would appreciate it.
CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
But anyway, Secretary DeVos, on the career and technical
education, workforce development is exceedingly important.
The administration is--through the budget is looking at a
53 percent increase in CTE State grant funding, and that is
very encouraging to me, coming from a State that is trying to
transition our economy from a more energy-based economy to a
more high tech, more entrepreneurial, and also to create an
enthusiasm with our younger students for careers to where we
are having shortages, whether it be welding or other--coding
and all kinds of things like that.
So I guess my question is how do you measure success in
this area, and how do you know which parts of career and
technical education need bolstering up, and how do you intend
to measure that success?
Secretary DeVos. Well, those are very good questions,
Senator, and I think we would seek to work with you on specific
areas of measurement.
But our proposal to dramatically expand the funding for CTE
comes at a time when the State plans have--are just in the
process of being finalized after the reauthorization of Perkins
and I think will be very beneficial to the extent that you all
decide to fund CTE at a higher level to all of the States.
We are seeing some, you know, interesting different kinds
of approaches and plans, and that is exactly what I think is
going to be helpful and beneficial for a State to be able to
sort of benchmark another State and see what they are doing and
how they are using those funds to really dramatically expand
these opportunities for students as young as down into the
middle school years.
Senator Capito. I agree. I think it is concerning, though,
when the Nation's Report Card says that 25 percent of our
eighth graders cannot read a basic grade level passage. Very
concerning.
That skill has to be translated into CTE. You can't go into
a successful CTE program and be successful if you can't read
the manual or read the computer instructions or whatever else.
So I think that concerns me as well. These are not simple
jobs in the career and technical space as maybe they were 20 or
30 years ago where you didn't have to have maybe as acute
skills in those areas.
Secretary DeVos. No, every single one of our students does
need to be able to read. That is a skill for life and a
necessary skill that you can't do without for sure.
PELL GRANT ELIGIBILITY
Senator Capito. One of the other areas that the president's
budget, again, included an expansion of: Pell Grant eligibility
for students enrolled in high-quality short-term programs, and
also we expanded the Pell eligibility through the summer
programs, which I have gotten a lot of very positive feedback
on as well as a continuity of education.
There was a bill out there, Jumpstart Our Businesses by
Supporting Students--the JOBS Act--which I supported, which
would help with the short-term eligibility. How is that
expansion of that eligibility and Pell Grant been rolled out,
and has it been successful, and are there a lot of--is there a
lot of uptake on it?
Secretary DeVos. Well, the short-term Pell programs have
been limited to pilots and, you know, we are very hopeful. Part
of the administration's budget proposal is that a short-term
program actually be made a permanent and expanded part of the
repertoire for the Pell.
Senator Capito. Right. So I would assume that by the
administration's desire to increase that program that the pilot
studies have shown success and a willingness for students to
enroll in these types of programs if the affordability issue is
answered. Is that what you are finding?
Secretary DeVos. Absolutely, and, I mean, there is great
demand. Of course the demand varies from State to State, from
region to region, depending on what the opportunities are, and,
you know, we would look forward to working with you to ensure
the right kind of guards around--you know, guardrails around
the program. But I think it is something that you all need to
look seriously at making it a permanent expanded program.
Senator Capito. So I would like to see, and maybe you could
follow up with our office later, where these pilot programs are
and maybe we could get in touch with them directly----
Secretary DeVos. Certainly.
Senator Capito [continuing]. To see where their successes
and failures have been.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Secretary DeVos. Thank you for being here.
PUBLIC SERVICE LOAN FORGIVENESS
I am very concerned about the repeated requests to
eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which,
again, is in the budget this year.
I am even more concerned about the Department's
mismanagement of the program, about which I and others in the
Senate have written you several times.
As you know, the program was created in 2008, and it
commits to participants that if they work for 10 years in
public service, if they stay current on their student loan
payments, the remainder of their debt will be forgiven.
But under your administration of that program, 99 percent
of borrowers have had this promised debt relief denied. Again,
this denial comes after they have already participated in the
program for many years and made serious career and life
decisions based on the promise that they would get relief.
And I just want to share a message that I received from a
constituent, Regan, who is a social worker in Claremont, New
Hampshire, about this program.
She wrote to me, and I am reading from her message, ``I
wanted to email you regarding the loan forgiveness program. I
have learned that this program may go away or is on the
chopping block.
Several years ago, I went to school to get my Master's in
social work in an effort to do more for my community. I
graduated with a Master's in social work in 2008 and have been
paying ever since. I eventually entered the loan forgiveness
program and as of right now, I believe I have 5 years left as
long as I continue to meet the requirements.
In 2015, I was diagnosed with MS, multiple sclerosis. I
thought I was seeing the light at the end of the tunnel that
perhaps in 5 years my loan would be forgiven. Without the loan
forgiveness program, I will surely be working to pay this loan
off until I am dead.
I am asking that every effort be made to maintain this
program. To me, this is huge, especially with my medical
condition.''
So, Madam Secretary, how do you answer Regan from
Claremont?
Secretary DeVos. Well, I assume she has applied for the
Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and is probably in
process making her payments. Our proposal----
Senator Shaheen. She says that in her message.
Secretary DeVos. Our proposal is to sunset the Public
Service Loan Forgiveness Program. The administration feels that
incentivizing one type of work and one type of job over another
is not called for.
We have a demand in our--you know, over 7 million jobs
going unfilled today--and favoring one type of pursuit over
another type of pursuit philosophically doesn't line up with
where we are.
Senator Shaheen. But, Madam Secretary, I am----
Secretary DeVos. But just to be clear on the existing
program, our commitment is to ensure that those who are part of
the program today and who meet the qualifications--now, you all
made it a very difficult program to qualify for and, you know,
10--first of all, 10 years----
Senator Shaheen. But it didn't seem to be so difficult
under the previous administration.
Secretary DeVos. Well, it----
Senator Shaheen. It is under your administration that 99
percent of the applicants have been denied. And so I guess that
is what I am trying to understand.
Secretary DeVos. Well, I have to point out that under the
previous administration no student qualified because it is a
10-year program.
Senator Shaheen. Ten-year--10-year program. I understand.
Secretary DeVos. So we have just come into the time period
that even those in the earliest end of the program who have
done all of the requirements are coming due for consideration.
So----
Senator Shaheen. So do you have recommendations for
Congress on what we should do to make it better, short of
eliminating it?
Secretary DeVos. We do----
INCENTIVES FOR PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT
Senator Shaheen. Because I guess I would disagree with your
comment about we don't have reason to incentivize work in
certain areas. In rural New Hampshire, we can't get social
workers.
We can't get healthcare workers. We can't get so many of
the people that we need in order to maintain our communities
and keep people there and keep them healthy and having
opportunities.
So having incentives to attract them is something that is
really important, especially in a time when our unemployment
rate is one of the lowest in the country.
So I want people to get the best jobs that they can paying
the most that they can. But if they want a job that is going to
help a community, that is going to help the State of New
Hampshire, that is going to help the country and we can
incentivize them to do that, then I think that is in the public
interest.
So I would fundamentally disagree with your thinking about
this and the administration's thinking about this. I just think
it is shortsighted in terms of what we need in our economy.
Secretary DeVos. Well, I appreciate that. But how do you
tell a nurse that works in privately-owned hospital that her
work is less important than a nurse that works in a not for
profit hospital?
Senator Shaheen. Because there are incentives in the
private sector that can help attract people that in the public
sector we often don't have, and that is the benefit of having
this program.
In the State of New Hampshire, when I was governor, we had
significant challenges getting rural healthcare workers because
they just couldn't come. We couldn't afford to pay them. Our
rural hospitals couldn't afford to pay them what they needed.
And so we had people who had unmet needs because of that.
So we set up a State incentive program to try and benefit
them. But we didn't have the funding to do everything we needed
to do, and that is why this kind of program is so important,
and to say that 99 percent of the people who have applied are
going to be rejected is just not acceptable.
If there is a fix that Congress needs to do for that, then
I hope you will let us know that so we can do it.
But to just say this is a program that suddenly the
Department has decided we are going to reject because even
though Congress passed it is not the direction that I think we
should be going in.
I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary DeVos. No, ma'am. That is not fair to say. The
reality is that most of those individuals have not yet
qualified and so there are suggestions that we can and would
make at your invitation to improve the existing program and we
still would appeal, going forward, that the program be ended
and that those in the program currently be allowed to process
through.
But we have a lot of opportunity and a lot of need in terms
of careers and employment in our country.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator. I think we would like
those suggestions as to how the current law should be improved,
assuming that the current law continues to move forward.
Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Secretary DeVos, thank you. Thanks for all your work. You
all have done a lot of work in a lot of areas, from the very
young to the graduate student. So thank for your engagement on
this.
ELIGIBILITY FOR RURAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
I do appreciate as well--Senator Collins, Senator Blunt,
several others, and I have sent you a letter about the rural
schools formula. That is a very big issue in Oklahoma with a
lot of rural schools there, trying to be able to work through
those schools.
All were trying to do their best and to be able to honor
what they thought was the rule and then to be able to find out
another rule may be different. They need time to be able get
the right data.
So I appreciate their ability to be able to get time to be
able to get the right data in and not hurting those schools
that as far as they knew were following the rules as they went
through it.
AID FOR INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
I also appreciate--I have learned today on the Title III
grants that there is an extension for colleges to be able to
get a little more time to be able to apply. I have several in
Oklahoma that are going through that process of the Title III
grant application process.
They need a little bit more time on it. They got it today,
and that is another thing I would ask you about, and so I
appreciate that very much.
Let me ask you an odd question. Have you ever been to
Konawa, Oklahoma?
Secretary DeVos. Konawa, Oklahoma?
Senator Lankford. Konawa, Oklahoma? No?
Secretary DeVos. Yes. Yes, I have.
Senator Lankford. Have you ever been to Jenks, Oklahoma?
Secretary DeVos. Jenks? No.
Senator Lankford. How about Burns Flat, Altus, Stroud, or
Jay?
Secretary DeVos. No, Senator, I have not.
Senator Lankford. Fantastic towns. You ought to come visit
at some point.
Secretary DeVos. I am sure they are.
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED BLOCK GRANTS
Senator Lankford. Different as can be, all over the State,
and they need different things in education. I do appreciate
very much that you have put a very bold proposal in front of
us, and I know there will be debate on it and conversation.
But you are not trying to treat Jay, Konawa, Jenks, and
Stroud the same when they are very different in their
communities and have very different needs and have very
different structure.
So I just want to tell you, I appreciate the idea. The idea
is worthy of debate. There will be lots of argument about
funding and amounts and how that should be done. But I
appreciate you're not abolishing any programs. You are just
giving the flexibility to all those communities to be able to
do that.
ANTI-SEMITISM AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
I also appreciate some of the work that you and the
administration have done on dealing with anti-Semitism and
trying to get a definition.
We have had in the State Department a definition on anti-
Semitism for a very long time that has not extended into the
Department of Education until the latest executive order on
dealing with anti-Semitism and to try to get a clear definition
across the education spectrum on that.
I would like to know how that is going and what you are
finding with that.
Secretary DeVos. Well, Senator, that has become an
increasingly important issue. We have seen more and more
incidents on campuses across the country, and I am thankful for
the President's executive order to help clarify and spur the
movement in the direction to ensure that students on campus are
protected and that--both their free speech and their ability to
practice their faith openly and without concern is protected in
every way and we are committed to seeing that through.
And where there have been cases that are civil rights
infringements, we encourage individuals to approach the
Department and the Office for Civil Rights is looking at those
incidents carefully.
Senator Lankford. How is that going with all issues of
faith on campuses, wherever it may be? Are you dealing with
other unique challenges that need to be addressed by us, or do
you have what you need?
Secretary DeVos. Well, I think with some of the most recent
clarifications and steps taken, it does put the onus back on
schools at the K-12 level to be clear about their process for
if a student feels they have been--their rights have been
infringed--and it also makes clear that those schools have got
to report those incidents to the Department of Education so we
have full transparency into what is going on.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Let us know on what we need to do
to be able to address that because it is very important as a
constitutional protection for all individuals based on faith.
We should have open free speech on campuses. We should have
the ability to be able to practice faith. We should be able to
live that out. And so if you are finding barriers to that, you
need to let us know on it.
90/10 LIMIT ON FINANCIAL AID FOR FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES
I have sent something to your office before. I am not
asking you to be able to sign on at this point, but I want to
keep your team involved. There are several of us that have
worked very hard to be able to deal with the 90/10 rule on--
especially for for-profit schools--and to be able to make sure
that we are very clear.
Now, this was something in statute a long time ago. There
have been a lot of issues on interpretation on this basic
issue: should a school have, basically, 100 percent of their
funding all come from Federal sources?
We determined as Congress a long time ago 90 percent is the
maximum that they could do, and then there has been this debate
about VA funding and such, whether that is Federal or whether
that is something else. We are trying to clarify that.
We have sent over a copy of that to your office to be able
to make sure that you have the opportunity to be able to get
some input on.
But that is a bipartisan effort that we are trying to be
able to work through on the 90/10 rule and we would appreciate
your engagement in the days ahead to be able to make sure that
we get that right.
We are not trying to box out any school, but we are trying
to be able to keep the spirit and the letter of that 90/10 rule
as we go through.
Secretary DeVos. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. With that, I thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Senator Murphy.
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION
Good to see you again, Madam Secretary. Thank you for being
here. I am holding in my hand a press release from January of
last year where you announced an initiative to address the
inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion to protect
children with disabilities and ensure compliance with Federal
laws.
I thank you for this. This is an incredibly important
issue. There is a need for guidance for school districts that,
for a variety of reasons, are doing this wrong today and are
restraining far too many children, are locking certain kids up
in seclusion.
We had incidences in my State of Connecticut in which some
schools were using something called scream rooms in which they
would lock kids in rooms for hours at a time with no meaningful
supervision.
I think it is really important that you have tasked OCR
(Office for Civil Rights) with monitoring this and working with
States to do better. I don't know if you have any update to
share on this today. But I think this is an incredibly
important partnership that we can engage in, Republicans and
Democrats, to try to reduce the need for restraints and, I
would argue, the elimination of seclusion as a practice in
schools, especially for kids with disabilities.
Secretary DeVos. Well, thanks, Senator. I appreciate your
bringing this up, and it is an ongoing initiative. We initiated
audits in--across the country through the 12 regional offices
of the Office for Civil Rights to ensure--well, audit a number
of schools in districts and then to ensure--communicate and
ensure that schools know what their responsibility is around
the law, primarily to bring a lot more sunlight to this and a
lot more transparency.
And don't yet have a report or a result to share with you,
but it is an ongoing concern, and it is very high on my list of
priorities as well.
Senator Murphy. Well, if there is going to be a product, a
report, I would encourage you to present that as soon as
possible. I think there is interest in Congress in legislating
appropriately on this question, and your guidance could be
helpful. Thank you for your focus on that.
I wanted to stay on the issue of civil rights. Civil rights
data collection is something that I have cared a lot about, in
part because I have seen how important it is for the Federal
Government to be in the business of collecting national data.
National data is really important so that we can compare
apples to apples. I know you are a believer in States having as
much discretion as possible. But it is kind of hard for
Connecticut to know whether we are doing something right or
wrong if we can't compare ourselves to other States.
And so the Civil Rights Data Collection is a report that is
produced every 2 years that allows States to take a look and
see how they are doing compared to other States in terms of how
children of color or children with disabilities are performing.
CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION QUESTION ELIMINATIONS
And I am really concerned because you have proposed getting
rid of a lot of the data that is collected here, and you are
proposing to eliminate data including teaching experience,
school funding, chronic absenteeism, advanced coursework, and
access to early childhood education.
And I have an example of why some of the data that you are
proposing to get rid of has helped, and one of the things we
have figured out is that, well, African-American kids represent
only 20 percent of preschool children.
They represent 50 percent of preschool children who are
suspended. That is an abomination. And because we knew that,
Connecticut actually led the way in reforming our practices.
We, in fact, just eliminated preschool out of school
suspensions, and many other States are now acting because we
had that data nationally and States could see how they are
doing.
So given the importance of data, something that Republicans
and Democrats have generally agreed on, why would the
Department try to make it harder for policy makers and
advocates to use data to make change?
Secretary DeVos. Thanks for the question.
We have, indeed, proposed the elimination of some of the
questions from the most recent data collection universe and
adding additional ones. There has been a back and forth on the
comment period, and we are certainly open to and considering
the second round of comments on that.
It is, clearly, our interest to ensure that the data that
is collected is useful for States and communities, and we will
look more closely at the areas of concern that you have
expressed.
I would say that some of the proposed changes and/or
eliminations are now captured under ESSA reporting requirements
as well, and so there is some of that going on as well.
Senator Murphy. I would just encourage you to take another
look at this. I understand the concern about unfunded mandates.
I don't hear a lot of complaints from school districts on the
civil rights data reporting, and if the Federal Government is
involved in education for any reason, it is for the purposes of
defending people's and children's civil rights.
And so I think this is really important data to get back in
that collection system.
I appreciate your response. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Madam Secretary, for being here and for your good work.
I want to ask your thoughts on a subject. Let me preface it
by saying that I have never met a politician who didn't support
children and prosperity and jobs and education, and I am one of
them. I support education.
STUDENT AID FUELING COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS
My question is about higher education. It is undeniable
that the cost of higher education, tuition in particular, but
the fees that are added on have increased dramatically since
1985. I have seen studies that show since 1985 the cost of
tuition has risen faster than healthcare and housing.
Some would argue that our universities cost more and teach
less, but I am not sure I agree with the second part of that. I
just know they cost more. What, if any, relationship--and the
money doesn't seem to be going to the faculty. It just doesn't
seem to be--at least not in Louisiana, and I bet we are not
that different from other States.
What do you--do you see a relationship between the dramatic
increase in tuition and fees and the fact that for a variety of
reasons it is easier than ever to borrow money?
Secretary DeVos. I think there is definitely a relationship
there, and one of our proposals--part of our proposal in the
budget----
Senator Kennedy. And by the way, a lot of people make money
off of lending that money, do they not?
Secretary DeVos. Well, that is----
Senator Kennedy. Excuse me for interrupting. You go ahead.
Secretary DeVos. That is okay. I think it is--the cost of
higher education is a very complex issue. But you look at any
chart over the last 30 or 40 years and it shows the cost of
higher education increasing dramatically while at the same time
many different consumer goods and things that we take for
granted daily have continued to decrease in cost.
One of our--part of our proposal in the budget is capping
the amount that graduate students can take out in loans because
currently they are--as you well know, they are uncapped, and we
have today over 800,000 students that have over $200,000 in
debt.
Ninety-three percent of them would still be captured under
the proposal that we have advanced there.
That is one step, one thing we can do. Another thing that I
think is really important that we have done and that I think is
going to be more and more useful and people become more and
more aware of it is adding data to the College Scorecard down
to the program level by institution.
So if I am considering going to two or three different
colleges for a specific program, I can compare the costs
between the three and, importantly, I can compare what the
earning potential is from each of those programs after I have
graduated from that program.
Senator Kennedy. That is a great idea.
Secretary DeVos. And this is a lot more granular data that
is going to become very useful for students, I think, on the
prospective and I hope, importantly, for institutions to shut
down programs that are really not what they are worth.
HIGHER EDUCATION COST NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ACADEMIC LEARNING
Another area that, you know, the costs have continued to go
wild on--you said it is not necessarily going to the faculty.
You look at any other data chart the administrative costs at
every higher ed institution have continued to grow at multiple
times the rate of any of the other costs.
And, you know, I don't know that that is defensible thing.
There is also lots of bells and whistles. There is lots of
schools adding, you know, climbing walls and what have you to
try to attract students when in fact a traditional college
student is a declining population.
The schools that are ultimately going to thrive in the long
term are the ones that are recognizing this and that are
changing themselves to anticipate what they need to be for
students today and in the future. Most of the students today
are nontraditional students.
So what are higher Ed institutions doing to acknowledge
that and embrace that and make what they have to offer relevant
for their students?
Senator Kennedy. Thank you for your good work. Thank you
for your support for charter schools. I believe competition is
a moral good.
Secretary DeVos. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy. It makes us all better.
Secretary DeVos. Well, we know there are over a million
kids on waiting lists nationwide for charter schools.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Senator.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CORONAVIRUS
And I understand Senator Murray asked you a few questions
about coronavirus in schools. But I wanted to follow up on that
because our first case in Oregon was a school building
maintenance engineer, if you will, and so the school shut down.
But they were desperate for guidance on what is proper, and
have you all--have you generated guidance on a situation on
when a school should shut down, how long it should shut down,
how should it be cleaned, how should the--those who are doing
the cleaning be provided with protective gear and training to
do that?
Secretary DeVos. Well, we are working very closely. This is
an area really for the CDC's expertise and information to--for
schools to access and we are making sure that every interface
we have provides updated information from the CDC through links
and/or emails and/or, you know, telephonic communication and we
are committed to continuing to do that.
The administration has taken a very aggressive
administration wide approach, and our working group within the
Department of Education is tied in very closely with all of the
efforts across the government and will continue to be providing
the information that will be most useful to those at the local
level.
Senator Merkley. Okay. So, so far, there really isn't any
information providing advice to schools, and I do take the
point that that should come from experts on the disease.
But I think your Department, with its connections, can push
for that, try to get specific guidance for schools and then try
to make sure all the schools have an understanding because we
had in the last 5 days a six fold increase in the reported
cases.
If it was to continue at that pace, which we have no idea
if it will or not, we would be talking over 100,000 cases by
the end of the month. Schools are going to be affected. They
are all going to be asking the same questions and you are in a
position to help make sure they understand the answers to that.
Also, that for them to understand the best information
about the vulnerability of students, which the good news is
students in good health are rarely affected.
Secretary DeVos. Right.
Senator Merkley. But those who have special conditions need
to take special protections and, again, that is a role I think
your team could help people understand in the school community.
BORROWER DEFENSE
I wanted to turn to the issue of Borrower Defense, and this
is where individuals who were signed up for for-profit schools
didn't get the education that they paid for.
They are left with big loans and useless--sometimes useless
degrees or no degree. And we have--the applications just seem
to stack up and not get resolved. We have for Oregon about
3,000 applications pending and--at your Department but only 13
claims were approved last quarter. And it just seems like
people need an answer, a fair answer, a correct answer, a right
answer, but they need an answer.
Is there a way we can--I know I have asked you about this
before but I am coming back to say it hasn't been resolved. How
can we apply more energy to getting people answers on these
claims?
Secretary DeVos. Well, thanks for that question, Senator,
and just to take a step back on that, between 1995 and 2015
there were 60, six zero, Borrower Defense claims made with the
Department of Education.
After 2015 it was like the spigot was turned on, and we
have been--there is nothing I want more than to get those
claims resolved. And to be clear, Borrower Defense claims are
claims of fraud against a school where there is financial harm
to the student, and we have been--we worked very hard to put a
process in place because when I came into office there was no
process.
We put a methodology, a process, in place to considering
the pending claims, began processing under that new methodology
and were immediately shut down by a court--a lawsuit challenge.
The pending appeal has been pending in the 9th Circuit for
almost 2 years. So we had to develop a second methodology
because these claims continue to pile up and, frankly, there is
a lot of marketing efforts going on to promise students their
loan forgiveness under, I would say, often specious claims.
So the second methodology we have begun processing the
pending claims that we can. We can't for the ones that are
under the first lawsuit.
But we are processing the ones that we have and it is our
goal to ensure that every student's claim is considered for the
individual attention that it needs and deserves and that we
resolve these as quickly as possible.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. My time is up so I will just
close by noting an example from Oregon is Donovan Nugent. He is
a military veteran. He submitted an affidavit in--regarding
this. He served in post-9/11. He used the GI Bill.
Heald College took out student loans in his name. There was
no degree, no real education. He is a victim of misleading and
unethical student loan practices, has overwhelming debt.
He can't afford to borrow again. But he is just exactly the
type of victim we see time and time again, and we need to get
these claims processed.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Secretary DeVos. I couldn't agree more.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Senator Hyde-Smith.
IMPROVEMENT IN STATE TEST SCORES
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Secretary
DeVos, thank you so much for all you have done and the
incredible job you have done over the past year. You have
improved opportunities for career advancements and educational
opportunities for the students in Mississippi as well as
throughout the country.
First of all, just for a little update and to be able to
brag on my own home State, at the end of last year Mississippi
had a huge win in educational advancement. The State ranked
number one in gains on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress.
We were the only State in the Nation to show significant
increases in three of the four core subject areas, and this was
due to the hard work of our State's leaders, the teachers, the
students really buying into this, and we can also point to our
success from the support of your Department that gives us
through important Federal programs like Title I and Title II
that have been very beneficial.
CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Second, I am very pleased the President's budget request
includes a significant increase for Career and Technical
Education programs.
My constituents tell me regularly about the importance of
the CTE programs to provide valuable career exposure and
workforce training, and it is very important that we continue
to give the students those opportunities.
RURAL EDUCATION
Third, I understand the Department recently announced it
would provide a temporary hold harmless provision related to
the rural education achievement program for fiscal year 2020
funding.
I joined the letter led by Senator Collins expressing my
concerns that this change could have on rural school districts
in my State, and I am thrilled to hear that you are willing to
provide flexibility to rural schools while Congress works on a
permanent solution to this issue.
Now to my question. As you are aware, Mississippi is mostly
comprised of rural school districts. We have different
challenges and needs, ranging from teacher recruitment to
infrastructure to funding.
But please share with the committee the programs in the
budget request that you believe specifically benefit or address
the needs of rural school districts like those we have in
Mississippi.
Secretary DeVos. Well, thank you so much, Senator. I
appreciate your question.
I share your concern for rural school districts and the
opportunities there for kids, and one of--I think one of the
most important ways our budget proposal addresses the varying
needs of kids in rural school districts is by the proposal to
take all of the elementary and secondary education funding
programs and combine them together in a block grant that would
go to the States and then be distributed out to the districts,
allowing them the greatest flexibility for the uses of those
funds.
So for a student in one rural community that may, like the
one I visited in Mississippi, want to add an AP Physics course
for students there, perhaps they could use some of those funds
to do that, really tailoring and personalizing the education
dollars committed by Congress to personalize it and tailor it
to the needs of every community and the students in those
communities.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Yes, that flexibility is extremely
important to us for sure.
Secretary DeVos. Then you will love the block grant
proposal.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Great. Thank you so much.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS STUDENTS
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here and we always
appreciate you coming and going over. The thing I have is
that--and I know this touches everybody. This is nonpolitical.
It is, basically, homelessness for children, and it is a
horrible, horrible scourge on our whole society. It really is.
Rural States and a State like mine that has been hit so
hard with the opioid epidemic and then just society breakdown
in general has really fueled this. They said there is 1.5
million homeless children right now in our school systems,
youth enrolled in public schools.
We have over 10,500 in West Virginia that we can account
for, and we are not accounting for nearly what we know is out
there. So it really gets to the crux of what I am going to be
asking you on this.
The McKinney-Vento Act that you might be familiar with for
homeless children and youth funding, and these services ensure
that the students are going to have some chance of normality
the best they possibly can.
The thing that concerns me, Madam Chairman, I would hope
you all would maybe reconsider this. That is lumped in with 28
other Federal education programs right now, and being lumped in
with them and there is a total cut of over $4.7 billion on top
of that for those same programs that we had last year.
I would hope that this is something that I--I mean, if we
are going to save the future generations, we have got to all
come together on this one. If you could separate McKinney-Vento
from the 28 to make sure it gets the proper funding--I don't
know how else we are going to be able to take care of this
problem. I really don't.
And I have got a situation where children that come to
school that are homeless have no place to sleep except either
on someone else's couch, surfing with a family member in a car,
a motel room, whatever it may be; they are not really worried
about did they get their homework done and not worried about
the next test they have got to take. That is not in their mind.
They are worried about how they are going to survive until
tomorrow.
So I don't know if you have that flexibility, if you would
reconsider that or--but this is such an absolutely dire
situation that we are in, and it is growing exponentially.
Secretary DeVos. Senator, I share your concern about that
particular issue and your State being very hard hit on that. In
fact, I recall our conversation several months ago about the
McKinney-Vento program----
Senator Manchin. Right.
Secretary DeVos [continuing]. And the fact that many----
Senator Manchin. Your people are very good. They have been
talking to us and trying to work with us. We appreciate all
that. But----
FLEXIBILITY OF BLOCK GRANTS
Secretary DeVos. But, no, let me just say, this is exactly
the argument for doing a block grant to the States, because as
we talked about, nobody in the State really knew about the
McKinney-Vento program or how to access the dollars, what forms
you had to fill out. I mean, all of the bureaucracy that went
around that.
Senator Manchin. Well, how would block grant--here, I have
been the governor, so I understand block grants.
Secretary DeVos. It--so, yes. So----
Senator Manchin. I understand flexibility.
Secretary DeVos. Right.
Senator Manchin. I am probably more compassionate with
block grants as a former governor. But on the other hand, I
know the downturn if it is just on population base and nothing
changes because then I am stymied.
Secretary DeVos. Well, you all will decide the
appropriation level. But our proposal wants to give as much
flexibility to the States and local districts. If the McKinney-
Vento program is one that you want to double down on through a
block grant, it would allow you to do that. And if there is
another program in the 29 that isn't as important----
Senator Manchin. Well, our biggest thing was reporting,
basically. How many counties did we have not even participate?
How many?
Voice. We have about 30.
Senator Manchin. Out of 55 counties, 30 didn't even
participate.
Secretary DeVos. They might not have even known about it,
right?
Senator Manchin. Well, they don't have the personnel. They
tell us they don't have the personnel to be able to track these
students to report properly to get the drawdown.
Secretary DeVos. So this--but this is, in my view, one of
the best arguments for block granting all of the funds from all
those various programs to the States and then allowing those
local communities to--the funding level--so you decide the----
Senator Manchin. For the discussion purpose----
Secretary DeVos. You decide the funding level.
Senator Manchin. I understand for the----
Secretary DeVos. We are not proposing eliminating any of
those programs but giving the flexibility----
Senator Manchin. But you reduced $4.7 billion by putting 29
together. So my block money has got to be less.
[Laughter.]
Secretary DeVos. Not by putting 29. So it is not by putting
29 together. We have proposed a funding level but, again, you
all decide the funding level. We are advocating for the
flexibility to go down to the community level.
Senator Manchin. So what you are trying to say, basically,
in education there is 29 programs in education and we know it
had been cut. Your recommendation is reducing it $4.7 billion.
But whatever the number is, you are saying that then West
Virginia should look at all these programs, how these service
these kids in these 29 areas and decide what we can do with
less money?
Secretary DeVos. Decide what you can do with the money that
Congress appropriates.
Senator Manchin. Uh-huh.
Secretary DeVos. Decide what--where you want to put your--
where the priorities are depending on the needs of the most
vulnerable students in each community. And as Senator Lankford
just said, you know, he named about six or eight different
towns in Oklahoma, all of which are quite different and have
different needs.
And so giving every local district that kind of flexibility
with the Federal funds for elementary and secondary education
will allow them to actually----
Senator Manchin. If I could say one more thing, Mr.
Chairman, if you give me just one more minute.
Senator Blunt. Senator Schatz.
[Laughter.]
BLOCK GRANTS VERSUS WAIVERS
Senator Manchin. As a former governor, okay, we used to ask
for waivers. So what you are saying a block grant, I would say,
okay, here I am on the receiving end from West Virginia,
Missouri, Hawaii.
Secretary DeVos. Right.
Senator Manchin. Just give me a waiver. Let me--you don't
have to give me a block grant. Do the funding the same as you
are doing it. Let me have a waiver when I have to have some
latitude. That works very well. It has worked before. I had it
with DHHS (Department of Health and Human Services)----
Secretary DeVos. Okay.
Senator Manchin [continuing]. And I am just saying----
Secretary DeVos. I just think a block grant is a much
better tool because it allows all the allowable uses for the
programs and it is--and the proposal is----
Senator Manchin. The Chairman has been really kind with me
on this. The only thing I am going to say is that I think we
want to get to the same end. I am just not sure in a rural
State----
Secretary DeVos. But why should I have to go give you a
waiver and give you permission? You should be able to decide
that with the folks in your State.
Senator Manchin. Now, I know what you are saying from that
standpoint. But on the other end of it, the cutting back--
ratcheting the money back for the amount of money, I am going
to have less money to work. I have got all the needs of 29
programs. I have got to----
Secretary DeVos. So separate out the funding level----
Senator Manchin. You want me to make the decision on who
gets cut.
Secretary DeVos. No, separate out the funding level from
the proposal.
Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you,
Senator. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Manchin. I yield. Okay.
Senator Blunt. Senator Schatz.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Chairman. And Governor Manchin,
I will follow up on this line of questioning. I mean, I think--
look, let us be as blunt as possible. There are sort of two
public policy issues.
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED BLOCK GRANTS
One is the flexibility that a block grant allows and the
balance there is that, on the authorizing side, we have decided
as Federal public policy that certain lines of funding ought to
be mandatory, that we actually don't want to give total
flexibility to every governor in every district because we have
decided certain things need lines of funding.
Now, we can have that argument about flexibility, and I
think there are equities on both sides. But the fact is your
budget has a $4.7 billion cut, and the answer to the question
why did you cut education by $5 billion cannot be as though you
are answering the question, ``why are you doing block grants''
because it is still a $5 billion cut whether you slice it with
incredible flexibility, or you still have the kind of
bureaucratic lines of authority and accountability that
currently exist in the law.
The basic question I have for you is why cut $5 billion
from public education?
Secretary DeVos. Well, budget--every time I have come here
defending the budget for the administration, the administration
has priorities and we had to make difficult decisions around
the entirety of the budget.
I will point out that the funding request for education
this year is higher than the funding request was last year.
Senator Schatz. Sure. But I guess----
Secretary DeVos. Now, it is lower than enacted but it is
higher than----
Senator Schatz. But you said the administration has to
prioritize, and what that means is that, in the scope of the
hundreds of billions of dollars that are spent in the Federal
Government, that you couldn't find anything less important that
could have been cut--that $4.7 billion that is cut right out of
U.S. Ed is less important than everything else that did get
funded and----
Secretary DeVos. I wouldn't grant you that and I would
point out, because I don't think you were here----
Senator Schatz. Well, then what are you--hold on. Then what
do you mean by we had to set priorities? Because when you--in a
family if you say, ``look, we are going to go out to dinner
less,'' you are saying going out to dinner is not as important
as paying my utility bill, right?
And I get the idea of setting priorities. I get the idea
of, as an executive, you kind of have to try to live within
your means.
My question is if we all agree that public education is the
silver bullet, that public education is the great equalizer,
then why in the world would we take $5 billion out of the
Federal budget for public education when almost every other
executive agency is seeing an increase?
RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN FEDERAL EDUCATION SPENDING
Secretary DeVos. The spending on education at the Federal
level over the last 40 years has been over a trillion dollars--
with the express purpose of helping the most vulnerable and
closing the achievement gap.
That achievement gap, according to the last NAEP results,
has not closed one little bit and, in fact, by multiple
measures and in multiple places, it has widened.
So our contention is how can you make the argument that
continuing to put more and more money behind the exact same
approach is ultimately going to yield different results? It is
not going to.
Senator Schatz. So you--so this is--I mean, this is a
really good conversation. This is a good faith disagreement,
right? Your basic view is, hey, this is good money after bad.
More money for public education will not make a difference
and, in fact, to the contrary, the more we spend may be even
worse, and that is just not my view.
I don't even think it is the collective bipartisan view of
this panel. But it is certainly the view of this administration
that, essentially, we should devolve authority, spending and
otherwise, to--as local as we can. There should be as few rules
as possible and there should be as much--as little funding from
the Federal side as possible because more funding from the
Federal side means less freedom, more bureaucratic
restrictions.
And I think it is terribly wrong and not supported by the
data. But it is your view and it is different from saying what
I have heard before, which is when we have a disagreement about
the budget cuts that the U.S. Department of Education is
proposing, then we hear this kind of, you know, mumbo jumbo
about block grants, which I think is a worthy argument to have.
It is not the same as answering the question why did you
cut $5 billion from education.
Secretary DeVos. So, again, putting it in perspective,
annually the United States spends $860 billion on K-12
education. We are talking about 2\1/2\ percent or less that
comes from the Department of Education at the direction of
Congress for all these programs that have all different kinds
of requirements, all different kinds of bureaucracy attached to
it, 2 million hours annually to comply with them to do all the
paperwork.
And our contention is instead of continuing to try to do
the same thing again and again and again and expect a different
result for the most vulnerable kids in our country, let us do
something different.
Senator Schatz. And what they really need is a cut in
public funding.
Secretary DeVos. And allow them more freedom. Allow the
local districts more freedom, more opportunity to target those
resources directly to the kids that need it most in the ways
they need it most.
Senator Schatz. The freedom to absorb a $5 billion cut.
Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Schatz.
I have a couple of extra questions. I think Senator Murray
does as well, and if you have any and you want to stay for a
second round you certainly can, Senator Schatz.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
The budget request proposes the elimination of the charter
school program and consolidates that funding into a new
elementary and secondary disadvantaged block grant. I know you
have been a supporter of these programs.
Senator Kennedy probably has more experience post-Katrina
in Louisiana than any of the rest of us do, and is a big
advocate of these programs. How do you think that would work if
we eliminated the current lines that encourage charter school
expansion and development?
Secretary DeVos. Well, Senator, thanks--thanks for that
question. As you know, I have long been a huge advocate of
charter schools and continue to be a huge advocate for them.
And just to be clear, we are not suggesting eliminating any
of those programs. We are not suggesting program eliminations.
We are suggesting----
Senator Blunt. Now, I thought on this one you----
Secretary DeVos [continuing]. Tying them all together into
the block grant and so----
Senator Blunt. And leave it up to local school districts to
decide?
Secretary DeVos [continuing]. In a State like Louisiana
that has expanded charters for students across that State, you
know, I have spoken with a number of governors who have robust
charter school programs in their State, and they are excited
about the prospect of being able to target more of the K-12
resources into expansion of these opportunities.
There are over a million families on the wait list for
charter schools across the country. We know the demand is huge
amongst parents and they are working for students.
So I think most--many States would look at this as an
opportunity to build on the successes they have already had,
and I would hope that some States that haven't even entered the
charter school space would get with the program and meet the
needs of their families in their State.
Senator Blunt. And you would think, in that case, the way
you envision the disadvantaged block grant, that States would
decide is how much should go to local districts, and then local
districts would decide?
Secretary DeVos. Yes. That is the proposal how that would
flow.
IMPACT AID
Senator Blunt. I would say on Impact Aid, which is where
the Federal Government owns property and doesn't pay taxes.
Both the Obama administration, I think every time, and the
Trump administration, every time, has proposed eliminating this
Impact Aid program.
For those of us who have Impact Aid areas through national
forests or military bases as the example, that is a huge
problem. I am almost sure we are not going to do it. I never
understand why the property tax argument doesn't make sense.
If you are a military base, and that military base,
obviously, goes off the tax rolls, but a military base
particularly increases student population--some live on the
base, some don't--but the local schools step in and do that,
Impact Aid replaces only a portion of what the property tax
would have been. Why do you continue to propose eliminating
that?
Secretary DeVos. Well, and to be clear, we held that out
from the block grant proposal, and it is only a portion of the
Impact Aid that we have suggested eliminating.
Senator Blunt. What portion would that be?
Secretary DeVos. The part without students connected to it.
So I think they are mostly urban--yes, $1.4 billion we are
still suggesting funding for. It is $75 million that we have
suggested cutting back on.
So these are all in New York, Philadelphia, Kansas City,
Denver, Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston.
Senator Blunt. I think I heard you say Kansas City, which I
know is in Missouri. So I want to look at that. And if the
Impact Aid would include Forest Service areas, for instance,
where school buses have to drive through it, have to drive
around it, have to add a lot of extra cost to service students
in a more dispersed area because of that, that would be a
problem. We are going to talk about this more. I may have some
follow-up questions on this, and I am certainly going to have
to try to look closely at what you are thinking about urban
Federal property that somehow doesn't involve students. But we
don't have time for that today, but we will.
STUDENT SUPPORT AND ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT GRANTS
I think my third question, then I will go to Senator
Murray, on the mental healthcare in schools, both the school
safety money and the Student Support and Academic Enrichment
grants, I believe you are proposing a cut of where we were, and
I don't want the block grant answer here. We increased the
budget by $40 million for Title IV(a) Student Support and
Academic Enrichment grants. You are proposing eliminating that
program, I believe.
Secretary DeVos. No. No, we are----
Senator Blunt. No? This is again----
Secretary DeVos. We are proposing, again, wrapping it all
into the block grant proposal for States to decide and local
communities to decide what portion of those 29 different
programs are ones that are particularly effective or meaningful
or important.
Senator Blunt. Well, that is a great future answer and it
is a great challenge for the authorizing committee. It is a
debate that I see a lot of merit in, as I said early.
We have to appropriate the money based on current law. So
on that specific program I mentioned, do you propose an amount
for that program, Student Support and Academic Enrichment
grants?
Secretary DeVos. We have not because it is all, again, part
of the block grant proposal of the 29 different----
Senator Blunt. So I guess we will just take your comment,
which I agree with and I think many in the administration have
come a long way. The Congress appropriates the money.
The President has to sign the bill. We will look at that
and see if we still believe that what we did last year,
increasing that line, was important and if it needs to be
increased more, or somehow we need to rethink what we did last
year.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT
Madame Secretary, I just have to say I am really in awe of
the courage of the women and men who have shared personally
with me their experiences of sexual harassment and assault so
they can make sure that it doesn't happen to any other person,
and I am very concerned that your proposed rule would
discourage those survivors from coming forward and weaken
protections for students and allow schools actually to shirk
their responsibility.
I expect the Department to make it easier for students to
come forward with their stories and make sure that our schools
do everything possible to make sure that students are not
deterred from obtaining an education because of a sexual
assault or harassment that goes unaddressed.
Now, I know that you told the House Appropriations
Committee last week that you couldn't answer any questions on
your proposed rule.
But I want you to know I remain very concerned that it
appears as though you didn't listen to those survivors like I
have, and that schools will not be held accountable if your
rule is finalized as proposed.
Now, I do know that you have announced recent Office for
Civil Rights Initiatives to Combat Harassment and
Discrimination, the Outreach Prevention Education and
Nondiscrimination Center, and the Title IX K-12 Enforcement
Initiative, and I do look forward to seeing how both of those
are going to be implemented.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS STAFFING
But I remain very concerned that those sound like nice
ideas but won't have any teeth or appropriate resources to be
productive, and I am concerned about that because I have been
pushing for a time now for additional resources for OCR to
investigate civil rights violations, and OCR has been very slow
to hire staff over the past 3 years.
They average about 37 external hires a year, and the last 2
years of the prior administration, OCR hired an average of 87
external hires per year.
So with an almost 5,000-case backlog at the end of fiscal
year 2019, I believe that there is really a clear need for more
help to ensure that every person's complaint is thoroughly
investigated in a timely manner.
So I wanted to ask you, why did hiring slow so
significantly when Congress actually provided the resources and
direction to hire more staff?
Secretary DeVos. Well, Senator, first, let me say I share
your concern that survivors of sexual assault anywhere at any
time have the opportunity and have a clear path to make sure
that their stories and their cases are heard, and our rule will
certainly seek to do just that.
I have listened to and talked with survivors as well, and I
share your concern. So I hope you won't characterize it any
differently.
With regard to the Office for Civil Rights, we have had a
high priority on hiring for that office. We currently have over
520 attorneys. We have hired, in the last year, 79 attorneys.
We are--this is a very high priority for that office and
continues to be. But I will just say that for the last three
fiscal years that office has resolved more than 2,400 more
complaints than it received on average each year, and that is
despite an almost 100 percent increase in the annual caseload
or annual complaints filed since 2008.
It has also--it is not just closing more cases than the
previous administration did, but it is requiring more
institutions to implement significant policy changes.
So there are findings with these cases and I am really very
proud of the work that the office has been doing. We are
continuing to stay focused on ensuring that all students that
have filed cases and complaints that they are being considered
and in a timely manner.
HIRING FORECAST FOR OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
Senator Murray. But can you just tell me how many new staff
for OCR will be hired this year?
Secretary DeVos. Whatever the goal is, I think it is
another about a hundred--somewhere between 60 and a hundred
additional----
Senator Murray. You will hire----
Secretary DeVos. Of course, there is attrition, and so
there is probably some makeup there.
But, you know, these are talented people that we have to
identify and find and----
Senator Murray. And how many of those new staff will be
dedicated to your new initiatives, and how will OCR's general
investigatory functions actually be implicated by these new
efforts?
Secretary DeVos. Well, they will be broken down between
those different functions as appropriate. But the goal
continues to be----
Senator Murray. Can you tell me how many staff will
actually be directed to the new initiatives?
Secretary DeVos. In the--doing the K-12 investigation?
Senator Murray. Mm-hmm.
Secretary DeVos. I don't know the exact number. I would be
happy to get that to you. Each of the 12 different regions is
going to be conducting audits under this initiative to ensure
that K-12 schools are properly reporting these incidents.
I mean, I am sure you have seen the reports from the
Chicago Public Schools where an investigation there suggested
from--with the civil rights data collection nearly 10,000
cases----
Senator Murray. My concern is that you are outlining new
initiatives. But if we don't have the personnel to deal with
the backlog and these new initiatives because hiring isn't
enough, we will not be able to complete what you are----
Secretary DeVos. Well, no, I appreciate that and we are
very focused on hiring as a top priority, and Assistant
Secretary Marcus continues to be very focused on that, as do I,
and we will continue to hire capable and qualified individuals
to continue to do the work that they, importantly, do.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Secretary.
ELIGIBILITY FOR RURAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
Let me go back and revisit, briefly, this rural school
program. One, I think however that got out early was not
helpful. But two--and this is for your staff, not for you,
though obviously, you are going to hear it as well, but I think
this is just poor staff support on their part.
You come over and see me on Tuesday afternoon to talk about
a number of issues, and this was one of them. Your view on
Tuesday is you have to obey the law, and your staff, by
Wednesday afternoon, has found a way not to do it with not the
slightest hint that they are working on looking for an
alternative.
It is not the first time it has happened. It is not
helpful. It doesn't help with our relationship between the
committee staff and your staff.
How they could send you over without even apparently the
preparation to say we are still searching to find something.
You know, I would have seen Senator Collins later that day and
said, you know, the Secretary really feels like she had no
flexibility here.
And by Wednesday afternoon, the Secretary has found
substantial flexibility. It is just not helpful, and I would
ask you--I would ask your staff to do a better job of not
putting you in that situation, and I would ask you to insist
that they do that better job.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So the record will stay open for 1 week for additional
questions. Back to the other point, please answer those as
quickly as you can.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Betsy DeVos
Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
career pathway, guidance, and exploration systems for students
beginning in middle and high school
Question. Providing students in high school or earlier access and
exposure to their full range of post-secondary college and career
opportunities, including through quality work-based learning
opportunities and academic counseling, can help them identify interests
that ultimately improve their post-secondary outcomes. To that end, the
fiscal year 2020 Labor/HHS bill included $10 million to improve these
opportunities for students earlier in their academic career, beginning
in high school or earlier. What details can you provide about how the
Department plans to prioritize this funding this year?
Answer. The Department is working collaboratively to determine how
it can most effectively expand and improve both career pathways and
guidance and exploration systems for students earlier in their academic
careers. While the Department is still developing a final competition
framework and drafting a notice inviting applications, current plans
call for approximately five awards to institutions of higher education,
combinations of such institutions, and other public and private
nonprofit institutions and agencies. Grantees would promote multiple
pathways designed to improve the transition from school to work,
including evidence-based innovations to modernize and to improve the
effectiveness and alignment of career guidance for all students. The
Department hopes to publish a notice inviting applications in July and
make awards by December of 2020.
charters schools program elimination
Question. The budget request proposes to eliminate the Charter
Schools Program and consolidate the funding into a new Elementary and
Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged block grant. The Charter
Schools Program, in part, was created to help pay for start-up costs
associated with opening, replicating, and expanding high-quality
charter schools because State and local governments often do not or are
not able to pay for such costs. Are you concerned that eliminating the
Charter Schools Program will decrease overall investments in opening
and replicating high-quality charter schools?
Answer. The proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the
Disadvantaged (ESED) Block Grant would give all State educational
agencies (SEAs) flexibility to use funds for activities that best meet
the needs of their students, as well as including activities currently
funded by State Entity, CMO and Developer grants under the Charter
Schools Program. Any SEA could use a portion of its ESED Block Grant
funds to support the opening, replication, and expansion of charter
schools without the burden and uncertainty of applying for a
competitive grant for that purpose from the Department. The Department
anticipates that SEAs in States with charter school laws would avail
themselves of this opportunity, consistent with strong demand for more
choices in education from millions of students and families
elementary and secondary education for the disadvantaged block grant
and charter school accountability
Question. The Charter Schools Program, as reauthorized by the Every
Student Succeeds Act in 2015, includes important accountability
measures to ensure the funding is being used to open high-quality
charter schools that serve all students, including strengthening
charter school authorizing practices. What requirements or
accountability measures do you envision being included in the ESED
block grant to ensure that if school districts use the funding to open
charter schools, that it's being used to open high-quality schools that
serve all students, as the Charter Schools Program currently does?
Answer. The Department looks forward to working with Congress to
include appropriate provisions to ensure that ESED Block Grant funds
are used to support strong charter school authorizing practices and the
opening of new charter schools and replication and expansion of high-
quality charter schools that can serve all students, including
educationally disadvantaged students, consistent with the purposes of
the current Charter Schools Program. The Department's proposal
currently supports the use of block grant programs for any authorized
activity under the programs consolidated into the block grant. In the
case of charter schools, such authorized activities already include a
strong emphasis on supporting high-quality charter schools and
operators, as well as strengthened authorizing practices.
student loan servicing small business subcontracting requirement
Question. The Department is in the midst of a years-long effort to
modernize and streamline its student loan servicing system and process.
We have worked closely on this effort to ensure adequate funding is
available, and that certain safeguards and assurances are built in to
ensure high-quality service to borrowers. The solicitation for Business
Process Operations, which represents the core, person-to-person work of
student loan servicing includes a requirement that organizations
subcontract 47 percent of the work to small businesses, which the
Department increased from 32 percent in the solicitation posted earlier
this year.
How did the Department determine this rate, and why was it
increased from 32 percent to 47 percent earlier this year?
Answer. FSA's Next Gen Business Process Operations (BPO)
acquisition strategy was developed in coordination with the Small
Business Administration to promote subcontractor relationships among
vendors' small business partners. The rate was developed upon the
recommendation of the Small Business Administration, which identified
47 percent as a goal that ensures the continued participation of small
businesses in FSA's important work to serve students, parents, and
borrowers while maintaining its ability to provide superior service
under our Next Gen contracts.
small business experience and capacity in student loan servicing
Question. Federal student loans are complicated and the issues
borrowers face are even more so. Having highly qualified, experienced
people there to answer questions for borrowers when they need help is
critical. Requiring student loan servicers to subcontract 47 percent of
their work will require them to subcontract core parts of their
operations. What specific research or analysis has the Department done
to ensure that small businesses, and enough of them, can do this work
without risking the quality of service borrowers receive?
Answer. FSA conducted market research using the Small Business
Administration's Dynamic Small Business Search tool. Various search
terms were used to identify the number of small businesses available
for potential subcontracting opportunities (e.g., call center, contact
center, IT equipment, IT services, IT support, customer support,
telecommunication support, web services, social media support,
financial services, etc.). The search results showed that there were
hundreds of small businesses that could potentially perform
subcontracted work under the Business Process Operations (BPO)
contracts.
Additionally, the BPO solution includes enhanced performance
standards through Service Level Agreements. In the current environment,
holding a servicer accountable through account re-allocation can
disrupt customers' repayment experience. This will not be the case with
Next Gen. Instead, all federally managed accounts will be held on the
Enhanced Processing System platform, which will allow seamless
transfers of accounts between BPO vendors. FSA will measure BPO vendor
performance on a monthly basis, and vendors whose performance is below
established service and performance levels will not receive new
customers. Repeated poor performance will lead to a portion of the
vendor's existing customers being reallocated to high-performing
vendors.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith
osers coordination with centers for medicare and medicaid services
Question. Last year, I had a chance to visit Brookhaven Elementary
School in my hometown, to see firsthand how specialized instructional
support personnel, like speech-language pathologists, work with
children with disabilities.
I heard a lot about the immense administrative burden experienced
by school-based providers who utilize IDEA funding and bill Medicaid,
which often duplicates needless paperwork and hinders their ability to
deliver the appropriate individualization, frequency, and intensity of
services that children with disabilities are entitled to under law. In
fact, a 2016 GAO report found that up to 35 percent of a school-based
practitioner's time is just spent filling out paperwork, which
contributes to decreased provider morale and increased attrition of
staff in school settings.
In the final fiscal year 2020 Labor-HHS-Education report, Congress
included language directing the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services to coordinate with the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services to develop training and provide technical assistance
to assist with billing and payment administration for Medicaid services
in schools.
What is the status of that coordination and development, and when
does the Department expect to release this important training and
technical assistance?
Answer. The Department recognizes that it may be complicated to
navigate programs like Medicaid to support the provision of special
education and related services. Unfortunately, simplifying the process
for local educational agencies depends in large part on States because
Medicaid is a State-driven program, and there are State-specific
requirements over which the Department, as well as the Federal Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have little or no control.
Nevertheless, the Department is actively reviewing the 2006 and 2013
regulations on the use of Medicaid to explore options for simplifying
and streamlining those administrative requirements under its control.
promise neighborhoods extension grants
Question. Secretary DeVos, you and I have previously discussed how
proud I am of the two Promise Neighborhood programs in the Mississippi
Delta region. In the fiscal year 2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
Congress provided funding for one last extension for grantees that
received extension grants in fiscal year 2018. These grantees have
demonstrated positive and promising results, and this remaining time
would allow for sustainability beyond the Department's formal grant
program. Please provide the Committee with an update on the actions the
Department has taken on awarding these final extension grants.
Answer. The Department is preparing guidance to current extension
grantees on what information to include in their project plans for
their final two-year extension awards. It is on track to provide these
extension awards in summer 2020.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator by Marco Rubio
school safety, information sharing, federal privacy protections
Question. The Final Report of the Federal Commission on School
Safety notes that a ``misconception in both the education and law
enforcement communities is that the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) poses an impediment to the sharing of student
information that could help prevent school violence and other
emergencies.'' Further, the report notes that ``there often is some
confusion regarding what information legally can be shared and with
whom when it involves the behavior or mental health history of a
student.''
What is the Department of Education doing to help ensure that
States and school districts are appropriately informed about the scope
and limits of FERPA and the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA)--important privacy protections in Federal
law--to ensure that this misconception does not continue to exist?
Answer. On December 19, 2019, the Department and the Office for
Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
released updated joint guidance addressing the application of the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to student
health records. See: https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/joint-
guidance-application-ferpa-and-hipaa-student-health-records. While the
Department does not administer HIPAA's privacy rule, this joint
guidance, which was first issued in November 2008, clarifies for
States, school districts, school administrators, healthcare
professionals, students, parents and families, and others how FERPA and
HIPAA apply to education and health records maintained about students.
The revised 2019 guidance includes additional frequently asked
questions and answers addressing when a student's health information
can be shared without the written consent of the parent or eligible
student under FERPA, or without written authorization under the HIPAA
Privacy Rule and how the ``health or safety emergency'' exception to
the general consent requirement under FERPA applies to help address
school violence and related emergencies.
The Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO), the Department of
Education's office that administers FERPA, routinely provides technical
assistance to school officials on FERPA, largely in response to
letters, emails, and telephone inquiries from school officials about
whether FERPA or the HIPAA Privacy Rule applies to students' education
records. In responding the such inquiries, SPPO typically references
the joint guidance on FERPA and HIPAA and explains that the HIPAA
Privacy Rule specifically exempts records that are protected by FERPA.
Question. Specifically, what outreach does the Department of
Education do to States and school districts to ensure clear guidance on
the applicability of the laws?
Answer. The Department's SPPO conducts outreach through its Privacy
Technical Assistance Center (PTAC) and provides technical assistance on
a wide range of topics to States and school districts through
conferences and webinar presentations, which include general and
targeted technical assistance, as well as other methods. As noted in
the response to the previous question, SPPO and PTAC also routinely
respond to letters, emails, and telephone inquiries from States, school
districts, and school officials on the applicability of FERPA and
HIPAA. In addition to responding to inquiries from school officials,
SPPO provides technical assistance and responds to questions from
school officials in compliance training presentations on FERPA.
Typically, these presentations are made to national and regional
educational association conference workshops with numerous school
officials in attendance.
federal school safety clearinghouse
Question. The new Federal School Safety Clearinghouse is a priority
for Florida, especially for the Parkland families I have worked closely
with on ensuring our schools have access to evidence-based, successful
models for school safety.
What tools and resources is the Department of Education
contributing towards this clearinghouse?
Answer. Note: The website mentioned in all answers under this
subject is https://www.schoolsafety.gov. The Department of Education
contributes tools and resources to the clearinghouse primarily on the
topic of school safety that are intended to help address the needs of
State and local educational agencies, K-12 schools, and institutions of
higher education. These tools and resources include training packages,
webinars, on-line courses, interactive training tools, site assessment
tools, models of multi-tiered systems of support to improve conditions
for learning, school and district guides for school safety, fact
sheets, and links to federally supported technical assistance
providers.
In addition, information and resource materials are provided on
school safety-related topics such as emergency operations planning/
management, mental and behavioral health, trauma and mental health
recovery, psychological first-aid, social and emotional learning, and
violence prevention. The Department also provides information about
Federal agency-sponsored events on school safety and funding
opportunities.
Question. What steps are being taken to ensure families, schools,
and States have the latest, best models available?
Answer. To ensure families, schools, and States have the latest and
best models available, an oversight and managing body-the Federal
School Safety Clearinghouse Editorial Board (``Board'')--was
established to review and to validate decisions about the products,
tools, and resources submitted for potential inclusion on the
Clearinghouse website (SchoolSafety.gov). The Board was established
last year through a signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the
partner agencies for the School Safety Clearinghouse as a cooperative
effort of the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, and
Health and Human Services. Subject-matter representatives from each of
the foregoing agencies serve as members of the Board. The Board follows
a set of criteria and guidelines for content review, validation, and
approval of the resources. Recently, improvements were made to expand
Schoolsafety.gov to enable resource developers to submit non-Federal
successful models and other resources for content review, validation,
and approval by each respective agency and the Board.
The Clearinghouse, in coordination with its partner Federal
agencies, continues to reach out to internal and external experts,
State and local educational officials, education and research
communities, and other key stakeholders for their assistance in
identifying the most current resources and best practices of school
safety.
Question. How is the Department of Education informing State and
local agencies about the resources available on the clearinghouse
webpage?
Answer. The Department of Education provides information about the
Clearinghouse website (SchoolSafety.gov) to State and local education
agencies and other key stakeholders through periodic targeted messages
and announcements. Also, through regular and ongoing communications
with school safety program grantees, professional organizations, and
through announcements placed in the Department's electronic and other
newsletters and social media posts, the Department is able to promote
the many resources available on SchoolSafety.gov.
Question. Are further resources needed for SchoolSafety.gov to
increase the effectiveness of the clearinghouse?
Answer. The Department and other partner agencies are currently
identifying new material resources to include on the website. In
addition, a schedule for new content resource submissions and content
review is under development by the Board. The schedule will provide a
structured and timely process to increase the number of content and
content related resources to address school safety across the country.
project school emergency response to violence (serv) and reservation
under proposed block grant
Question. In 2019, my office worked with the Department of
Education to award Bay County schools a $1.25 million Project SERV
grant. This funding helps students impacted by Hurricane Michael get
the mental health services they need as well as overtime for teachers
and counselors, transportation, and other costs to operate the school
at an alternate site. In the new ESED Block Grant, the Department of
Education gives authority to the Secretary to continue funding the
Project SERV program through a separate reservation.
Does the Department of Education pledge to follow through with this
reservation of funds?
Answer. Yes, the Department plans to continue to reserve Project
SERV funds on an as-needed basis.
Question. How much does the Department of Education plan to set
aside?
Answer. The President's 2021 budget request for the Elementary and
Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged (ESED) Block Grant is $19.4
billion. The Department would be authorized to reserve up to 1/10 of 1
percent of that ($19.4 million) for technical assistance, evaluation,
and information dissemination related to Block Grant implementation. Up
to $5 million of this reservation would be available for the Project
SERV program
Question. Was prior funding adequate in meeting the emergency needs
of schools?
Answer. Yes, to date, prior funding for Project SERV has been
adequate in meeting the emergency needs of schools. It is important to
note, however, that in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 the Department
received large emergency supplemental appropriations of funds ($2.7
billion and $165 million, respectively) for recovery assistance through
other programs in response to large-scale natural disasters, such as
Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, Irma, and Michael. Absent these supplemental
appropriations, the limited funding available for Project SERV through
regular annual appropriations would not have been adequate to meet
emergency education-related needs. Similarly, Congress recently
appropriated, in response to a request from President Trump, $100
million for Project SERV as part of the CARES Act to support school
districts and institutions of higher education in addressing education-
related emergencies caused by the coronavirus.
Question. What measures are in place to ensure States continue to
have access to this critical funding when an emergency strikes?
Answer. The Department is committed to making Project SERV funds
available to help restore the learning environment in cases of natural
or man-made violent or traumatic incidents, but only Congress can
ensure that additional funds are available when the need for such
assistance exceeds the level of funding for Project SERV authorized
through annual appropriations acts.
protecting jobs act and state denials, suspension, or revocation of
professional licenses
Question. In 2019, Senator Warren and I reintroduced the Protecting
Jobs Act. This bipartisan legislation would make sure borrowers are not
prevented from working in the professional field they trained for
because of falling behind on Federal student loan payments. The Florida
legislature recently passed a bill that would provide this relief, but
more must be done.
Do you believe States should have the ability to deny, suspend, or
revoke a borrower's professional license as a penalty for default?
Answer. The Department does not opine on pending legislation but
stands ready to provide technical assistance as requested.
Question. Is the Department of Education aware of the number of
borrowers impacted by these State laws nationwide?
Answer. The Department is not aware of the number of borrowers
impacted by such State laws because it does not collect this
information.
protecting jobs act and student loan collections
Question. This bill would not change the Federal Government's
existing methods of student loan collection, and it does not prevent a
State from denying, suspending, or revoking professional licenses for
other reasons.
What other methods can the Department of Education employ to
collect student loan repayments?
Answer. The Department and its vendors employ a variety of methods
to collect Federal student loan repayments. Borrowers can choose from
several different repayment options, including various income-driven
repayment plans, and are encouraged to work with their servicer to
establish an arrangement that best fits their unique circumstances.
These options also include deferment, forbearance, consolidation, and,
for borrowers who have defaulted, rehabilitation. Other methods of
collecting defaulted Federal student loans include Treasury Offset and
wage garnishment. Please note, however, that as of March 13, 2020,
pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)
Act, all collection activities on Federal student loans are suspended.
Question. If this legislation is signed into law, is the Department
of Education committed to working with my office on the implementation?
Answer. Yes, if the legislation is signed into law, the Department
is committed to working with the Senator on implementation.
risk sharing proposal
Question. The Administration's budget proposes the Department of
Education to work with Congress to increase institutional
accountability for colleges that fail to deliver quality education.
Has the Department of Education developed an initial proposal that
you can share?
Answer. The Department has not yet developed a risk sharing
methodology. Meanwhile, the Administration has implemented or proposed
various policies that have or would give students more information
about the consequences of taking on more debt than can be easily repaid
or would empower institutions to restrain over-borrowing by students.
Question. Would the Department of Education be willing to work with
my office to develop legislation that helps address this issue?
Answer. The Department will be happy to provide technical
assistance, if requested.
impact of block grant on funding for english language learners
Question. The Administration's budget proposes lumping in the
English Language Acquisition program into a new block grant. How will
the proposed $4.7 billion overall cut impact funding for ELL services?
Answer. Under the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for
the Disadvantaged (ESED) Block Grant, States and school districts would
have flexibility to target funds to all students, including English
Learners, with the greatest need for extra support to meet challenging
State academic standards. In addition, States would continue to develop
and implement accountability plans that include statewide performance
goals and targets; identify achievement and attainment gaps
disaggregated by subgroup, including by English learner status; require
improvement plans to address such gaps; and publish State and local
report cards reporting on a broad range of student, school, and
district outcomes. Finally, the consolidation of the English Language
Acquisition program into the proposed ESED Block Grant would not alter
a State or district's obligation to serve English learners under Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
elevate act and formula funding for english language learning
Question. The current level funding does not adequately account for
the increasing need for ELL services. Far too many ELL students are
falling short of target achievement levels. For States like Florida,
the challenge of educating the growing number of ELL students is
putting a major strain on the available resources and quality of
education. Between 2010 and 2017, Florida's Puerto Rican population
rose from 864,000 to 1.1 million--a 27 percent increase.
Last year, Senator Murphy and I introduced the ELEVATE Act to
ensure States receive the Federal funding necessary to provide high-
quality instruction for ELL students. This legislation corrects a
flawed funding formula through the Department of Education that
allocates funds to States by fully capturing the number of K-2 students
who relocate to the mainland from Puerto Rico. The ELEVATE Act allows
Puerto Rican students to be fully counted in the annual grant
allocation that States receive under the ELA program.
What are your thoughts on this proposal and would you be willing to
work with me and Senator Murphy on it?
Answer. While the Department understands the concern over
increasing numbers of English learner students in Florida and other
States, its initial review of the provisions in the ELEVATE Act suggest
that the bill would not achieve the goal of responding more quickly--
through increased Federal funding--to States that experience a rapid
influx of English learner students, such as the recent increase of
Puerto Rican students in Florida.
Question. Do you agree that this bill could bring much needed
resources to ELL students, especially those relocating from Puerto
Rico?
Answer. The ELEVATE Act would allow the Department to include
students from Puerto Rico in the definition of ``immigrant children and
youth'' in section 3201(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA). However, section 3111(c)(3)(B) of the ESEA requires the
Department to use data from the American Community Survey (ACS) to
determine the number of immigrant children and youth in each State for
the purposes of allocating English Language Acquisition State grant
funds. Based on preliminary conversations with the Department of
Commerce, which administers the ACS, the Department of Education is not
confident that it would be possible to collect and report reliable data
on the number of students moving from Puerto Rico to another State. In
addition, section 3111(c)(2)(A) of the ESEA specifies that only 20
percent of a State's Title III allocation may be based on the count of
immigrant children and youth, limiting the impact on allocations of
including students from Puerto Rico in that count. Finally, the
Department uses multi-year estimates from the ACS; for example, in
fiscal year 2020, the Department will use five-year ACS data from 2013-
2017 to determine Title III allocations. Consequently, it could be
several years before the change in definition proposed by the ELEVATE
ACT, assuming enactment, is fully reflected in the ACS data.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
every student succeeds act and required reporting on per-pupil spending
Question. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) established a new
policy requiring the reporting of actual personnel and non-personnel
expenditures, disaggregated by Federal, State and local source of funds
for each school and school district in each State. This reporting will
provide an understanding of spending inequities across school districts
and States and offer better insights into spending and student
outcomes.
Will you ensure that the per-pupil spending reporting requirements
under ESSA are followed and such information is made available to the
public in an accessible and understandable manner? Please describe the
specific actions taken to date and planned activities to support the
effective implementation of this reporting requirement, including any
steps the Department is taking to encourage States to have uniform
procedures for the calculation of per-pupil spending within each State.
Answer. The Department will ensure that States and districts meet
the report card requirements in ESEA section 1111(h), including the
requirement to report per-pupil expenditure data. The Department
released non-regulatory guidance on State and local report cards in
March 2019 (available at: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/03/report-
card-guidance-final.pdf) that encouraged each State to establish
uniform procedures for its local educational agencies (LEAs) when
calculating per-pupil expenditures. The Department also provides
technical assistance related to State and local report cards through
the State Support Network, including assistance focused on per-pupil
expenditure data. For example, in 2018 a community of practice
involving Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, and
Oklahoma focused on improving financial transparency, while other
communities of practice have shared information and support on data
quality, State and local report cards, and resource allocations.
Information about these communities of practice can be found at:
https://statesupportnetwork.ed.gov/state-support-network-communities-
practice. The Network also created the ``Financial Transparency and
Reporting Readiness Assessment Tool.'' This tool can help States and
districts meet the ESSA reporting requirements by identifying and
analyzing school level expenditure data. This tool contains two
components--a self-diagnostic framework and an analysis tool--that are
designed to help districts and States understand the dynamics of
school-level per-pupil reporting in their own district financial data.
The tool can be found at: https://statesupportnetwork.ed.gov/resources/
financial-transparency-and-reporting-readiness-assessment-tool.
A complete review of State and local report cards is included in
the Department's monitoring protocols, which are found at: https://
oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-
accountability/performance-reports/. An important aspect of our
consolidated monitoring is a thorough review, for each State monitored
in a particular year, of the State's report card to ensure that it
includes all required elements. In addition, in January 2020, the
Department reviewed each State website to determine if States and
districts were in compliance with certain report card requirements,
including per-pupil expenditures. The Department shared the results of
its review with each individual State.
essa report card requirements, public availability, and monitoring of
state compliance
Question. The Secretary's testimony stated that key ESEA
accountability and reporting requirements are aimed at ``protecting
students, supporting meaningful school improvement efforts, and giving
parents information they need to support a high-quality education for
their children.'' One of those key accountability and reporting
requirements are the State, district and school report cards required
under Sec. 1111(h) of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Under
ESSA, new reporting requirements were included related to the design of
accountability systems and inclusion of key data points required by the
Civil Rights Data Collection. Last year the Department released non-
regulatory guidance for State educational agencies (SEAs) and local
educational agencies (LEAs) as they produce the required report cards,
which must include disaggregated student achievement and graduation
data by student subgroups, methodology for the State's accountability
system, and professional qualifications of teachers disaggregated by
school poverty level, among many other indicators required to be
reported in order to evaluate the equity and quality of education.
Will you ensure that report card requirements under ESSA are
followed and all of the required information is made available to the
public in an accessible and understandable manner? Please describe the
specific actions taken to-date and planned activities to support the
effective implementation of these reporting requirements. Please
describe and provide documentation for the Department's policies and
procedures for monitoring the implementation of State, district and
school report cards, including any guidance documents provided to SEAs.
Answer. In response to question parts a and b, a complete review of
the State and local report cards is included in the Department's
monitoring protocol for each State monitored in a given year. This
includes ensuring that all required items are publicly available and
that the State and districts have a process to make them available to
public in an accessible manner.
In addition, in January 2020, the Department reviewed each State
website to determine if State and local report cards had been
published. (Even though report cards are not required to be published
by a particular date, the Department expected that a State would have
published its report card for the 2018-2019 school year by January
2020). Staff reviewed each report card to see if it included certain
elements, including many of the elements that are new under ESSA, such
as per-pupil expenditures. The Department shared the results of its
review with each State. The Department intends to conduct a similar
review of all State and local report cards next year.
The Department has also hosted a series of communities of practice
to support State implementation of the report card requirements and to
highlight promising report card practices. SEAs participated in
facilitated, topically designed, scaffolded learning series in which
participants had access to experts in the field and engage in peer-to-
peer learning. A cross section of content and technical experts within
SEAs were encouraged to participate in order to have diverse
perspectives represented. These sessions addressed topics such as
report card design, enhancing data quality, communication strategies,
stakeholder engagement and alignment, per-pupil expenditures, and
reporting information on all students, including students with
disabilities. The Department has made all tools, resources, and content
developed as a result of the communities of practices available to all
States and LEAs.
Question. Has the Department identified any violations of report
card compliance? If so, please identify the number of violations by
listing the names of each SEA and LEA. By what means did the Department
take to ensure these violations were corrected?
Answer. Following on-site and desk reviews, the Department works
with each State until all issues are fully resolved. This starts with
the State providing a response within 30 days of receiving the
monitoring report and may include an iterative process of reviewing
State submissions and asking for clarification or additional
information as needed. The Department continues to communicate with
each State and provide technical assistance, as needed, until all
monitoring findings are resolved. In addition, conditions on grant
awards or other actions are sometimes used to account for long-standing
issues identified in monitoring findings. The Department has generally
required a State to update its most recently published report card
within 30 days of receiving the final report, if possible, and include
any missing elements in all future report cards. The list below
includes each of the required actions based on report card violations.
2019
New Jersey
Note that the timeline for New Jersey was extended due to COVID19.
Required Action: Within 60 business days of receiving this report,
provide a plan and timeline for updating its report cards to include
all required elements. For the 2018-2019 school year report cards,
NJDOE must demonstrate that its SEA and LEA report cards for the 2018-
2019 school year include all required elements (e.g., providing links
to published report cards, screenshots, etc.).
--Specifically, the SEA report card for the 2017-2018 school was
missing the following items:
--Progress toward State-designed long-term goals, including
measurements of interim progress
--Information on school improvement funds under ESEA section 1003
by LEA and school, including the names of LEAs and schools
receiving school improvement funds, amount of funds
received by each school, and the types of strategies
implemented in each school
--Exit criteria established by the State for schools identified for
comprehensive support and improvement and schools
identified for additional targeted support and improvement
--Data from the Civil Rights Data Collection
--Educator qualifications for teachers that are not teaching in
subject/field of certification/licensure
--Information cross-tabulated on student achievement on State
assessments, the other academic indicator, graduation rate
indicator, and the percentage of students assessed and not
assessed (ESEA section 1111(g)(2)(N)). This data must be
cross-tabulated by each major racial and ethnic student
subgroup, gender, English proficiency status, and children
with and without disabilities. This may be accomplished by
providing this information on SEA report cards
--The LEA report cards for the 2017-2018 school that the Department
reviewed were missing the following items:
--Exit criteria established by the State for schools identified for
comprehensive support and improvement and schools
identified for additional targeted support and improvement;
and
--Educator qualifications for teachers not teaching in subject/
field of certification/licensure.
Montana
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving this report,
the SEA must:
--Provide a plan and timeline for updating the 2018-2019 school year
State and local report cards to include all required elements
(e.g., providing links to published report cards or pdf
versions of the expanded report cards).
--Provide evidence that the State and local report cards,
specifically the list of schools identified for additional
targeted support and improvement, do not reveal personally
identifiable information about individual students.
2018
New Mexico
Required Action: The SEA must, within 30 business days of receipt
of this report, submit a plan that describes how and by what date the
SEA will:
--Disseminate accurate and complete State and local report cards for
the 2016-2017 school year, that includes:
--Information on student achievement on academic assessments at
each level of achievement for the migrant subgroup;
--The percentage of students not assessed for all students and each
subgroup of students;
--Information, both in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-
poverty and low-poverty schools, on the professional
qualifications of teachers in the State, including the
number of teachers teaching with emergency or provisional
credentials; and
--The percentage of students at each achievement level reported on
the NAEP in the aggregate and, for State report cards,
disaggregated for each subgroup (all students, economically
disadvantaged, major racial and ethnic subgroups, students
with disabilities, and students with limited English
proficiency).
--Ensure, for the 2017-2018 report cards, that the SEA report card
and each LEA report card include all required elements under
the ESEA, as amended ESSA, consistent with ESEA Sec. 1111(h)(1)
and ESEA Sec. 1111(h)(2), respectively.
Louisiana
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving this report,
LDOE must provide the Department with a plan and timeline for when it
will publish (and, according to that timeline, documentation that it
has published):
--A complete State report card for the 2016-2017 school year
including, but not limited to the following information:
--Student achievement on the mathematics, reading/language arts,
and science assessments at each level of achievement, for
all students and disaggregated by each major racial and
ethnic group, economically disadvantaged students as
compared to students who are not economically
disadvantaged, children with disabilities as compared to
children without disabilities, English proficiency status,
gender, and migrant status.
--Four-year adjusted cohort high school graduation rates for all
students and disaggregated by economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
children with disabilities, and English learners.
--Percentage of students assessed and not assessed, for all
students and disaggregated by each major racial and ethnic
group, economically disadvantaged students as compared to
students who are not economically disadvantaged, children
with disabilities as compared to children without
disabilities, English proficiency status, gender, migrant
status.
--Number and percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or
provisional credentials (in the aggregate and disaggregated
by high poverty compared to low-poverty schools).
--Most recent available results on the State's National Assessment
of Educational Progress reading and mathematics
assessments, by percentage of students at each achievement
level in the aggregate and disaggregated by major racial
and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, English
learners, and economically disadvantaged subgroups, in
grades four and eight.
--State and LEA report cards for 2017-2018 that include all elements
required under the ESEA, as amended by ESSA.
Illinois
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving this report,
ISBE must provide the Department with:
--A complete State report card for the 2016-2017 school year
including, but not limited to, the most recent available
results on the State's NAEP reading and mathematics
assessments, by percentage of students at each achievement
level in the aggregate and disaggregated by major racial and
ethnic groups, students with disabilities, English learners,
and economically disadvantaged subgroups, in grades four and
eight
Georgia
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving this report,
GaDOE must provide evidence that the State and LEA report cards for the
2017-2018 school year include all missing information outlined below.
For the 2017-2018 school year the State report card did not
include:
--The most recent available results on the State's National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and
mathematics assessments, by percentage of students at each
achievement level in the aggregate and disaggregated by major
racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, English
learners, and economically disadvantaged subgroups, in grades
four and eight.
For the 2017-2018 school year, both the State and the LEA report
card did not include:
--The number and percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or
provisional credentials (in the aggregate and disaggregated by
high poverty compared to low-poverty schools);
California
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving the report,
CDE must submit a plan that describes how it will:
--Develop and implement a systematic, documented process for data
reporting that ensures, for the 2018-2019 report cards, that
State and LEA report cards include all required elements under
the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, and that report cards will be
disseminated in a timely manner annually.
--The plan should include specific procedures that will improve LEA
data reporting and the steps for meeting annual report card
requirements by a State-established deadline, and
identification of previous barriers to releasing complete
report cards as early as possible in the school year, along
with solutions to address those barriers; and
--Update and disseminate SY 2016-2017 State and LEA report cards that
include all required elements.
Alaska
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receipt of this report,
DEED must:
--Demonstrate that its LEA report cards produced for the 2017-2018
school year (SY) include the number and names of all public
schools in the LEA identified for comprehensive or targeted
support and improvement.
Texas
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving this report,
TEA must provide:
--A revised State report card for the 2016-2017 school year that
includes the following missing information:
--The percentage of students not assessed on the mathematics,
reading/language arts, and science assessments for all
students and each subgroup of students; and
--The names of schools served by the State as priority and focus
schools for the 2016-2017 school year.
--An assurance that it has revised LEA report cards for the 2016-2017
school year that provide complete information;
--Hyperlinks to revised LEA report cards for Edgewood ISD and San
Antonio ISD and five other randomly selected LEAs; and,
--An assurance that, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year and for
subsequent years, TEA will submit graduation rate data files
(FS 150 and 151) for the SEA-, LEA-, and school-levels by the
established deadline.
2017
Mississippi
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving the report,
MDE must provide the Department with a corrective action plan for
addressing the deficiencies noted above or evidence documenting that
they have already addressed the deficiencies. Specifically, the plan
must address the following items:
--Development and implementation of a systematic, documented process
for data reporting that allows for annual publication of State
and local report cards in a timely manner.
--The plan should focus on procedures that improve annual LEA data
reporting requirements and steps for meeting annual report
card requirements by a State-established deadline, and
identification of previous barriers to releasing complete
report cards as early as possible in the school year, along
with solutions to address those barriers.
--Making LEA annual report cards for school year 2014-2015 and school
year 2015-2016 available to LEAs for posting on LEA websites or
ensuring that LEAs make available information regarding where
the LEA report card is posted on the SEA website so that
parents and other community members have relevant information
to work more effectively with educators and local school
officials.
South Carolina
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving this report,
SCDE must provide the Department with documentation evidencing that it
has:
--Updated and disseminated the most recently available State and
local report cards to include the following missing
information:
--All required information on student achievement on the academic
assessments at each level of achievement, for all students
and disaggregated by each subgroup of students.
--All required 4-year adjusted cohort high school graduation rates.
--For all students and disaggregated by each subgroup of students,
the percentage of students not assessed.
--All required information (in the aggregate and disaggregated by
high poverty compared to low-poverty schools) on the
professional qualifications of teachers in the State,
including the number and percentage of teachers teaching
with emergency or provisional credentials.
--The number and names of all public schools in the State
identified by the SEA for school improvement, including
priority and focus school statuses.
--Developed procedures to ensure that report cards (including the
required report cards for school year 2016-2017) include each
required data element, are published in a timely manner, and
are in a format that enables, to the extent practicable, report
card information in language(s) that parents can understand.
Wyoming
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving this report,
WDE must provide the Department with documentation evidencing that it
has:
--Updated and disseminated the most recently available State and
local report cards to include the following missing
information:
--The number and names of all public schools in the State
identified by the SEA for school improvement.
--All required information on student achievement on the academic
assessments at each level of achievement, for the migrant
subgroup of students.
--For the migrant subgroup of students, the percentage of students
not assessed.
--All required information (in the aggregate and disaggregated by
high poverty compared to low-poverty schools) on the
professional qualifications of teachers in the State,
including the number and percentage of teachers teaching
with emergency or provisional credentials;
--Results on the State academic assessments in reading and
mathematics in grades 4 and 8 of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, compared to the national average of
such results.
--Developed procedures to ensure that report cards (including the
required report cards for school year 2016-2017) include each
required data element, are published in a timely manner, and
are in a format that enables, to the extent practicable, report
card information in language(s) that parents can understand.
Pennsylvania
Required Action: During the review, the Department identified two
required data elements, listed below, that were missing from the more
recently available State report card: regarding PDE's reporting of
required program data:
--The percentage of students at each achievement level reported on
the NAEP in the aggregate and, for State report cards,
disaggregated for each subgroup described in 34 C.F.R.
Sec. 200.13(b)(7)(ii) specifically as it relates to:
--Students with disabilities, as defined in ESEA Sec. 9101(5),
--English learners, as defined in ESEA Sec. 9101(25).
Indiana
Required Action: Within 30 days of receiving this report, IDOE must
provide the Department with a plan to:
--Publish a State report card for school year (SY) 2016-2017 that
includes all required Federal program data no later than
November 1, 2018;
--Publish a State report card for SY 2017-2018 that includes all
required Federal program data;
--Implement procedures IDOE will use to ensure that for report cards
for 2017-2018 and future years the IDOE collects and reports
all required Federal program data in accordance with
established timelines; and
--Include in the plan:
--A list of all data elements the IDOE will report for SY 2017-18
and future years for required Federal programs reporting
and that the IDOE will require LEAs to report for these
years;
--Procedures to ensure IDOE annually collects all required Federal
program data in accordance with established timelines;
--Procedures to ensure that all required Federal program data are
reported annually;
--Procedures to ensure that all required Federal program data are
reported in an understandable and uniform format;
--Procedures to mitigate against the failing to include a required
report card data element or reporting in a way that varied
from requirements, posting incomplete data, or reporting in
a way that varies from requirements;
--Milestones and a timeline for publishing a State report card for:
-- SY 2016-2017 that includes all required Federal program data
no later than November 1, 2018;
-- SY 2017-2018 that includes all required Federal program data;
and,
--Staff responsible for each of the above.
--Ensure that all LEAs in the State report all required Federal
program data. In this plan, IDOE also must identify policies
and procedures it will implement beyond those in place at the
time LEA report card were found to not include all required
data.
Massachusetts
Required Action: Within 30 business days of receiving this report,
MA DESE must provide the Department with documentation demonstrating
that it has:
--Updated and disseminated the most recently available State and
local report cards to include the following missing
information:
--All required information on student achievement on the academic
assessments at each level of achievement, for the migrant
subgroup of students.
--The percentage of students not assessed for the migrant subgroup
of students.
--Developed procedures to ensure that report cards (including the
required report cards for school year 2016-2017) include each
required data element.
North Carolina
Required Action: The SEA must, within 30 business days of receipt
of this report, submit a plan that describes how the SEA will:
--Disseminate complete State report cards for the 2015-2016, 2016-
2017, and 2017-2018 school years by December 31, 2018; and
--Ensure, for the 2017-2018 report cards, that:
--The State report card includes all required elements under the
ESEA, as amended by ESSA; and
--LEA report cards include all required elements under the ESEA, as
amended by ESSA, including, but not limited to:
-- Information on student achievement on academic assessments at
each level of achievement, for all students and
disaggregated by each major racial and ethnic group;
economically disadvantaged students as compared to students
who are not economically disadvantaged; children with
disabilities as compared to children without disabilities;
English proficiency status; gender; migrant status;
homeless status, status as a child in foster care, and
status as a student with a parent with is a member of the
Armed Forces on active duty.
-- The 4-year adjusted cohort high school graduation rates for
all students and disaggregated by each major racial and
ethnic group; economically disadvantaged students as
compared to students who are not economically
disadvantaged; children with disabilities as compared to
children without disabilities; English proficiency status:
homeless status, and status as a child in foster care, and,
if applicable, the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation
rates;
-- The percentage of students not assessed for all students and
each subgroup of students;
-- Information disaggregated by high-poverty and low-poverty
schools, on the professional qualifications of teachers in
the State, including the number and percentage of
inexperienced teachers, principals, and other school
leaders; teachers teaching with emergency or provisional
credentials; and teachers who are not teaching in the
subject or field for which the teacher is certified or
licensed.
Question. Please identify the number of States that are compliant
with each of the report card indicators as required by ESSA Sec
1111(h).
Answer. As noted above, the Department conducts a thorough review
of each State's report card as part of its consolidated monitoring
process. The Department monitors several States each year; as a result,
it does not conduct a thorough review of each State's report card for
compliance with all elements each year. As noted above, report card
compliance is an area that often results in a monitoring finding.
In addition to the consolidated monitoring for a few States each
year, the Department conducted a limited review of each State and local
report card in January 2020 for select elements. The report card
requirements that the Department reviewed included: per-pupil
expenditures; achievement data for students in foster care, students
experiencing homelessness, and military-connected students; graduation
rate data for students in foster care and students experiencing
homelessness; list of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted
support and improvement and additional targeted support and
improvement; LEAs receiving ESEA section 1003 funds; and types of
strategies implemented in LEAs receiving ESEA section 1003 funds.
Question. Please provide a list of steps documenting the
Department's efforts to ensure that more States come into compliance
with the law. How is the Department encouraging States to change, add,
or adapt their report cards to fully comply with the law?
Answer. As detailed above, the Department has undertaken a range of
actions to support States in developing their report cards. It issued
nonregulatory guidance in March 2019. It has conducted several
technical assistance initiatives, including several communities of
practice specifically focused on report cards and improving data
quality. The National Center for Education Statistics has been
providing support for States through a pilot fiscal survey that has
been helping States standardize per-pupil expenditures and through the
State Longitudinal Data Systems grants. In addition, report card
requirements are included as part of consolidated monitoring protocols.
Following on-site and desk reviews, the Department works with each
State until all issues are fully resolved. This starts with the State
providing a response within 30 days of receiving the report and may
include an iterative process of reviewing State submissions and asking
for clarification or additional information as needed. The Department
continues to communicate with each State and provide technical
assistance, as needed, until all monitoring findings are resolved. In
addition, conditions on grant awards or other actions are sometimes
used to account for long-standing issues identified in monitoring
findings.
In December 2018, the Department hosted a meeting of SEA staff that
included several sessions focused on the changes to report card
requirements under the amended ESEA. In 2018, the Department also
hosted the Report Card Design Challenge which invited technology
experts, State and local representatives, and parents to develop model
report card designs focused on transparency and accessibility.
Information about this activity can be found at: https://tech.ed.gov/
essa-report-card-design-challenge/.
education freedom scholarships and protections for civil rights
Question. The President's budget proposes to provide $5 billion
annually for a Federal private school tax credit scheme for the wealthy
and corporations that make donations for Education Freedom Scholarships
that would fund private school vouchers. Under this proposal, if
enacted, Federal tax revenue would be $5 billion lower each year due to
the reduced tax bill for individuals and corporations making donations
to this voucher scheme. This Federal money could be used instead to
support public schools across the country who educate 90 percent of
elementary and secondary students.
Do you believe Federal policy should incentivize donations to
State-designed voucher programs that allow discrimination against any
student because of their gender or sexual orientation? Whether the
student identifies as transgender? If you do not, what protections do
you support for prohibiting these and other forms of discrimination?
Answer. All children deserve access to a high-quality education
that meets their needs and an opportunity to learn free from
discrimination. The administration's Education Freedom Scholarship
(EFS) proposal would empower students and families to choose the best
educational setting for them--regardless of where they live, how much
they make, and how they learn. The proposal gives students and families
the freedom to decide what's best for them. No family is forced to
accept a scholarship, no taxpayer is forced to contribute, no
organization is forced to participate, and no State is forced to
participate. This tax credit would help extend education choice to the
greatest number of families possible while respecting Federalism.
Question. In your belief, should States prohibit a private schools
from participating in a State-designed voucher programs due to past
violations of civil rights laws, including discrimination against
students on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or
sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation)?
Answer. States, not the Federal Government, will determine which
education providers can receive scholarships under the Education
Freedom Scholarship proposal. States may include private schools in
their local programs, but they are not obliged to do so. The Department
will continue to enforce all existing civil rights laws for all private
and public schools. If Education Freedom Scholarships are enacted, the
Department will not--and cannot--waive any existing civil rights laws.
tax credit scholarships and monitoring protocols to prevent waste,
fraud, and abuse
Question. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued in September 2019 found that existing State tax credit
scholarship programs set varying requirements for scholarship-granting
organizations and that not all States require such organizations to
undergo annual financial audits or reviews, and very few States have
policies regarding conflicts of interests or requirements for
fundraising practices. Additionally, all State programs allow such
organizations to use donations for non-scholarship expenses--ranging
from 2 to 20 percent of donations. Given the lack of stringent
financial monitoring for scholarship-granting organizations in
currently-operating State tax credit scholarship programs, under your
proposal to provide such organizations with $5 billion from offset
Federal taxpayer revenue, what monitoring protocols would the
Department of Education implement or require of States to ensure that
such organizations do not commit waste, fraud, and abuse?
Answer. The administration's Education Freedom Scholarship proposal
would establish a Federal tax credit for voluntary donations to State-
designed scholarship programs for elementary and secondary students.
The tax credits would be managed by the U.S. Treasury Department.
States, not the Federal government, will determine scholarship
requirements, including family eligibility, the education providers
that can receive scholarships, and allowable uses of scholarship.
Consequently, States would be responsible for establishing appropriate
monitoring protocols.
increase in federal education funding an long-term improvements in math
and reading scores
Question. The Secretary's testimony today states ``The Members of
this Subcommittee should recognize that the answer is not merely
supplying more Federal taxpayer dollars. You have nearly doubled
spending on K-12 education since 2000, from $23 billion in 2000 to just
over $41 billion in 2020.'' However, the National Center for Education
Statistics website states ``Over the long term, however, the national
average scores in both subjects [reading and mathematics] were higher
for both grades compared to the initial assessment years.'' Average
NAEP scores are up for mathematics in fourth and eighth grades as
compared to 2000 and up from 2000 for fourth grade Reading. What
evidence does the Department have that these Federal funding increases
played no role in helping raise these scores?
Answer. It is not possible to determine whether funding plays a
role in changes seen in test scores--positively or negatively--by
simply examining whether funding and test scores change in the same or
different directions over time. However, it is possible to examine
whether the students' progress has stalled. While students at grades 4
and 8 in both mathematics and reading had higher scores overall in 2019
compared to the first assessments in the early 1990s, there has been no
overall improvement over the last decade. Furthermore, compared to a
decade ago, scores at both grades and in both subjects were lower or
not significantly different for lower-performing students at the 10th
and 25th percentiles. That is a particular concern for any assessment
of Federal education spending, since it suggests that the students
intended to benefit from that spending the--lowest-achieving students
in high-poverty schools--are not closing the achievement gap when
compared to their more advantaged peers.
Supplement Not Supplant Requirements and 2018-2019 and 2019-2020
Monitoring Results
Question. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), compliance
with supplement not supplant (SNS) requirements of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) were modified to allow a Title I neutral
methodology under which compliance with SNS is determined by a local
educational agency (LEA) demonstrating that a school receiving
assistance under Title I-A receives all of the State and local funds it
would otherwise receive if it were not receiving assistance under Title
I-A. This modification was in effect starting with the 2018-2019 school
year. For the Department's on-site and desk monitoring of State
educational agencies (SEAs) in school years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020:
Please identify the SEAs the Department monitored for compliance
with SNS, separately identifying on-site and desk monitoring by school
year.
Answer. In 2019-2020, the Department conducted on-site reviews in
Montana and New Jersey. In 2018-2019, the Department conducted on-site
reviews in Arizona, California, Illinois, New Mexico and Texas, as well
as desk reviews in Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, and Michigan.
Question. Please describe and provide documentation for the
Department's policies and procedures for these monitoring activities,
including training materials provided to monitors.
Answer. The Department's consolidated monitoring, including Title
I, Part A, uses protocols that are publicly available on our website
(as noted in response to Senator Murray's first question, available at:
https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-
and-accountability/performance-reports/). The Department's monitoring
focuses on the activities of the prior school year. Because the
Department monitors implementation for the prior school year, Montana
and New Jersey were the only States that were monitored for compliance
with the ESSA supplement not supplant requirement.
The Department's consolidated monitoring, which includes Title I,
Part A, is conducted by teams of individuals knowledgeable about the
specific programs being monitored. The State is required to submit
documentation to the Department prior to the review, which staff review
and use as the basis for the on-site questions.
Question. What policies and procedures have SEAs employed in
monitoring LEA compliance with SNS? What documentation has the
Department considered or reviewed during its monitoring processes of
such SEA monitoring? Please identify any supplemental State and local
funds expended for programs that meet the intent and purposes of Title
I-A excluded from SNS requirements.
Answer. While the Department has not yet monitored every State
through our consolidated monitoring process, the general practice is
that States incorporate the supplement not supplant requirement into
their LEA monitoring protocols and local consolidated grant
applications, which allow States to collect LEA methodologies to ensure
compliance with the ESEA requirement. In the Department's consolidated
monitoring of SEAs (described above), it has reviewed the SEA's
monitoring protocol for LEAs to ensure that the SEA is conducting
proper oversight of LEAs. The Department also reviewed SEA guidance to
LEAs to ensure accuracy with the requirements.
Question. What information and assistance have SEAs provided to
LEAs about compliance with SNS?
Answer. Generally, SEAs have provided information and assistance to
LEAs in the same manner as other requirements. For example, New Jersey
created a State-specific supplement not supplant non-regulatory
guidance document that outlines the requirements and explains how
oversight of the provision will work in the State. Some States have
incorporated review of the supplement not supplant methodology in the
consolidated local grant applications. Many States point LEAs to the
Department's non-regulatory guidance.
Question. Please identify the number of violations of SNS by State,
listing the names of each SEA and LEA. By what means and in how many
days were each of these violations corrected?
Answer. As noted above, reviewing Title I supplement not supplant
requirements is a component of the Department's consolidated monitoring
process (see above for more information, including a link to the
Department's monitoring protocols). The Department monitors a few
States each year, using a risk analysis to identify the States. In
2019, the Department monitored New Jersey and Montana. There was one
supplement not supplant finding in New Jersey in 2019. Below is the
finding for New Jersey. In addition, the Department provided a
commendation for Georgia in 2018 for its documentation and process for
ensuring compliance with the supplement not supplant requirements.
2019
New Jersey
``In September 2019, NJDOE issued comprehensive supplement, not
supplant guidance to its LEAs describing the requirements under Title
I, Part A of the ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA). However, the NJDOE subrecipient monitoring protocol includes
questions referencing the prior supplement not supplant requirement. In
addition, although the guidance indicates that NJDOE will collect LEA
methodologies for supplement, not supplant through the consolidated
local application, the 2018-2019 school year application only included
a general assurance regarding supplement, not supplant. NJDOE must
demonstrate how it will ensure LEA compliance with this provision,
either by submitting an updated monitoring protocol or through the
collection of LEA methodologies in the consolidated local applications.
Within 60 business days of receiving this report, the State must
submit to the Department updated subrecipient monitoring protocols for
Title I, Part A; Title II, Part A; and Title III, Part A that are
consistent with ESEA sections 1118(b), 2301, and 3115(g), respectively.
For Title I, Part A, this may also be addressed through collection of
LEA methodologies in the consolidated local application.''
Georgia
The Department provided a commendation to Georgia for this element,
noting ``Under ESSA, how an LEA demonstrates compliance with supplement
not supplement changed. To ensure Georgia LEAs comply with the new
requirements and allocate State and local funds to schools so that each
Title I school receives all of the State and local funds it would
otherwise receive if it were not receiving Title I, Part A funds, GaDOE
developed sample methodologies and shared them with LEAs. As a result,
by July 2018 every LEA had submitted resource allocation methodology
plans (RAMP) to GaDOE. During the review Georgia LEAs demonstrated a
good understanding of supplement not supplant requirements, likely
because GaDOE held several webinars and face-to-face discussions during
school year 2017-2018 and provided feedback to LEAs on strategies to
improve their RAMPs.''
Question. What documentation has the Department reviewed to ensure
that the assignment of LEA-wide resources are allocated in a Title I
neutral manner? Please identify the number of such violations of SNS by
State, listing the names of each SEA and LEA. By what means and in how
many days were each of these violations corrected?
Answer. Please see above. The Department's monitoring protocols
include questions around supplement not supplant and the evidence a
State is expected to submit. Information about State findings in the
previous 2 years is provided above.
supplement not supplant requirements 2020-2021 monitoring plans
Question. For the Department's planned on-site and desk monitoring
of State educational agencies (SEAs) in school year 2020-2021:
Which SEAs will the Department monitor for compliance with SNS,
separately identifying SEAs schedule for on-site and desk monitoring?
Answer. The Department intended to monitor Kentucky, Nevada, and
Puerto Rico in 2020. However, given the implications of COVID-19, the
Department has postponed the reviews of Nevada and Puerto Rico
(originally scheduled for March and April) for the time being. The
Department is currently still scheduled to conduct an on-site review of
Kentucky in August 2020, though it has been discussing with Kentucky
whether this also needs to be rescheduled to provide relief to the
State and its districts due to the national emergency.
Question. If the Department's policies and procedures for
conducting these monitoring activities will be different from the prior
year, please explain how (and provide supporting documentation) and
why. If training for monitors will be different from the prior year,
please explain how and why.
Answer. As part of its consolidated monitoring process over the
past 4 years, the Department first develops and pilots its protocol
and, after each review, surveys the State asking for feedback on the
process and protocol, and also talk to staff who conducted the review
for their feedback. Each year, this has resulted in changes to the
protocol for the following year. Following the reviews of Montana and
New Jersey, the Department updated its protocol for reviewing
supplement not supplant requirements to streamline the questions and
clearly delineate the requirement in ESEA Title I from the supplement
not supplant requirements in Titles II and III. The most current (and
prior) protocols are posted on the Department's website at the
following address: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-
grants/school-support-and-accountability/performance-reports/. Training
and preparation will remain the same.
department efforts to ensure states attain compliance with essa equity
guardrails
Question. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), States are
required to design State accountability systems to properly identify
low-performing schools. I am extremely troubled that the Department
approved State plans that do not comply with the bipartisan equity
guardrails enshrined in ESSA, including annual meaningful
differentiation and properly identifying the three categories of
schools for improvement (targeted support and improvement, additional
targeted support and improvement, and comprehensive support and
improvement.) I am also very concerned that many States have designed
accountability systems that fail to differentiate their schools each
year using all the indicators in their accountability systems for all
students and each subgroup of students. Please provide a list of steps
documenting the Department's efforts to ensure that States come into
compliance with the law with these provisions.
Answer. The Department required each State plan to describe how a
State's accountability system would use subgroup performance to
identify: (1) schools that need targeted support and improvement based
on having one or more ``consistently underperforming'' subgroups (as
defined by the State) or (2) schools that need additional targeted
support. Although the Department expects that all States are
implementing their approved State plans, in the rare case in which a
State's implementation of its accountability system varies from an
approved plan, the Department will take appropriate enforcement action.
The Department will review the State's implementation of its
accountability and school improvement system through our consolidated
monitoring process--each year the Department conducts a review of
several States through this process.
department oversight of changes to state accountability indicators
Question. As States make revisions to the indicators and their
weighting in the State accountability systems, how will the Department
assess and monitor States to ensure such revisions are based on
evidence that the State's accountability system's existing indicators
are not meaningful, as opposed to backing away from rigorous and
effective measures because of political pressure?
Answer. The Department reviews each State amendment request to
ensure compliance with all ESEA requirements, including requirements
for indicators and weighting. While a State may elect to change
indicators or weighting due to concerns that the indicator is not
``meaningful,'' it is also possible that the State may elect to revise
its system because it decides a different indicator provides a better
method to evaluate school performance. In all cases, the Department
will review each State plan amendment request to ensure it meets ESEA
requirements before approving the amendment.
state performance review self-assessment and protocol completions,
upcoming submissions, and information collected
Question. The Department's SEA Performance Review Self-Assessment
and Protocol includes several important questions regarding ESSA
implementation on such topics as the use of funds under section 1003(a)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and data
reporting. I request information regarding which States have completed
and submitted information to the Department using the Performance
Review Self-Assessment and Protocol since the implementation of ESSA,
which States are due to undergo a performance review in each of the
next 2 years, and information collected from States on each of the
following items:
a. School improvement funding: How did each State award funds
under section 1003 of ESEA to LEAs to serve schools identified
for improvement--through formula, competition, or a
combination? Please provide this information for each fiscal
year for which such data is available.
b. School improvement funding: What percentage of funds reserved
under section 1003(a) did each SEA allocate to LEA subgrants
for each fiscal year for which such data is available?
c. School improvement funding: What is the range of grant size and
duration for grants under section 1003(a) for each State for
each fiscal year for which such data is available?
d. Evidence-based interventions: How are States ensuring funds
used under section 1003(a) support evidence-based
interventions?
e. Reporting: In calculating the adjusted cohort graduation rate,
i. How does each State define the regular high school diploma
used for purposes of calculating the adjusted cohort
graduation rate?
ii. How does the Department determine whether States only include
regular high school diplomas awarded to the preponderance
of students and that are aligned to State-standards and
more advanced diplomas?
f. Reporting: How many different high school diplomas are offered
by each State and what are the differences between each
diploma?
g. Reporting: How many pathways does each State have to attain a
regular high school diploma and what are the pathways in each
State?
h. Reporting: Which States offer a State-defined alternate diploma
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities,
what are the requirements for each such diploma, and how does
the Department ensure such diplomas are standards-based,
aligned with State requirements for the regular high school
diploma as required under ESEA section 8101(25)(A)(ii)(I)(bb)
and ESEA section 8101(23)(A)(ii)(I)(bb).
Answer. a. The Department first monitored for school improvement
under section 1003 and data reporting requirements related to school
improvement when it monitored Montana and New Jersey in the 2019-2020
school year. These protocols were piloted in prior years. Therefore,
responses below are provided for Montana and New Jersey. Both SEAs
stated that in 2018-2019 they awarded funds under section 1003 of the
ESEA to LEAs through a formula.
b. Montana: The SEA stated that it used 95 percent of its section
1003(a) funds to serve schools identified for comprehensive or targeted
or additional targeted support and improvement. Specifically, the SEA
stated that for 2018-2019 it awarded 60 percent of funds reserved under
ESEA section 1003(a) to LEAs. Consistent with ESEA section
1003(b)(1)(B), the SEA used an additional 35 percent of the funds it
reserved under section 1003(a) to provide, with approval of its LEAs,
services directly to CSI schools through a provider that serves schools
in multiple LEAs.
New Jersey: The SEA stated that for 2018-2019 it awarded 95 percent
of funds reserved under ESEA section 1003(a) to LEAs.
c. Montana: The SEA provided documentation showing that in 2018-
2019, LEA subgrants under section 1003 ranged from $12,550 to $69,500.
The SEA awards 1 year LEA subgrants under section 1003 on an annual
basis.
New Jersey: The SEA provided documentation showing that its 2018-
2019 LEA subgrants under section 1003 ranged from $3,800 to $589,400.
The SEA awards 1 year LEA subgrants under section 1003 on an annual
basis.
d. Montana: The SEA stated that it has two strategies to ensure
that interventions supported by section 1003 funds reflect strong,
moderate, or promising evidence-based strategies. First, the SEA
provided training during the application process on how to select a
strong to moderate intervention, practice, or strategy that meets the
needs of the students and shows evidence of improving student outcomes.
During the training, the SEA demonstrated where and how to select
evidence-based strategies and use implementation data, such as the What
Works Clearinghouse, and Institute of Educational Science Guides.
Second, the SEA stated that the State contact from the SEA and/or
Instructional Consultant assesses the impact of strategies on improving
student outcomes monthly during school leadership team meetings, where
progress-monitoring data is reviewed and informs action planning. In
addition, the SEA described a continuous learning cycle by which the
School Leadership Team and the SEA State contact and/or the
Instructional Consultant discuss how to assess local needs, select
evidence-based strategies, practices, and interventions, create a plan
for implementation, implement and monitor the plan, reflect and revise
the plan, and cycle back to assessing.
New Jersey: The SEA provided examples of several tools it shares
with LEAs, such as a toolkit for determining strength of evidence, and
questions to consider when selecting an evidence-based intervention.
SEA staff that review applications for section 1003 funds receive
training on requirements for evidence-based interventions. SEA staff
make various resources and databases available on the New Jersey
Department of Education website for LEAs, such as the What Works
Clearinghouse and Evidence for ESSA. Additionally, SEA staff use
internal resources capturing evidence-based strategies and practices
not included in external databases to help them provide technical
assistance to LEAs on evidence-based interventions and evaluate LEAs'
proposed evidence-based interventions.
e. i. Montana: The SEA stated the following: ``The definition of a
regular high school diploma established by the Board of Public
Education requires that every student complete at least 20 credits and
meets content and performance standards to receive a high school
diploma. The State allows its school districts to set their own
requirements for graduation, as long as those standards meet the
State's minimum graduation requirements, which are outlined in
Administrative Rules of Montana, ARM 10.55.905 and ARM 10.55.906. The
State allows students to graduate from high school with less than 4
years of enrollment if all requirements are met. It also allows credits
earned in any Montana high school accredited by the Board of Public
Education to be accepted by all Montana high schools.'' Additionally,
through other questions in the protocol, the Department determined that
the SEA was incorrectly including students who meet their
Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals as recipients of a regular
high school diploma for the purpose of calculating the adjusted cohort
graduation rate under the ESEA. The Department issued a finding and is
working with the SEA to resolve this issue, and the SEA has indicated
that it no longer includes such students in its graduation rate for
ESEA purposes.
New Jersey: Students receive a regular high school diploma if they
meet the State's minimum graduation course requirements and the
graduation assessment requirements. These students are included as
graduates in the calculation of the 4-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate. In addition, New Jersey includes as graduates in their 4-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate students who receive a regular high
school diploma on the basis of achieving their IEP goals. Specifically,
IEP teams at the school level can exempt students from graduation
requirements and make determinations for alternate proficiencies that
students need to meet in order to graduate. The Department issued a
finding and is working with the SEA to resolve this issue.
e. ii. During the State performance reviews conducted in fall 2019,
the Department reviewed documentation from the SEAs and asked questions
about how, for ESEA purposes, the SEA defines a regular high school
diploma; the number of different high school diplomas offered; pathways
to a regular high school diploma; whether or not the SEA offers a
State-defined alternate diploma; and other related questions about the
calculation of the adjusted cohort graduation rate. These questions,
the documentation provided by the SEA, and follow-up questions and
responses discussed during the on-site conversations provided
information for the Department to determine whether States were only
including regular high school diplomas awarded to the preponderance of
students and that were aligned to State standards and more advanced
diplomas. As noted in our response to the previous question, this
approach identified issues in both Montana and New Jersey.
In addition to monitoring, the Department annually collects data
from all States through the EDFacts data collection on the adjusted
cohort graduation rates. Each SEA is required to submit these data for
the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and any extended-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate, for all students and each student
subgroup, for the SEA and each school and LEA. In addition to
collecting the actual graduation rates, the Department also collects
data on the numerators and denominators used to perform the
calculation. These data are reviewed upon submission and the Department
follows up on data quality concerns and data notes from the SEAs when
necessary. This allows the Department to take a closer look at how many
students are receiving a regular high school diploma, are graduating
with a State-defined alternate high school diploma, are not graduating
with a regular or State-defined alternate high school diploma, or are
removed from the cohort for allowable reasons.
f. Montana: The SEA stated that it only offers a single high school
diploma.
New Jersey: The SEA provided evidence that it only offers one
diploma.
g. Montana: During the State performance review for Montana in fall
2019, the SEA indicated that there are two pathways to a regular high
school diploma, one based on meeting the State's definition of a high
school diploma (included above) and another based on achieving IEP
goals. As noted above, for ESEA purposes, the SEA has since indicated
that it no longer includes students who receive a regular high school
diploma on the basis of achieving their IEP goals in the graduation
rate.
New Jersey: New Jersey offers three pathways to obtain a regular
high school diploma: demonstrating proficiency on end-of-course high
school assessments; demonstrating proficiency by meeting the cut scores
on alternative English language arts and/or mathematics assessments;
and demonstrating proficiency in English language arts and/or
mathematics through a portfolio appeals process. As noted above, the
Department also issued a finding to New Jersey because it was including
students who earned a diploma based on achieving IEP goals; the
Department is working with New Jersey to address this finding.
h. Montana: The SEA stated that it does not offer a State-defined
alternate diploma.
New Jersey: The SEA stated that it does not offer a State-defined
alternate diploma.
evidence priority in fiscal year 2019 and 2020 competitive grant
competitions
Question. How many competitive grant programs included an evidence
priority in fiscal year 2019? For how many competitive grant programs
does the Department plan to include an evidence priority in fiscal year
2020? Additionally, please describe efforts the Department has
undertaken to build the internal capacity to support program staff in
the use of evidence in formula grant programs. How will the Department
measure the growth this capacity and expected improved targeting of
resources to activities aligned with evidence of effectiveness? What is
the Department's plan for continuing to build this capacity in the
coming year?
Answer. In fiscal year 2019, 8 competitions included an evidence
priority, and approximately 40 additional competitions required or
encouraged applicants to provide evidence that meets the promising
evidence, evidence-based, or demonstrates a rationale standards. The
Department will be able to share information on the number of
competitive grant programs using an evidence priority for fiscal year
2020 competitions when all notices have been published.
The Department has undertaken a number of efforts to provide
technical assistance on the use of evidence in its programs, including
formula grant programs. In 2019, it created the Evidence Leadership
Group (ELG), an agency-wide group co-chaired by the Office of Planning,
Evaluation, and Policy Development and the Institute of Education
Sciences (IES). The ELG includes representation from all grant-making
offices and other key offices. The purpose of the ELG is to promote
cross-office collaboration and capacity-building for staff who work on
formula and competitive grant programs.
In the fall, the ELG organized a half-day ``Evidence Summit,'' an
opportunity for Department employees to learn about key evidence topics
from experts at the Department and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and to hear from grantees about their experiences in implementing
evidence-based projects and rigorous program evaluations. The
Department solicited feedback from staff who attended and are
identifying existing resources that can be shared as well as needs for
new resources. In addition, it is developing the capacity assessment
required under the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act and
will include components designed to understand the needs of staff who
implement formula and competitive grant programs. Once the Department
has a baseline from that assessment, it will consider repeating it to
determine growth in its collective capacity. It is also examining
monitoring and technical assistance activities to ensure that it is
well-positioned to support efforts to more effectively build and use
evidence, including in formula grant programs.
congressional directive on professional development vouchers and
statutory eligibility under education innovation and research
Question. House Report 116-62 accompanying H.R. 2740 rejected the
proposal to fund professional development vouchers for teachers and
directed no funds to be used for this purpose. In responding to this
directive, the Department indicated it intends to use a portion of
fiscal year 2020 funds available for Education Innovation and Research
for projects that provide professional development vouchers. Why has
the Department chosen to ignore this directive? Please identify the
prior research that could make an applicant eligible for a grant under
the terms of subpart 1, part F of title IV of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. How will the Department ensure that funds
awarded for professional development vouchers only supports activities
that meet statutory requirements, including the statutory requirements
for professional development found in section 8101(42)?
Answer. The Administration's fiscal year budget 2020 request
proposed using a portion of Education Innovation and Research (EIR)
funds for projects that provide teachers with stipends in order to
select their own professional development activities, and neither the
final appropriations bill that was enacted into law nor the
accompanying Statement of the Managers restricted the Department from
implementing these projects. Allowing teachers to pick their own
professional development is an innovative approach to improving teacher
quality, and the EIR program is well-suited for trying out these
projects, as one of the purposes of the program is to develop and test
the effectiveness of innovative approaches to improving instructional
practice and student outcomes. Since the program explicitly supports
innovation, the Department believes it is not necessary to limit these
projects to the definition of professional development in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The Department also
notes that, as documented in the Congressional Justification for Title
II-A, the primary Federal investment in teacher professional
development, there is virtually no evidence that current professional
development practices, including those described in the ESEA
definition, are effective in improving student outcomes.
school safety and emergency management department staffing and
resources
Question. The President's Budget states that the ``consolidation of
most [Elementary and Secondary Education Act] programs into a single
formula grant would allow the Department to significantly reduce
staffing and administrative costs over time.'' Under this proposal,
would the Department look to eliminate positions at the Department for
school safety and emergency management expert staff? Since 2017, has
the Department reduced staffing levels of school safety and emergency
management experts? Please provide a list of all resources coordinated
by the Department and made available to schools to improve school
emergency management and readiness.
Answer. The Department has not reduced staffing levels of school
safety and emergency management experts since 2017.
A list of all resources coordinated by the Department and made
available to schools to improve school emergency management and
readiness is included as an attachment for reference.
parameters for evaluation of fsa as a separate organization
Question. The President's Budget proposes an evaluation of Federal
Student Aid (FSA) as a separate organization with reformed governance.
Please describe the funding mechanism and amount, timeline, evaluation
questions and how the borrower would be at the center of this
evaluation.
Answer. The Department welcomes a dialogue with House and Senate
stakeholders and indeed believes such conversation is necessary before
addressing questions of funding mechanisms and amounts, timelines, and
evaluations. The Office of Federal Student Aid, regardless of whether
it is embedded within the Department or operates separately, would
continue to place borrowers at the forefront of its mission.
Today, FSA manages the servicing of one of the largest consumer
loan portfolios in the world. In addition, FSA provides oversight for
more than 6,000 institutions of higher education that participate in
the Title IV programs; develops and implements the Free Application for
Student Aid (FAFSA) process; and secures the data of the over 40
million Americans with Federal student loans. Recognizing the
significant growth in the scope and complexity of FSA's
responsibilities since its establishment as a performance-based
organization more than 20 years ago, the President's Budget proposes
the evaluation of FSA as a separate organization with reformed
governance. An updated governance model could significantly increase
FSA's ability to serve students and taxpayers by improving its
management, oversight, and administration of the Federal student aid
program.
borrower defense final rule and it expenses
Question. The final rule on borrower defense to repayment claims
states: ``The Federal government would incur costs to update its IT
systems to implement the changes.'' What is the total cost of these
changes, separately provided by fiscal year and major activity? What
amount of these costs is covered by the discretionary appropriation for
Student Aid Administration?
Answer. IT costs associated with implementing the 2019 Borrower
Defense rule are relatively minor and entail updates to eZ-Audit, the
Department's system for calculating financial responsibility.
Two changes designated by the Secretary for early implementation
are in progress. Both were funded out of the fiscal year 2019
appropriation for Student Aid Administration, with a total cost of
$103,048.58. These include:
--Updates for Accounting Standards changes, including those
accounting standards changes incorporated by reference in the
2019 Borrower Defense rules: $47,402.35
--Borrower Defense new Supplemental Schedule Reporting requirements:
$55,646.23
Please note that as of May 11, 2020, these changes have not been
implemented. Deployment will take place upon receiving OMB approval,
which is expected in early June.
The Department is currently recompeting the eZ-Audit contract.
Thus, it has not developed cost estimates or finalized an estimated
deployment date for a third change associated with the 2019 Borrower
Defense Rule. This change, enhancements to implement the updated
financial responsibility triggering event reporting requirements, will
become effective on July 1, 2020.
outreach efforts for students denied tepslf for failure to first apply
for regular pslf
Question. According to last year's Government Accountability Office
report, of the 53,523 requests for Temporary Expanded Public Service
Loan Forgiveness (TEPSLF) examined at the time of the report, about
38,000 were ineligible for consideration and were therefore denied
because the borrower had not submitted a PSLF application, according to
data from the TEPSLF loan servicer. Has Education directed the servicer
to reach out to these and all borrowers who've been denied TEPSLF
because of the administrative barrier created by the Department's
previous policy requiring borrowers first to apply for and be denied
PSLF and assist them in applying for TEPSLF? If not, why not? How does
the Department plan to help these borrowers obtain the assistance under
TEPSLF Congress provided?
Answer. The Department's Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
servicer sends all borrowers who are deemed ineligible for TEPSLF
because they did not first apply for PSLF a notice that explains why
they are ineligible and that they must submit a PSLF application before
reapplying for TEPSLF. FSA is currently working to integrate the TEPSLF
request into the PSLF application. This will eliminate the need for
borrowers to complete the PSLF application and submit a separate email
for consideration for TEPSLF. The Department anticipates that the
revised form will be available to borrowers by the end of calendar year
2020.
proposed reduction to child care access means parents in school
Question. The President's Budget proposes to reduce the Child Care
Access Means Parents in School program from $53 million in fiscal year
2020 to $15.1 million, a reduction of $37.9 million. If enacted,
current grantees would only receive a portion of continuation awards.
By what amount would current grantees be reduced under this proposal?
How many student-parents would lose access to child care services under
these reduced grant amounts as compared to current grant awards?
Answer. The Administration is a strong supporter of expanding child
care services, particularly for underserved populations, which is why
the President's 2021 request included a one-time $1 billion mandatory
investment in competitive grants to States to increase child care
services for underserved populations and stimulate employer investment
in child care. We think these broader investments in child care make
more sense than increasing funding for narrowly focused campus-based
childcare services.
In the event the appropriation for the Child Care Access Means
Parents in School program is reduced, the Department would
proportionally reduce each grantees' continuation award. At this time,
it is not possible to determine how many student-parents this would
affect because the Department has not yet completed the 2020
competition for new awards, which could address this concern by
frontloading grant awards to fully fund grantees through the life of
their project periods. In addition, student-parents may have access to
childcare through other sources in future years, such as programs
supported through the proposed investment of $1 billion.
department processing of civil rights claims
Question. During the hearing, Secretary DeVos touted the improved
rate of civil rights claims processing in recent years. However,
vigorous enforcement of civil rights laws means timely processing of
complaints and thorough investigations that can uncover broader campus-
wide Title IX issues that will not show up in a speedy investigation
focused narrowly on one complaint. Is the Department confident that
faster investigations concluded over the past 3 years have not ignored
wider, campus-wide Title IX violations? If so, please describe and
document the policies and procedures that support this position. For
the past 6 years, please also provide for each year:
a. The number and percentage of cases for which an insufficient
evidence determination was made;
b. The number and percentage of cases for which a noncompliance
determination was made;
c. The number and percentage of cases with resolutions agreements;
d. The number and percentage of cases with resolution agreements
that required a revision of policies or the hiring of experts
or consultants; and
e. The number of compliance reviews and directed investigations by
jurisdiction and topic.
Answer. The Chart included below provides information responsive to
questions a, b, and c.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Insufficient
Total Resolved evidence b. Noncompliance c. Resolution
determination determination agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019............................ 2,094 186/8.9% 15/0.7% 87/4.2%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018............................ 4,016* 283/7.0% 63/1.6% 230/5.7%
(2,306) (283/12.3%) (63/2.7%) (230/10.0%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................ 9,311* 239/2.6% 71/0.8% 170/1.8%
(1,749) (239/13.7%) (71/4.1%) (170/9.7%)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016............................ 1,437 130/9.0% 46/3.2% 93/6.5%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015............................ 2,743 170/6.2% 52/1.9% 109/4.0%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014............................ 2,873 152/5.3% 31/1.1% 115/4.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 7,562 nearly identical complaints were filed by a single individual between August 2016 and April 2017. Of
these, 7,560 complaints were dismissed and 2 were administratively closed during fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
The ``Total Resolved'' numbers provided for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 include these dismissals. The numbers
provided in parentheses are what the fiscal year ``Total Resolved'' numbers would be if we excluded these
dismissals. Of the 7,560 dismissals over the two-year period, 6,840 allegations were dismissed because they
lacked sufficient detail to infer discrimination, 36 were dismissed for failure to state a violation, 915 were
dismissed because the allegation was speculative, conclusory, or incoherent.
d. Provisions included in OCR's resolution agreements are tied to
the specific findings made in a given case. Under nearly every
resolution agreement, a recipient is required to revise one or more of
its policies, such as adjusting its internal procedures or altering
reporting structures. While it may be appropriate for a resolution
agreement to sometimes require the use of experts or consultants to aid
recipients in implementing the specific policy changes, OCR does not
track the number or percentage of resolution agreements that impose
such requirements.
e. The charts included below are responsive to this question.
COMPLIANCE REVIEWS OVER THE LAST SIX (6) YEARS BY JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title VI Title IX Section 504/Title
------------------------------------------ II
--------------------
Initiated Resolved Initiated Resolved Initiated Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019............................................. 0 1 0 1 24 2
2018............................................. 0 19 0 11 0 6
2017............................................. 0 14 0 11 2 11
2016............................................. 7 2 4 4 3 1
2015............................................. 8 11 7 3 7 6
2014............................................. 20 14 12 6 11 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTED INVESTIGATIONS OVER THE LAST SIX (6) YEARS BY JURISDICTIONAL STATUTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title VI Title IX Section 504/Title
------------------------------------------ II
--------------------
Initiated Resolved Initiated Resolved Initiated Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019............................................. 0 0 0 1 674 35
2018............................................. 0 0 3 1 0 0
2017............................................. 0 0 0 1 0 0
2016............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0
2014............................................. 0 0 1 0 1 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
civil rights data collection data eliminations
Question. The Department has proposed to limit the data collected
under the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) by eliminating key
questions related to teaching experience and attendance, school
finance, and children's access to early childhood, preschool, and
kindergarten programs. The loss of these data would negatively impact
the availability of important information to the public who uses these
data for a variety of purposes, including effectively targeting
resources, closing gaps in educational opportunities, and informing
school improvement efforts. Given the importance of these data for
shedding light on educational inequities, as well as supporting States
in complying with reporting requirements under the Every Student
Succeeds Act, why would the Department make it harder for advocates and
policymakers to have access to this information?
Answer. The Department weighed several factors in proposing to
retire any elements from the CRDC: whether their removal improves
efficiency for collecting information; whether they are not necessary
to inform current civil rights enforcement; whether they are considered
to be of pressing concern; and whether the data can be obtained from
other Departmental data collections. The Department also collected
input from internal sources, such as Departmental program offices,
stakeholders, and from external sources, through the public comment
process. For example, in addition to seeking public input on the
proposed changes, the Department included specific questions for public
feedback regarding both the substance and burden of the CRDC. The
Department asked whether the Department's burden estimation is
accurate; how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected; whether school districts currently collect data
about harassment or bullying on the basis of perceived religion; and
whether school districts collect data about sexual assault in a way to
distinguish student offenders from school staff offenders.
It is important for the Department to deregulate where possible so
that limited education funds may be directed to more effectively
advance students' education, to reduce the reporting burden on LEAs,
and to improve the quality of the data submitted for the CRDC. In an
effort to eliminate unnecessary burdens, the Department closely
examined existing data elements to identify ways to reduce the CRDC's
burden on LEA data collectors and reporters while maintaining a useful
dataset for the ongoing enforcement of civil rights.
use of elementary and secondary education act funding for firearms
Question. As you know, I am strongly opposed to the Department's
decision to allow States and school districts to purchase firearms or
firearms training for teachers and other school staff with Federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act funding because it runs counter
to the intent of the bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act and will
make our schools more dangerous and our students less safe. Has the
Department of Education allowed any State agency, local educational
agency, or school to use Federal funds to pay for arming teachers or
staff or for firearm training? Will you commit to informing Congress
about the evidence base you use to evaluate the effectiveness of such
programs?
Answer. The Department is not aware of any State educational
agency, local educational agency, or school using Federal funds to pay
for arming teachers and staff or for firearm training. To better
understand how States and districts are using Title IV-A funds, the
Department released a study on the uses of Title IV-A funds in February
2020. ``Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants: A first Look at
Activities Supported Under Title IV, Part A'' is available on the
Department's website at: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/esea/title-
iv-first-look-2020.pdf. The Department is also currently examining
programs and activities that districts and schools are implementing in
more detail. A report is expected to be published in 2021.
data collection and specific uses of funds under student support and
academic enrichment
Question. Given that the Student Support and Academic Enrichment
(SSAE) grant program is currently in its fourth year of implementation,
please describe the Department's efforts to collect data about specific
uses of funds at the district level. In how many States are all LEAs
eligible to receive the minimum $10,000 specified in ESEA's Title IV-A?
What kind of technical assistance is the Department providing to States
and school districts to support the uses of SSAE funding to support
safe and healthy students, well-rounded education, and the effective
use of education technology? Please provide information detailing the
amount of funds set-side for technical assistance and capacity building
in fiscal year 2018, fiscal year 2019, and fiscal year 2020, and how
such funding was spent or is planned to be spent, including information
regarding the number of awards and size of each award. Additionally,
please provide the number of relevant Department staff involved in
implementing SSAE for fiscal year 2018, fiscal year 2019, and fiscal
year 2020.
Answer. Information on the Department's efforts to collect data on
the use of Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants funds--
including through a ``first-look'' study (published in February and
available at https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/esea/title-iv-first-
look-2020.pdf), the Consolidated State Performance Reports, and a
formal program implementation study--are available on pp. D-68-69 of
the fiscal year 2021 Congressional budget justifications.
Local educational agency (LEA) formula allocations under Student
Support and Academic Enrichment Grants are based on LEA shares of Title
I, Part A funds for the prior year. Using Department-determined Title
I, Part A LEA allocations (i.e., allocations that do not include
adjustments made by States to reflect, for instance, the existence of
charter school LEAs), the Department estimates that current program
funding levels are sufficient to enable all States to provide each LEA
receiving Title I, Part A funds in the prior year an allocation under
Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants that is at least the
statutory minimum allocation of $10,000.
The Department is required by statute to reserve 2 percent of
Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants funds for technical
assistance and capacity building. Detail on the Department's use of
funds reserved for this purpose can be found on pp. D-69-71 of the
Congressional budget justifications. The Department will provide
additional information on the use of these funds, including a complete
accounting of fiscal year 2019 funds (to be used in fiscal year 2020),
as part of Congressionally required briefings on new grant competitions
supported by the 2 percent reservation.
The Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants program team is
comprised of seven members and supported by numerous staff from other
offices across the Department, including the Office of the General
Counsel, the Office of Finance and Operations, the Institute of
Education Sciences, and other offices within the Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education.
Finally, as just described, while the Department is collecting data
on the use of funds under this program and investing resources in
providing technical assistance and other support to grantees, the
Department notes that the purpose of the program is to provide maximum
flexibility to State and local educators to determine how best to use
funds to meet the needs of their students. In this context, there are
significant constraints on the extent to which the Department can
either collect meaningful use-of-funds data from, or provide a full
complement of technical assistance related to, more than 15,000 local
grantees and some three dozen broadly authorized activities.
funding lapses by administrative appropriations account
Question. For each administrative appropriations account, please
provide the amount of funding lapsed for each account for each of the
past six fiscal years.
Answer. The table below shows the amount of funding lapsed by each
administrative appropriation account for the past six fiscal years.
Amounts shown for each account and fiscal year reflect lapses at the
fund level and incorporate all reimbursable, multi-year, and no-year
funds.
FUNDING LAPSES BY ADMINISTRATIVE APPROPRIATION FUND
[Amounts in dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Fund -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAA--0202......................... $318,503 $1,969,407 $211,929 $170,503 $463,043 0
PA--0800.......................... 183,292 235,861 535,551 552,321 237,150 $346,514
OCR--0700......................... 123,185 61,279 308,361 43,098 111,853 116,719
OIG--1400......................... 1,827,613 1,441,851 1,604,343 389,587 502,768 291,128
*NAGB--1100....................... 199,483 212,480 146,303 12,044 21,315 996
*HBCU--1901....................... 85,755 110,351 99,432 102,142 97,354 21,071
*CHAFL--0241...................... 1,906 9,595 14,423 15,853 5,045 15,543
Total......................... $2,739,737 $4,040,824 $2,920,342 $1,285,548 $1,438,528 $791,971
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: SAA = Student Aid Administration; PA = Program Administration; OCR = Office for Civil Rights; OIG =
Office of Inspector General; NAGB = National Assessment Governing Board; HBCU = Historically Black College and
University Capital Financing; CHAFL= College Housing and Facilities Loans.
* = Administrative portion only.
seclusion and restraint, audits, and civil rights data collection data
Question. You stated that seclusion and restraint is a ``high
priority'' for you. Can you elaborate on how, as a high priority, you
will continue to carry out your initiative to ensure that the CRDC is
reliable? Additionally, you discussed the Department's audits of
districts and schools as part of the initiative will help educate them
about ``duties under the law.'' How will these audits lead to a
reduction in seclusion and restraint and an increase in evidence-based
practices? Will you commit to working with Congress to eliminate
seclusion and reduce physical restraint in schools?
Answer. In January of 2019, the Secretary announced a Department-
wide proactive initiative on the possible inappropriate use of
restraint and seclusion in the Nation's schools. The initiative, a
first of its kind, was a joint initiative between the Office for Civil
Rights (OCR) and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS). The initiative continues to be a priority for this
Department, as its work to provide technical assistance on the use of
restraint and seclusion is ongoing. The compliance reviews OCR is
conducting across the country continue to be a key focus of this
initiative and are ongoing in each of OCR's regional offices. Through
the process of finalizing these investigations, OCR is working directly
with recipients to provide technical assistance on the requirements of
Federal law. Additionally, OCR's findings will continue to inform the
provision of technical assistance in this area so that schools across
the country can better understand how Federal law applies to the use of
restraint and seclusion.
Additionally, as a part of the initiative, OCR has undertaken
robust efforts to address the appropriate reporting of restraint and
seclusion data submitted to OCR through the Civil Rights Data
Collection (CRDC). These efforts are ongoing. In August 2019, OCR sent
a letter to all local education agencies to clarify the appropriate
reporting of restraint and seclusion CRDC data. As a result, OCR has
engaged with more than 350 school districts to ensure that restraint
and seclusion data is accurately and correctly reported to OCR. OCR has
also conducted Data Quality Reviews on the CRDC data submitted by
school districts. OCR has received corrected restraint and seclusion
data from dozens of school districts. OCR continues to work with
districts to improve restraint and seclusion data submitted as a part
of the CRDC, including providing directed technical assistance on how
to report restraint and seclusion data. For more information about the
steps OCR has taken to improve the CRDC with respect to the restraint
and seclusion data, please see also OCR's December 18, 2019 response to
the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Even one child harmed by the use of restraint and seclusion is too
many, and the Department is committed to this initiative and working
with school districts, within the scope of Federal law, to ensure that
every child has an opportunity to learn in an environment free from
harm.
foster care resource clearinghouse and efforts to promote stability for
youth in foster care
Question. Last year the Government Accountability Office report on
the educational stability for youth in foster care recommended the
Department develop an online clearinghouse of resources, such as sample
documents from States and localities, past webinar recordings, and
links to other relevant resources. The Department concurred with this
recommendation and said they would create a new web page to house all
foster-care related information and launch a virtual portal through
which SEA foster care points of contact may collaborate and share
resources. What is the status of this online clearinghouse and on what
date can the public expect to be able to access the web page?
Additionally, what other measures is the department putting in place to
ensure the educational stability for youth in foster care? Please
describe the specific actions taken to-date and planned activities to
support youth in foster care.
Answer. As the Department's response to the Government
Accountability Office report indicated, the development of a new
webpage that would contain foster care-related information is part of
the overall redesign and redevelopment of the website for the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education. That work was originally targeted
for completion in the fall of 2019, but it has been delayed and is
expected to be finished by the end of fiscal year 2020. The Department
is working with the National Comprehensive Center to develop and host
an online portal that will enable State foster care points of contact
to collaborate virtually and expects that the portal will be launched
this summer.
One way the Department is supporting youth in foster care is by
monitoring specifically how States are implementing requirements
related to the educational stability of students in foster care. This
year the Department is piloting a new protocol for monitoring this
implementation. In addition, the Department is funding a community of
practice for State foster care points of contact and hosted five 90-
minute virtual learning sessions between September 2019 and February
2020. Between learning sessions, community of practice participants
engaged in asynchronous online learning opportunities that allowed them
to explore various topics related to the educational stability of
students in foster care, including effective collaboration with child
welfare agencies, data-sharing to ensure the academic achievement of
students in foster care, and working with school districts (through
training and sub-recipient monitoring) in supporting the educational
stability of students in foster care.
educational protections and services for children experiencing
homelessness
Question. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) strengthened the
McKinney-Vento program and provided critical educational protections
and services for students experiencing homelessness under the Education
for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program. This strengthening
included accountability and report card provisions related to children
and youth experiencing homelessness. In the fiscal year 2020
appropriations law, you were asked to brief Congress on the resources
being devoted to monitoring compliance with EHCY. This briefing is
overdue. When do you plan to provide this briefing and what are you
doing currently to ensure that SEAs and LEAs are supported in achieving
and maintaining compliance with the EHCY and Title I Part A
homelessness-related provisions? Please describe the specific actions
taken to-date to monitor and support compliance with EHCY and
homelessness-related provisions.
Answer. The Department briefed Congress on its implementation of
the EHCY program on April 7, 2020. The Department is continuing to
provide oversight and support to States as they implement the McKinney-
Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) grant program
and related Title I, Part A homeless requirements. Below is a summary
of related activities underway:
--The Department will be incorporating the EHCY program into its
overall consolidated monitoring program in 2021. The Department
has been phasing in consolidated monitoring over the past
several years. At this point, it includes all of Title I, Part
A; Title II, Part A; Title III, Part A; and the Rural Low-
Income Schools programs. In 2020, it is phasing in other
programs, including 21st Century Community Learning Centers and
Title I, Part C. It also includes some cross-cutting fiscal
questions (such as internal controls, risk assessment) that
will focus on most K-12 formula programs, including EHCY. This
year, the Department is revising the EHCY monitoring protocols
to pilot them next year.
--The Title I protocol for consolidated monitoring includes State and
local report cards, including review to ensure report cards
include student academic achievement and graduation rates for
homeless students.
--A primary method of providing support and assistance for States
around homeless issues is the national technical assistance
center-the National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE). NCHE
supports practitioners in the implementation of the EHCY
program. In October 2019, OESE re-funded NCHE for an additional
5 years. Working in collaboration with NCHE, each year, the
Department provides the following technical assistance to SEAs
and LEAs:
--Host an annual, multi-day conference for State coordinators of
EHCY programs (this occurred in February 2020);
--Develop and disseminate public awareness materials to provide
information to families, parents, and youth experiencing
homelessness;
--Host regular topical webinars for State coordinators and local
liaisons;
--Provide responsive technical assistance (both in-person and
virtual) to State coordinators;
--Publish fact sheets, reports, and issues briefs on various
topics; and
--Support State coordinators in the analysis of McKinney-Vento EHCY
data. For example, NCHE provides maps that share the number
and proportion of homeless students across the State so
that the State may identify areas that are under-
identifying homeless students.
appropriations directed guidance on ability to benefit
Question. On Tuesday, March 3, the Department communicated the
following message to the Committee regarding ability-to-benefit (ATB):
``Despite the requirements contained Executive Order 13891, ``Promoting
the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents,'' the
Department acknowledges the need for greater clarity and is actively
collecting feedback from those at institutions who wish to implement
ability-to-benefit programs. Issuing guidance is now governed by the
requirements laid out in Executive Order 13891, ``Promoting the Rule of
Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents.'' As a result of those
increased requirements, on February 11, 2020, the Department conducted
a webinar focused on providing more information about the Approved
State Process alternative at 34 CFR Sec. 668.156, which clearly
explained the definition of an eligible career pathway program and
contained answers to questions about student eligibility. The
Department will be posting the webinar as soon as the transcript is
completed and ADA compliant. We will send the webinar link as soon as
it is available.'' Is the Department declining to issue the guidance
about ATB directed in the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill?
Answer. The Department views the webinar as satisfying the ability-
to-benefit (ATB) guidance that the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill
directed the Department to provide. The PowerPoint slides from the
Department's webinar can be accessed at: https://ifap.ed.gov/sites/
default/files/attachments/2020-03/ATBState
ProcessWebinar021120_0.pdf.
accrediting council for independent colleges and schools oversight
efforts
Question. In November 2018, Secretary DeVos issued a determination
that required the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and
Schools (ACICS) to submit a compliance and monitoring report to the
Department within 1 year, by November 2019, addressing several issues
(through a compliance report, competency of representatives and
conflicts of interest; and through monitoring, administrative and
financial resources, student achievement standards, recruiting and
admissions practices, and monitoring).
Around the same time those reports were due to the Department in
November 2019, staff in the agency's Accreditation Group issued a
letter to ACICS adding areas of compliance reporting based on concerns
the agency was non-compliant in those areas: adequate staff and
financial resources, effective distance-education standards, on-site
reviews, independent analyses of institutions' compliance with agency
standards, and reviews based on other accreditors' adverse actions.
Responses to the Department's concerns were due from ACICS in February
2020.
On February 24th, 2020, the Accreditation Group issued a new letter
to ACICS identifying additional concerns about compliance following the
publication of a USA Today article reporting on an allegedly fraudulent
college in South Dakota, Reagan National University. Three days later,
you testified before the House Appropriations Committee that you were
personally concerned over the reporting and confirmed that the
Department had opened an additional investigation.
What determinations has the Department made regarding ACICS'
compliance on each of the areas highlighted for review in the November
2018 and November 2019 letters to the agency? Have any of those areas
been identified for continued monitoring, reporting, or oversight? If
not, when does the Department expect to make a decision? Will the
Department make such decisions public and provide this Committee with
that decision?
Answer. As directed in the Secretary's decision on recognition in
2018, ACICS submitted a compliance report on December 19, 2019, and a
monitoring report on December 20, 2019. The reports will be reviewed
within the internal timelines set for presentation at the July 2020
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity
(NACIQI) meeting.
The draft staff analysis is an incomplete document, as it typically
highlights areas where staff need additional information, which the
agency is permitted to provide. It is the final staff analysis that
will be provided to ACICS, NACIQI, and the public.
On June 19, 2019, the Department began a review of the financial
health of ACICS. Upon the completion of that review, if the
Accreditation Group (AG) finds the agency to be out of compliance, it
will present the findings of its review to NACIQI, per Department
regulations.
On February 24, 2020, the AG initiated an inquiry, under 34 C.F.R.
602.33, into ACICS' review of Reagan National University. The
Department received a response from the agency on March 27, 2020 and is
in the process of reviewing. If staff believe the agency has failed to
demonstrate compliance with accreditation regulations, the AG will
present their analysis to NACIQI, per Department regulations.
Question. On March 4, 2020, the Department requested public comment
on ACICS' November 2018 compliance report. How will the Department
decide on the additional issues that have arisen regarding ACICS
compliance? Will these be considered in the current compliance report?
Will NACIQI receive all compliance and monitoring reports directly, and
will those reports also be published online and be provided to this
Committee? If so, when?
Answer. Please see the response provided in the question above. The
Department is not permitted to expand the scope of an existing
compliance report by adding new elements to it. If additional reviews
result in findings of non-compliance, the AG will present their
findings to NACIQI.
Question. Please provide all correspondence and documentation
shared between the Department and ACICS regarding Reagan National
University, including any communication requesting additional
compliance, monitoring, or reporting requirements.
Answer. Please see the attached letter sent to ACICS on February
24, 2020.
new accreditation regulations and compliance reviews
Question. The Department's new accreditation regulations are
scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2020. However, I understand that
agencies already involved in the process of recognition reviews will
not be subject to the new regulations effective that date. Please
provide a timeline for each institutional accrediting agency,
including:
i the date its current period of recognition expires;
ii when the Department expects to begin the review process for each
agency;
iii when the Department expects each agency to come before NACIQI
for review (month and year); and
iv when the Department expects the agency to be fully compliant
with the regulations.
Answer. In response to parts i-iii, please see the table below. (S)
indicates the SUMMER meeting and (W) indicates the WINTER meeting of
NACIQI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition for
recognition due
Date of SDO Recognition date (Review
Agency/NACIQI Date (NACIQI dates may change) Decision/Recognition Expiration Date process begins
Period 2yrs before
expiration)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACCSC/S2021......................................... 10-28-16/5yrs 10-28-2021 10-28-2019
ACCET/S2024......................................... 11-8-2019/5yrs 11-8-2024 11-8-2022
COE/S2021........................................... 10-28-16/5yrs 10-28-2021 10-28-2019
DEAC/S2022.......................................... 9-20-2017/5yrs 9-20-2022 9-20-2020
HLC/W2023........................................... 5-9-2018/5yrs 5-9-2023 5-9-2021
MSCHE/W2023......................................... 5-9-2018/5yrs 5-9-2023 5-9-2021
MSA-CSS/S2022....................................... 11-8-2019/3yrs 11-8-2022 11-8-2020
NEACIHE/W2023....................................... 5-9-2018/5yrs 5-9-2023 5-9-2021
NYBRE/W2023......................................... 5-9-2018/5yrs 5-9-2023 5-9-2021
NWCCU/S2023......................................... 8-22-2018/5yrs 8-22-2023 8-22-2021
SACSCOC/S2022....................................... 11-8-2019/3yrs 11-8-2024 11-8-2022
WASC-JR/S2024....................................... 11-8-2019/5yrs 11-8-2024 11-8-2022
WASC-SR/W2023....................................... 5-9-2018/5yrs 5-9-2023 5-9-2021
NASAD/S2023......................................... 8-22-2018/5yrs 8-22-2023 8-22-2021
NASD/S2024.......................................... 11-8-2019/5yrs 11-8-2024 11-8-2022
NASM/S2024.......................................... 11-8-2019/5yrs 11-8-2024 11-8-2022
NAST/S2024.......................................... 11-8-2019/5yrs 11-8-2024 11-8-2022
MACTE/W2021......................................... 5-9-2018/3yrs 5-9-2021 5-9-2019
ABA/S2021........................................... 8-22-2018/3yrs 8-22-2021 8-22-2019
ABHE/S2022.......................................... 9-20-2017/5yrs 9-20-2022 9-20-2020
AARTS/S2023......................................... 8-22-2018/5yrs 8-22-2023 8-22-2021
AIJS/W2021.......................................... 3-10-2016/5yrs 3-10-2021 3-10-2019
ATS/S2021........................................... 8-22-2018/3yrs 8-22-2021 8-22-2019
TRACS/S2021......................................... 8-22-2018/3yrs 8-22-2021 8-22-2019
ABFSE/W2021......................................... 5-9-2018/3yrs 5-9-2021 5-9-2019
COMTA/W2021......................................... 3-10-2016/5yrs 3-10-2021 3-10-2019
NACCAS/W2021........................................ 3-10-2016/5yrs 3-10-2021 3-10-2019
ACEND/W2023......................................... 8-22-2018/5yrs 8-22-2023 8-22-2021
ACAOM/S2021......................................... 9-22-2016/5yrs 9-22-2021 9-22-2019
ACEN/W2023.......................................... 5-9-2018/5yrs 5-9-2023 5-9-2021
ABHES/S2021......................................... 9-22-2016/5yrs 9-22-2021 9-22-2019
AOA-COCA/S2021...................................... 8-23-2018/3yrs 8-23-2021 8-23-2019
APMA/W2022.......................................... 5-25-2017/5yrs 5-25-2022 5-25-2020
COANAEP/S2023....................................... 8-22-2018/5yrs 8-22-2023 8-22-2021
CCE/W2022........................................... 11-8-2019/5yrs 11-8-2024 11-8-2022
JCERT/W2022......................................... 5-25-2017/5yrs 5-25-2022 5-25-2020
MEAC/W2021.......................................... 5-9-2018/3yrs 5-9-2021 5-9-2019
ACICS/W2021......................................... 12-2021 12-2019
ODCTE/W2020......................................... Pending SDO decision
NYBRVE/W2020........................................ Pending SDO decision
PRHRDC/W2020........................................ Pending SDO decision
PABCTE/S2020........................................ 4/22/2018/deferred Under review Under review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional (Title IV gatekeeper) accrediting agency title and
abbreviation shown in the table above
--Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC)
--Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS)
--Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training (ACCET)
--Council on Occupational Education (COE)
--Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC)
--Higher Learning Commission (HLC)
--Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE)
--Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools (MSA-CSS)
--New England Commission of Higher Education (NEACIHE)
--New York State Board of Regents, and the Commissioner of Education
(NYBRE)
--Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU)
--Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on
Colleges (SACSCOC)
--WASC Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(WASC-JR)
--WASC Senior Colleges and University Commission (WASC-SR)
--National Association of Schools of Art and Design, Commission on
Accreditation (NASAD)
--National Association of Schools of Dance, Commission on
Accreditation (NASD)
--National Association of Schools of Music, Commission on
Accreditation (NASM)
--National Association of Schools of Theatre, Commission on
Accreditation (NAST)
--Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education (MACTE)
--American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education
and Admissions to the Bar (ABA)
--Association for Biblical Higher Education, Commission on
Accreditation (ABHE)
--Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools,
Accreditation Commission (AARTS)
--Association of Institutions of Jewish Studies (AIJS)
--Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools
(ATS)
--Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools,
Accreditation Commission (TRACS)
--American Board of Funeral Service Education, Committee on
Accreditation (ABFSE)
--Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation (COMPTA)
--National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences, Inc.
(NACCAS)
--Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Accreditation Council for
Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND)
--Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine
(ACAOM)
--Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing, Inc (ACEN)
--Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES)
--American Osteopathic Association, Commission on Osteopathic College
Accreditation (AOA-COCA)
--American Podiatric Medical Association, Council on Podiatric
Medical Education (APMA)
--Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs
(COANAEP)
--The Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE)
--Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology
(JCERT)
--Midwifery Education Accreditation Council (MEAC)
State approval agency for postsecondary vocation education (Title IV
gatekeepers) shown in the table above
--Oklahoma Board of Career and Technical Education (ODCTE)
--New York State Board Of Regents, Public Postsecondary Vocational Ed
(NYBRVE)
--Puerto Rico State Agency for the Approval of Public Postsecondary
Vocational, Technical Institutions and Programs (PRHRDC)
--Pennsylvania State Board for Vocational Education, Bureau of Career
and Technical Education (PABCTE)
In response to part iv: In general, the Department expects them to
be compliant at their next recognition review after the new regulations
become effective. However, the Department expects accrediting agencies
to establish policy and standards to comply with the new regulations as
soon as practically possible.
Question. For agencies that are already in the process of review,
and which will not be expected to be fully compliant with the
regulations as of July 1, 2020, does the Department expect full
compliance before their next recognition review? Will the Department
require the agency to demonstrate compliance with the new requirements
at any point outside of its recognition review?
Answer. Accrediting agencies will need time to write and adopt new
policies. The time required depends on an accrediting agency's internal
process for changing or modifying policy. Changes or modifications to
an accrediting agency's policy or standards could take 6 months to 1
year, or more. However, the Department expects all agencies to be
working towards compliance with the new regulations.
The new regulations become effective on July 1, 2020. The
Department has no plans for formal midterm reviews. However, Department
staff will be in constant contact with their assigned accrediting
agencies to advise and monitor policy changes.
Question. For agencies that are already in the process of review,
are there any areas of the new regulations with which the agencies must
be compliant as of July 1, 2020 and/or be required to demonstrate
compliance? Or will the timeline for rolling implementation apply for
all aspects of the new regulations?
Answer. While the new regulations go into effect on July 1, 2020,
no agency will be reviewed under those regulations until July 1, 2021.
Please see the table above for information about the timeline.
hbcu capital financing advisory board outreach plan
Question. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, 2019, and 2020
directed the Department to create and execute an outreach plan to work
with the Capital Financing Advisory Board, and with States, to improve
outreach to States and help additional public HBCUs participate in the
Capital Financing program. Please provide an update on the execution of
that outreach plan, and please describe the results of each of the
activities undertaken under that plan.
Answer. The Department's outreach efforts over the last year
included several activities:
--The Department spoke with public and private Historically Black
College and University (HBCU) presidents and chancellors at the
White House Initiative on HBCUs.
--The Department's HBCU Capital Financing Executive Director met with
public HBCU presidents and chancellors at the 2020 Thurgood
Marshall College Fund Fly-In Convening on February 26, 2020.
--Rice Capital, the Designated Bonding Authority for the program,
will send newsletters to 101 HBCUs as well as higher education
authorities that have approvals over State funding in the month
of April.
Further in person outreach activities have been postponed until
further notice due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
triggering events and repayment rate disclosures under 2016 borrower
defense regulations
Question. Please provide the following information regarding
financial triggering events and repayment rate disclosures under the
2016 borrower defense regulations:
Has the Department recalculated any financial responsibility
composite scores for institutions that have reported triggering events?
Answer. Yes, the Department has recalculated some financial
responsibility composite scores. It should also be noted that the
Department received some triggering event notices from public
institutions. Because public institutions are not subject to financial
responsibility composite scoring, the Department did not reevaluate
composite scores for these institutions. As noted in the response to
sub-question ``g'', the Department received financial responsibility
triggering events notices from 657 distinct institutions. Some
institutions submitted more than one triggering event notice.
Question. Have there been any instances when institutions have not
reported the necessary triggering events? How does the Department plan
to address instances when reporting is not conducted, and does the
Department plan to announce any policy or procedure to address non-
reporting? What actions will the Department take to integrate financial
responsibility triggering events, or the subsequent recalculation of
the composite score, if institutions do not report the events to the
Department?
Answer. Yes, there has been an instance when the Department became
aware that an institution did not report the necessary triggering
event. When an institution fails to report information that it is
required to report under the revised financial responsibility
regulations, the Department will, as part of its oversight
responsibilities, take action to bring the school back into compliance
with those regulations, recalculate the composite score (as
appropriate), and request a letter of credit, if needed. In addition,
if a school fails to report a financial triggering event, the
Department will determine whether any fine or other similar action is
appropriate. The Department does not comment on deliberative,
preliminary, or ongoing investigative work, including the enforcement
of the Title IV regulations specific to this provision.
Question. Are institutions able to submit alternative forms of
surety, in place of a letter of credit, and does the Department plan to
announce any policy or procedure for alternative surety? Have any
institutions submitted alternative forms of surety to date?
Answer. As of April 1, 2020, the Department has not announced
whether institutions are able to submit alternative forms of surety in
place of a letter of credit pursuant to the Department's financial
responsibility regulation at 34 CFR 668.175(f)(2)(i). If the Department
chooses to accept alternative forms of surety in place of a letter of
credit, the Department would need to publish that decision in a Federal
Register notice. The Department would provide the appropriate policy or
procedure for alternative surety in an Electronic Announcement or
another appropriate communication posted on the Information for
Financial Aid Professional (IFAP) online portal.
In a few cases, when an institution has not provided a letter of
credit, the Department has entered into a set-aside agreement pursuant
to the ``set-aside'' provisions included with the financial
responsibility regulations at 34 CFR 668.175(h). With a set-aside
agreement, the Department offsets the amount of Title IV funds the
school is eligible to receive in a manner that ensures that, within a
nine-month period, the total offset amount equals the total amount of
financial protection that the institution would have otherwise
provided. It should be noted that use of a set-aside agreement is not
necessarily related to a financial responsibility triggering event
notification. Additionally, the Department accepts cash deposits in
place of a letter of credit on a case-by-case basis consistent with
longstanding practice.
Question. The Department stated earlier this year that it was in
the final stages of selecting a vendor to conduct consumer testing and
anticipated being able to conduct user testing for repayment rate
disclosures and financial responsibility triggering events in the
summer of 2019. Has that vendor and consumer testing commenced?
Answer. Earlier this year the Department finalized new
Institutional Accountability regulations, which go into effect on July
1, 2020. The effort to identify a vendor to perform consumer testing
was suspended since the results of that testing will not be relevant
after July 1, 2020.
Question. What is the Department's timeline to publish in the
Federal Register the required trigger events and the format by which
repayment rates must be disclosed?
Answer. The Institutional Accountability regulations, which were
finalized earlier this year, clearly describe the triggering events,
thus eliminating the need to publish future triggers in the Federal
Register. In addition, the Department will soon be releasing repayment
rate data for all institutions using the College Scorecard. The
Department is conducting consumer testing of the College Scorecard to
determine how best to provide this information to students using the
online tool.
Question. Has the Department set aside any resources to pursue
further investigation, enforcement action, or review of Program
Participation Agreements when it is notified of triggering events such
as borrower defense-related lawsuits and accrediting agency actions
against an institution?
Answer. It is Department policy to not comment on any deliberative,
preliminary, or ongoing investigative work to enforce the Title IV
regulations. The Department is in the process of adding resources to
its Enforcement Unit to assist with investigations in general.
Question. Please provide the name and associated OPEID of all
institutions that have provided information regarding triggering events
to the Department to date.
Answer. As of March 26, 2020, the Department had received
triggering event notices from 657 distinct institutions and OPEIDs. As
noted in the response to the first sub-question under this subject,
some institutions submitted more than one triggering event notice. An
unduplicated list of the names and associated OPEIDs of the 657
reporting institutions is enclosed.
machine learning and fafsa verification data
Question. Since the Department began implementing a machine
learning model to select students for verification, how many students
have been selected for verification, compared to prior award years? If
full award year information is not yet available, please provide
comparable award-year-to-date information.
Answer. Please find the requested information below. The machine
learning model for targeted selection was first introduced with the
2019-2020 cycle. Group V1 in the tables below represents applicants
selected to verify financial information, the number in college, and
the number in family listed on the FAFSA. Group V4 is selected for
identity and high school completion verification. Group V5 combines the
verification requirements of groups V1 and V4. Table 1 includes
applicants from the beginning through the first March 27th of each
cycle. It therefore represents just under the first 6 months of each
cycle. Table 2 includes applicants from the beginning through the
second March 27th of each cycle. It therefore represents just under the
first 18 months of each cycle.
TABLE 1: VERIFICATION SELECTION BY SELECTION GROUP THROUGH SIX MONTHS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Selected
Cycle V1 V4 V5 for % Selected for Total
Verification Verification Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020-21................................................. 1,990,950 98,166 22,887 2,112,003 22.08% 9,564,240
2019-20................................................. 2,070,014 98,415 24,786 2,193,215 22.18% 9,887,061
2018-19................................................. 2,956,191 80,196 37,117 3,073,504 29.92% 10,273,833
2017-18................................................. 2,430,829 27,004 95,119 2,552,952 25.03% 10,200,366
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2: VERIFICATION SELECTION BY SELECTION GROUP THROUGH 18 MONTHS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Selected
Cycle V1 V4 V5 for % Selected for Total
Verification Verification Applications
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2019-20................................................. 3,919,770 361,282 102,940 4,383,992 24.83% 17,654,182
2018-19................................................. 5,146,039 293,396 117,135 5,556,570 30.62% 18,146,675
2017-18................................................. 5,554,426 110,491 330,671 5,995,588 32.29% 18,566,633
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
loan servicing contractor compliance with state law
Question. In 2019, Congress included the following directive to the
Department in the most recent appropriations law, which went into
effect on January 1, 2020: ``Servicers shall be evaluated based on
their ability to meet contract requirements (including an understanding
of Federal and State law)...and history of compliance with applicable
consumer protection laws.'' In the first weeks of the year, the Federal
student loan contractor Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency
(PHEAA) appears to have directly contradicted this instruction in court
filings in New York State. In separate litigation brought by PHEAA
against the State of Connecticut, the Department of Justice previously
filed a Statement of Interest that also appears to contradict this
instruction directly. In light of the new direction from Congress,
which went into effect on January 1st of this year, can you describe
the steps you have taken to clarify to the court that you expect your
contractors to comply with State law?
Answer. The Department requires its contractors, including Federal
student loan servicers, to comply with all applicable and valid State
laws. On March 12, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of
Interpretation entitled Federal Preemption and State Regulation of the
Department of Education's Federal Student Loan Programs and the Federal
Student Loan Servicers, 83 Fed. Reg. 10619, explaining the Department's
position with regard to the Federal preemption of State laws regulating
the servicing of federally-held education loans by Federal student loan
servicers. The Department continues to hold the position set forth in
that Notice, and the cited Statement of Interest filed in PHEAA's
lawsuit against the Department and Connecticut is based on the
principles articulated in the Notice.
The Department's position and practice is consistent with the
language in the appropriations law. The Department does evaluate its
servicers based on their ability to meet contract requirements
(including an understanding of Federal and State law) and its
compliance with applicable consumer protection laws. However, as
reflected in the Notice and in court decisions before and after the
publication of the Notice, see, e.g., Student Loan Servicing Alliance
v. District of Columbia, 351 F.Supp.3d 26 (D.D.C. 2018), not all State
laws are applicable to Federal student loan servicers.
pheaa assertion of immunity from federal and state consumer laws
Question. On January 20th of this year, the Pennsylvania Higher
Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit
brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, asserting that, in
PHEAA's words, your agency ``validly conferred'' authority to service
loans in a manner that immunizes the company from any lawsuit brought
by any Federal or State agency or individual borrower under any Federal
or State law. This assertion is expansive and obviously inconsistent
with the text of the most recent appropriations law. Do you agree with
PHEAA's position that it is immune from suit even if its conduct
violates Federal or State consumer laws?
Answer. The Department is not a party to the lawsuit mentioned in
the question, was not involved in the development of the arguments made
by PHEAA, and has not reviewed those arguments. It is the Department's
understanding that the arguments in the brief represent PHEAA's legal
views on the application of Federal and State laws in light of its role
as a Federal loan servicer and its status as a State agency.
borrower defense partial relief formulas
Question. Regarding the borrower defense partial relief formulas
used by the Department:
Which senior political appointee or appointees of the Department
authored or signed the recommendation to the Secretary to approve the
first partial relief formula for borrower defense that was announced
via press release on December 20, 2017?
Answer. No senior political appointee of the Department authored or
signed a recommendation to the Secretary to approve the first partial
relief formula.
Question. Please describe in detail the steps taken to consult with
the Department's Office of Inspector General regarding the first
partial relief formula for borrower defense that was announced via
press release on December 20, 2017, prior to the release of such
formula.
Answer. The Department is not aware of any consultation that took
place with the Office of Inspector General.
Question. Which senior political appointee or appointees of the
Department authored or signed the recommendation to the Secretary to
approve the second partial relief formula for borrower defense that was
announced via press release on December 10, 2019?
Answer. A group of senior career staff and political leaders from
the Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of the Undersecretary,
Office of the General Counsel, and Federal Student Aid worked together
to develop the second partial relief formula, which was reviewed by
Institute of Education Sciences.
Question. Please describe in detail the steps taken to consult with
the Department's Office of Inspector General regarding the second
partial relief formula for borrower defense that was announced via
press release on December 10, 2019, prior to the release of such
formula.
Answer. The Department consulted with the appropriate data and
statistical experts regarding the second partial relief formula. It did
not consult with the Office of Inspector General.
pell grant lifetime eligibility used restorations
Question. Please provide an update on Pell Grant Lifetime
Eligibility Used (LEU) restored due to school closure, according to the
Department's April 3, 2017 notice, Guidance on COD Processing of Pell
Grant Restoration for Students who Attended Closed Schools, including
total number of unduplicated students receiving restoration of Pell
LEU, total number of institutions which those students attended, and
total number of semesters restored, disaggregated by State.
Answer. Approximately 338,000 students attending 1,139 institutions
have received restoration of Pell LEU. This equates to more than
688,000 semesters worth of Pell eligibility restored. State-level data
is provided in the attached file. Please note that Pell Grant awards
are processed through an institution's main location; for example, all
awards to students who attended ITT Technical Institute were made to
the school's main location in Indiana. As a result, the State-level
disaggregated student totals provided for Pell LEU restoration
represent the State to which grants originally were processed, but not
necessarily the location where students actually attended classes.
implementation of change in public service loan forgiveness payment
counts
Question. In a letter to Senator Murray dated March 3, 2020, the
Department indicated a change to how payments are counted toward Public
Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), writing that the Department is
``revising the policy by which we determine whether a monthly payment
qualifies for PSLF purposes. Under the new policy, a borrower will
receive credit for 1 months' qualifying payment towards PSLF,
regardless of when or by whom the payment was made, so long as the
payment due was made in full, no later than 15 days after the payment
due date, and meets all other requirements for a PSLF qualifying
payment. Under this revised policy, advance or ``lump sum'' payments
may be qualifying monthly payments (up to a maximum of 12 qualifying
payments) for PSLF. We anticipate implementing this change with our
PSLF servicer later in 2020.'' Please describe the specific steps that
the Department will take to notify borrowers who have made advance or
lump sum payments, and subsequently had nonqualifying payments for the
purposes of PSLF, of this new change in policy.
Answer. This change has not yet been officially implemented; FSA is
still working with the PSLF servicer to operationalize it. The
Department anticipates that once the change is made, borrowers'
accounts will be updated to reflect their detailed PSLF qualifying
monthly payment counts under the revised guidance. These revised
monthly payment counts will be communicated through borrowers' account
statements.
pslf and tepslf state by state breakdowns and breakdowns on missing
information and reasons payments do not qualify
Question. Regarding the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and
Temporary Expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (TEPSLF) programs,
please provide:
a. a State-by-State breakdown of the number of Applications for
Forgiveness received, approved, or denied, separately listed
and including both the number of unique borrowers as well as
the total number of applications
b. a State-by-State breakdown of the number of applications for
TEPSLF received, approved, or denied, separately listed and
including both the number of unique borrowers as well as the
total number of applications
c. a State-by-State breakdown of PSLF Employment Certification
Forms (ECFs), including the unique number of borrowers who have
any approved, have any denied ECF, and the cumulative number
who have submitted any ECF
d. a breakdown of the most common information missing (i.e.
employment dates, signature, EIN) from ECFs that have been
determined to be ineligible due to missing information
e. a breakdown of the most common reasons payments are not
qualifying for PSLF Applications for Forgiveness for
applications denied due to insufficient qualifying payments
Answer. a. Please see the attached table for the requested data.
b. Please see the attached table for the requested data.
c. Please see the attached table for the requested data.
d. Please see the attached table for the requested data.
e. Due to the volume of borrowers and the various reasons payments
may be deemed not qualifying, the PSLF servicer does not currently
report this specific data to the Department. In addition, payments may
be deemed not qualifying for more than one reason. Please note,
however, that the servicer is able to provide borrowers with the
reasons individual payments did not qualify upon their request.
Additionally, when the combined PSLF/TEPSLF/Employment Certification
Form is implemented later this year, all borrowers will receive
qualifying payment counts for both PSLF and TEPSLF, along with detailed
information at the payment level.
automation of total and permanent disability discharges
Question. Members of Congress have previously requested that the
Department use its authority to establish a process for total and
permanent disability (TPD) discharge with the Social Security
Administration (SSA) whereby, upon a successful match with SSA, the
Department automatically places a borrower into a 3-year monitoring
period. And, if the borrower does not show any of the applicable
earnings that would reinstate their obligation to repay based on a
secondary earnings data match with SSA at the end of the monitoring
period, the loans should be automatically discharged. The Department
has said that it needs to undergo rulemaking to effectuate any form of
automatic discharge. However, there are other steps that could be
automated without the need for rulemaking. Please provide the
Department's analysis of options to automate various parts of the TPD
process, including specific statutory citations the Department believes
are relevant to administrative or regulatory authority. Please include
in this analysis any provisions that distinguish the authority of the
Department to automate processes for veterans who may qualify for TPD
discharge compared to the authority that exists for non-veterans.
Answer. The Department believes that the FUTURE Act, coupled with
the CARES Act, will permit the Department to establish automatic
retrieval of IRS data. When this system is in place, the Department
will be able to administratively verify the income of borrowers who
received a TPD discharge for the required 3 years, thus eliminating the
need for the borrower to provide that information. This provides the
opportunity for the Department to explore the concept of providing
automatic loan discharge to these borrowers.
In order to eliminate the requirement for the borrower to submit an
application to be considered for a TPD discharge, the Department will
need to engage in negotiated rulemaking, publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking, accept public comments and publish a final rule to
eliminate the requirement for borrowers to complete an application in
order to be considered for TPD discharge. 34 CFR 685.213(2)(b)
Following President Trump's announcement of automatic loan
discharge for borrowers who received a TPD rating from the Veterans
Administration, the Department published an interim final rule to
eliminate the application requirement for veterans. It is rare that the
Department is permitted to file an interim final rule, and in this case
doing so was permitted only because Congress had directed the
Department to remove unnecessary bureaucratic barriers specifically for
veterans who are totally and permanently disabled because of service-
connected injuries, leaving the Department no discretion in the matter.
measures to handle tpd data matching discrepancies
Question. The Department has stated that the current matching
process for total and permanent disability (TPD) with the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) and Social Security Administration (SSA) matches
both full Social Security Number (SSN) and name. If the match fails for
either data element, it is not validated. ED also said that common
clerical mistakes explain some of these ``no match results'' because
older loans were processed on paper, rather than electronically,
increasing the likelihood of clerical errors. Common errors such as a
transposed letter or number, missing hyphen in a name, or name change
from marriage can also result in no match. Please provide the specific
steps the Department currently takes, or plans to take, to contact
borrowers when there is a discrepancy in data matched but there is
otherwise a high degree of confidence in the borrower's identity, in
order to help additional borrowers receive TPD discharges.
Answer. The Department has engaged in proactive communication with
borrowers and stakeholders to help to minimize clerical errors to the
extent possible. The Department is unable to review matches that fail
because non-matches may not legally be retained under the provisions of
the Department's current Memoranda of Understanding with the VA and
SSA. The Department will reassess the retention and use of non-match
data in our future work with these agencies. In the meantime, it
continues to process TPD requests from individuals who were not
validated through the match processes, but who contact the Department
on their own. Please note as well that the VA and SSA TPD processes
differ; veterans matched through the VA process now receive a discharge
automatically unless they opt out, whereas borrowers who match through
the SSA process must still complete an application and are subject to a
3-year income monitoring process after discharge.
data on discharges under total and permanent disability
Question. Please provide the most recent data available on the
total number of borrowers discharged under total and permanent
disability (TPD). Within this update please include:
a. Number of SSA (SSI/SSDI) matched borrowers and total amount
discharged;
b. Number of Veterans Affairs matched borrowers and total amount
discharged;
c. Number of borrowers who matched either SSA or VA databases who
are subject to types of forced collections, disaggregated by
type (i.e. Tax Refund Offset, Treasury Offset Program,
Administrative Wage Garnishment, etc.), and including the
number of borrowers who are subject to multiple types of forced
collections;
d. Number of borrowers have had judgments entered against them
(including those entered prior to TPD eligibility). Of those
judgments, if any, the number of those still in effect;
e. The number of borrowers in each State who have received a match
notification and received a discharge, separately, for SSA TPD
borrowers;
f. The number of borrowers in each State who have received a match
notification and received a discharge, separately, for VA TPD
borrowers.
Answer. a. As of February 2020, approximately 589,000 borrowers
were identified through the SSA match process, which began in April
2016. Of those borrowers, more than 227,000 borrowers with loans
totaling $8.2 billion have been approved for discharges. Eligible
borrowers identified for discharge through an SSA match receive a
discharge and are then subject to a 3-year monitoring period. If a
borrower receives a new loan during the monitoring period or, during
that period, has annual earnings from employment greater than the
poverty guideline amount for a family of two, the discharged loans are
reinstated.
b. More than 25,000 eligible veterans with $800 million in loans
received discharges as a result of submitting an application after
having been identified through the data match, which began in April
2018. In addition, since the President's announcement on August 21,
2019, and as of March 31, 2020, approximately 37,000 veterans with $830
million in loans have been approved for automatic discharge and 1,600
veterans with $50 million in loans have opted out of the discharge.
c. Pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(CARES) Act, and as of March 13, 2020, no borrowers are currently
subject to Treasury Offset. Also pursuant to the CARES Act, the
Department has notified all employers to stop administrative wage
garnishments. The Department relies on borrowers' employers to stop
garnishing their wages, but it is proactively following up with
employers who continue to garnish wages and will continue to process
refunds to borrowers as appropriate.
d. As of March 2020, out of approximately 278,000 defaulted
borrowers identified by SSA or VA as eligible for discharge,
approximately 3,400 borrowers (1.2 percent) have a judgment entered
against them. Judgments on Federal student loans do not expire, as
there is no statute of limitations on Federal student loans. However,
it is possible that some judgments have been manually vacated by the
Department at the request of the borrower. The Department only vacates
judgments if the debt has been resolved or determined to be
unenforceable.
e. A file providing the requested data is attached. Please note
that the numbers provided represent borrowers identified in the
December 18, 2019 match with SSA.
f. A file providing the requested data is attached. Borrowers
identified as eligible for a discharge through the Department's match
with the VA now receive a discharge automatically unless they opt out.
Therefore, the attached file provides the number of borrowers by State
with a reported discharge code in National Student Loan Data System
(NSLDS) associated with a VA match.
fsa nextgen workforce, resource allocation, and plans for fiscal years
2020, 2021 and 2022
Question. Regarding the Department's Next Gen initiative to reform
student loan servicing and debt collection:
How is the Department's Office of Federal Student Aid assessing the
efficacy and roles of its current workforce and its needs as it plans
to grow?
Answer. FSA is taking a very deliberate approach to assessing and
optimizing its workforce. The approach to development is holistic, and
the term the office is using is ``21st century Federal Student Aid.''
FSA Workforce Development is focused on strategically hiring new
employees to fulfill specific competencies and capabilities, rather
than simply increasing overall workforce numbers. For example, FSA has
specifically sought and hired experts with diverse backgrounds, such as
financial analysts with Wall Street experience, former banking
executives with experience moving their operations from analog to
digital, loan servicing experts who understand complex contract pricing
techniques, and former CFPB personnel with experience protecting
students. They are complemented by professional writers to ensure FSA's
strategic communications keep taxpayers and other important
stakeholders informed about its critical work.
To optimize its workforce and better serve students, schools, and
taxpayers, on March 29, 2020, FSA implemented a reorganization. The
reorganization streamlined spans of control and clarified lines of
authority within FSA by reducing the Chief Operating Officer's direct
reports from 15 employees to 5. It also reorganized existing
capabilities and added new functions, such as the Next Gen Program
Office, to solve operational challenges and reduce pain points.
FSA has also initiated a human capital requirements study to define
and optimize work processes, calculate staffing needs, and identify
work drivers, which are quantifiable, auditable measures of input or
output. As of April 2020, FSA has already identified more than 300
processes and 130 drivers in its two largest mission areas. By fall
2020, FSA expects to generate baseline staffing requirements and driver
data for each of the 60 offices that perform its core functions.
Informed in part by the results of the human capital requirements
study, it is also performing a skill gap analysis to identify any
performance gaps and impacts, determine training needs, and make other
recommendations to optimize the workforce.
Question. When does the Department estimate that the Next Gen
initiative be fully operational?
Answer. It is important to remember that some elements of Next Gen
are already operational and available to borrowers. For example, FSA
has already rolled out a new consolidated website and 1-800-number, as
well as enhanced and personalized loan counseling and financial
literacy tools to help borrowers better understand their obligations
and the options available to help manage their debt. FSA also launched
a ``Make a Payment'' pilot to make it easier for borrowers to repay
their loans from a single site, and is piloting a digital assistant,
known as Aiden, that provides borrowers with personalized answers to a
wide range of questions about student aid.
Next Gen is transforming nearly every aspect of how FSA operates
and interacts with communities of students, parents, borrowers,
schools, and other stakeholders. Because of the scale of Next Gen,
several major components will launch in sequence moving forward. This
means there is no singular date on which Next Gen will be ``fully
operational.'' Instead, FSA views Next Gen as an evolving initiative,
where even when tools are launched, they are consistently improved and
iterated upon to meet the needs of its customers.
FSA published the latest series of Next Gen solicitations in
January 2019. The Enhanced Processing System (EPS) and Business Process
Operations (BPO) solicitations will transform the way that more than 35
million federally-managed student loan borrowers manage and repay their
loans. These acquisitions are proceeding as planned, and FSA expects to
make awards in fiscal year 2020. After award, FSA must work to bring
onboard the awardees, develop requirements with contractors and ensure
that they clear enhanced cybersecurity standards, and receive an
Authority to Operate. This process can take up to a year. After these
vendors are brought online, FSA plans to complete live loan conversion
of loan accounts from FSA's legacy servicers to the EPS system, to be
managed by BPO vendors, within 15 months. Once transfers of non-
defaulted accounts are complete, FSA will begin transferring defaulted
accounts. Planning is underway to develop a campaign that will ensure
borrowers are notified of their account status.
Additional projects included in the Next Gen initiative, such as
development and implementation of the Partner Performance and Oversight
(PPO) Portal, will proceed concurrent to FSA's conversion of federally-
managed and defaulted loan accounts. FSA estimates that conversions
will proceed through fiscal year 2023. However, this schedule may be
put at risk by protests and/or lawsuits from unsuccessful offerors,
insufficient appropriations, or other events outside of FSA's control.
Question. How many staff spend more than 50 percent of their time
on Next Gen projects?
Answer. The Next Gen Program Office, which is responsible for
executing the major components of Next Gen, currently has 42 full-time
employees. There are approximately 20 additional staff (not including
senior management) across the organization that spend more than 50
percent of their time on Next Gen projects. Additional support is
provided by contractors.
Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the fiscal year
2020, fiscal year 2021, and fiscal year 2022 budgets for Next Gen
projects.
Answer. Much of FSA's Next Gen budget is contingent on upcoming
contract awards. Additional awards will be made throughout fiscal years
2020 and 2021 that will obligate additional funds to Next Gen contract
awardees. Thus far, the following contracts have been awarded and are
obligated for fiscal year 2020:
--Digital and Customer Care: $91.7 million
--Partner Participation and Oversight: $4.7 million
--Enterprise Data Management and Analytics Platform Services
(EDMAPS): $9.8 million
The Department's budget for fiscal year 2021 is aligned with the
President's fiscal year 2021 request, which is currently being
considered by Congress. However, detailed budget breakdowns for fiscal
years 2021 and 2022 are dependent upon contract extensions and future
awards.
memorandum of understanding with consumer financial protection bureau
Question. On Tuesday, March 10, the Director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Kathleen Kraninger, testified to
the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that the
CFPB and Department now have an agreement to conduct monitoring of
student loan servicers and will be conducting a joint exam of a Federal
student loan servicer later this month. Please provide a copy of this
monitoring agreement, a copy of any associated memoranda or guidelines
regarding this monitoring, a detailed description of any plans to use
staff detailed from CFPB at the Department, and a detailed explanation
of how the Department plans to conduct oversight with CFPB for Federal
student loan servicers.
Answer. FSA is committed to increasing oversight and monitoring of
Federal student loan servicers to ensure borrowers receive superior
service. On February 3, 2020, the Department and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
better serve student loan borrowers. A copy of the MOU is provided
below. The MOU will allow the Department and the CFPB to share
complaint information from borrowers and meet on a regular basis. The
MOU also provides for the sharing of complaint data analysis,
recommendations, and analytical tools.
As mentioned previously by CFPB Director Kraninger, FSA and the
CFPB recently conducted their first joint supervisory and oversight
examination of one of FSA's loan servicers. CFPB supervisory exams are
generally considered confidential supervisory information; therefore,
the Department cannot discuss specific details of the first joint exam.
In general, FSA considered this first joint exam to be a pilot; it
therefore does not currently have any associated monitoring agreements
or memoranda other than the MOU mentioned above.
justification for refusal to allow servicers to provide data to cfpb
Question. On Tuesday, March 10, the Director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Kathleen Kraninger, testified to
the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that the
Department has refused to allow Federal student loan servicers to
provide information and data to the CFPB necessary for the CFPB's
examinations and other oversight. Please provide a full justification
for why the Department has refused to provide the CFPB with this
information in each instance such request has been denied.
Answer. The Department did not comply with previous requests from
the CFPB because it did not have an MOU in place with the CFPB when the
requests were made. The Department has approved two requests received
since reestablishing an MOU with the CFPB in February 2020 and is
working with the loan servicer in question to ensure they provide the
CFPB with the requested information.
top five institutions reporting written arrangements with ineligible
institutions
Question. Regulations currently require institutions to receive
accreditor approval and report to the Department any written
arrangements with an ineligible institution or organization between 25
and 50 percent of an institution's program. Please provide a list of
the top 5 institutions with a written arrangement with an ineligible
institution or organization between 25 and 50 percent of the
institution's program (those with the highest proportion of a program
getting outsourced), the name of the program, the name of the
accreditor, and any other information the Department has regarding the
arrangement.
Answer. Currently, the Department's regulations require
institutions to report written arrangements to their accreditor (not
the Department) when 25 percent or more of a program is provided by an
ineligible provider. Among other things, for Title IV purposes,
institutions must obtain accreditor approval when a written arrangement
allows an ineligible organization to deliver between 25 and less than
50 percent of the educational program.
Current regulations also do not require institutions to report to
the Department and/or update information regarding their written
arrangements with an ineligible institution or organization
(contractual agreements) that provides more than 25 percent, but less
than 50 percent, of an institution's educational program on a regular
basis. Therefore, the Department has only limited information about
institutions' contractual agreements with an ineligible institution or
organization between 25 and 50 percent of the institution's program.
However, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Distance Education and
Innovation published on April 2, 2020 proposes to require institutions
to report to the Secretary when establishing a written arrangements.
A list of the ``Top 5 institutions'' that reported contracting out
49 percent of an educational program is included with this response.
This is the maximum percentage of an eligible educational program that
may be contracted out for Title IV purposes. The enclosed file lists
the name of the program contracted out, the percentage of the program
contracted out, the name and location of ineligible institution or
organization that provides a portion of the educational program, and
corporate and ownership information as reported by the institution to
the Department. The file also includes the name(s) of the eligible
institution's accrediting agency currently identified in the
Department's records.
Because the Department's information is limited and may be out of
date, and because institutions are requested to report this information
for all educational programs that they contract out (including
educational programs that may not be eligible for Title IV purposes),
the Department cautions that inferences should not be drawn from the
data. General information about written arrangements with contractual
agreements may be found in Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the 2019-2020 Federal
Student Aid Handbook.
timeline for availability of cumulative loan debt data for plus loans
Question. The Department has indicated that program-level data on
cumulative loan debt with respect to parent PLUS and grad PLUS and
program-level loan repayment and default rates would be available by
the end of calendar year 2020. What is the expected date for the
Department to publish this data?
Answer. The Department looks forward to supplying program-level
data on cumulative loan debt with respect to parent PLUS and grad PLUS
and program-level loan repayment and default rates to students and
families to inform decisionmaking. The Department is pleased to report
it is still on track to have such information available by the end of
calendar year 2020.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
illinois institute of art and art institution of colorado discharges
and look back window
Question. On November 16, 2017, the Higher Learning Commission
(HLC) withdrew accreditation from the Illinois Institute of Art and Art
Institute of Colorado campuses of Dream Center Education Holdings
(DCEH)--transitioning them to ``candidates for accreditation''--
effective January 20, 2018.
The Department canceled loans for borrowers who used direct loans
to cover educational expenses at the Art Institute of Colorado or the
Illinois Institute of Art between Jan. 20, 2018 and before December
2018. Under what basis did the Department discharge such loans for
impacted borrowers? Please provide statutory and/or regulatory
citations sufficient to show the nature and extent of the authority
used by the Department in this case.
Answer. The Department is currently investigating the accrediting
agency's failure to follow the Department's regulations (including 34
C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 602.18(c), 602.25(a), 602.25(d), 602.25(e), and
602.25(f)) and the accreditor's own rules when approving the change of
control, which under the circumstances of this transaction would not
allow the agency to approve the transaction but then later suggest that
institutions had therefore immediately entered a non-accredited status
following the transaction without any of the procedural protections
required when accreditation is withdrawn or suspended. As a result,
credits earned during that time period are officially labeled as being
earned from an institution that was not accredited during that period
as per the accreditor's website (with the corresponding impact on
students' ability to successfully transfer those credits), and the
cancellation of the students' loans is a recognition of that reality.
Question. On February 7, the Department extended the closed school
discharge look back window for students attending these institutions to
January 20, 2018. Department noted that this decision would affect 790
students. How many of those students have applied for closed school
discharge? How many have received it? How has the Department made these
790 borrowers aware of their new eligibility for closed school
discharge?
Answer. As of May 28, 2020, approximately 200 borrowers have
applied for closed school discharge, and approximately 140 of those
borrowers have been granted a discharge. After extending the closed
school discharge window for these institutions, the Department
instructed all of its Federal student loan servicers to identify and
send a closed school discharge application to all borrowers who
potentially became eligible for a discharge as a result of the extended
window. Servicers were also instructed to reevaluate previously denied
applications based on the new withdrawal date.
appropriate look back period for closed school discharge and education
corporation of america schools
Question. The Department notified me and other Members of Congress
on February 13, that it had decided not to extend the closed school
discharge look-back period for students who attended schools owned by
Education Corporation of America (ECA). As the Department has
previously stated, ``during the months of March, April, and May 2018,
ACICS placed many locations of ECA on either campus-level show-cause or
campus-level compliance warning due to student achievement rates'' and
on ``May 8, 2018, ACICS placed ECA on show-cause due to adverse action
by another agency.'' Actions toward the removal of accreditation are a
clear example of exceptional circumstances as provided under 34 CFR
Sec. 685.214. Please provide a full explanation for why the Department
does not believe any of these events qualify as an exceptional
circumstance for the purposes of determining the appropriate look-back
period for closed school discharge in the ECA case.
Answer. Under 34 C.F.R. Sec. 685.214, the Secretary has the
authority, under exceptional circumstances, such as loss of
accreditation, State authorization of Title IV participation, to extend
the 120-day ``look back'' period. However, ECA remained accredited
during this period, so no exceptional circumstances existed.
look back period for vatterott students
Question. In that same February notification, the Department noted
that the Secretary had not yet made a decision on the request from me
and other Members of Congress to extend the look back period for
Vatterott students--which also met the exceptional circumstances bar in
the law. When can we expect that decision?
Answer. The Secretary has not yet made a determination to extend
the look-back period for Vatterott students.
borrower defense approvals without discharges
Question. Since June 2018, the Department has released borrower
defense data on a quarterly basis. Despite 843 applications being
approved since that time-according to the December 2019 report, the
reported total amount discharged has not changed. Please explain this.
Answer. On December 10, 2019, Secretary DeVos announced a revised
borrower defense relief methodology. Although 843 approval
notifications were subsequently sent to borrowers in December 2019, it
typically takes up to 120 days for the Department's loan servicers to
fully complete the discharge processing associated with an approved
application. This processing had not been completed by the time the
Department's Borrower Defense Quarterly Report for the quarter ending
December 31, 2019, was published on the FSA Data Center. The most
recent Borrower Defense Quarterly Report for the quarter ending March
31, 2020, provides an updated total amount discharged.
definitions in borrower defense reports
Question. Please explain the definitions of the terms ``total
denied'', ``total ineligible'', and ``total closed'' used in the
quarterly borrower defense reports.
Answer. The term ``total denied'' is no longer used in the
quarterly borrower defense reports. The term ``total ineligible'' is
used to refer to applications in which the borrower has been notified
that their claim does not meet the requirements for a borrower defense
to repayment discharge. The term ``total closed'' refers to
applications in which the borrower has been notified that their claim
has been closed as a result of the borrower receiving another benefit
that resulted in the loan being discharged, the borrower not responding
to a request for additional information, or at the request of the
borrower.
institutional breakout of denied borrower defense claims
Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total denied'' borrower
defense claims to date by institution.
Answer. Please see response to the previous question.
institutional breakout of inelligible borrower defense claims
Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total ineligible''
borrower defense claims to date by institution.
Answer. A file providing the requested data as of March 31, 2020 is
enclosed.
institutional breakout of closed borrower defense claims
Question. Please provide a breakdown of ``total closed'' borrower
defense claims to date by institution.
Answer. A file providing the requested data as of March 31, 2020 is
enclosed.
reasons for borrower defense claim denials, ineligibility
determinations, and closed claims
Question. For each--total denied, total ineligible, and total
closed--please provide the top 5 reasons, including the number and
corresponding percentage, for claims being placed in that category.
Answer. Per the Department's response to the question titled
``Definitions in Borrower Defense Reports'', ``total denied'' is no
longer used as a category in borrower defense reporting.
As of March 31, 2020, the top five reasons applications have been
deemed ineligible were as follows (numbers have been rounded to the
nearest 5):
--Failure to Meet Job Placement Rate Criteria and Failure to State a
Claim on Any Other Basis (15,015 applications or 39 percent);
--Lack of Evidence (13,555 applications or 35 percent);
--No Claim Stated (8,335 applications or 22 percent);
--Reason Not Reported (935 applications or 2 percent);
--Failure to State a Claim Actionable Under Borrower Defense
Regulations (795 applications or 2 percent).
As of March 31, 2020, the top five reasons applications have been
closed were as follows (numbers have been rounded to the nearest 5):
--No Loans (e.g., no Federal loans; loans paid in full; no loans at
the applicable school) (4,985 applications or 54 percent);
--No Response from Customer (1,425 applications or 15 percent);
--Borrower Received an Automatic Closed School Discharge (1,025
applications or 11 percent);
--Incomplete Application (525 applications or 6 percent);
--Borrower Received a Closed School Loan Discharge (385 applications
or 4 percent).
reasons for closure of borrower defense claims to date
Question. Please provide the top 5 reasons, including the number
and corresponding percentage, of that borrower defense claims have been
``closed'' by the Department to date.
Answer. Please see response to the previous question.
misconduct investigations due to borrower defense claims
Question. How many schools are being investigated for misconduct
due to borrower defense claims filed by their students?
Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberative,
preliminary, or ongoing investigative work, including disclosing a
number or list of institutions that may be subject to such work related
to borrower defense claims and/or findings, until the outcomes of any
investigations have been issued to the institutions or entities.
schools submitting information about litigation
Question. How many schools have submitted information to the
Department of Education about litigation against them? Which schools?
Answer. As of April 1, 2020, the Department has received arbitral
and judicial records responsive to 34 CFR 685.300(g) and (h) from six
institutions: Colgate University, DeVry University, Dorsey School of
Business, Inc., Florida Southwestern State College, Fortis College, and
SSS Education, Inc. (doing business as Jersey College). Additional
notices may have been received but are not yet logged in the tracking
system.
borrower defense right to respond submissions
Question. How many schools have submitted information to the
Department based on the school's right to respond to a pending borrower
defense application?
Answer. None. The Department has recently finalized the system
updates and processes for schools to securely transmit information and
documents in response to borrower defense applications and expects to
begin notifying schools shortly.
borrower defense and corrections for credit reporting agencies
Question. For how many borrowers whose borrower defense
applications have been approved has the Department or its agents made
corrected reports to credit reporting agencies?
Answer. As of March 31, 2020, the Department has approved 55,000
borrower defense applications. As part of the loan discharge process,
the Department has directed its default and non-default loan servicers
to submit corrected reports to credit reporting agencies within 60 days
of the discharge being applied on the borrower's account.
borrower defense findings against institutions since 2017
Question. Since January 20, 2017, how many--and which--institutions
of higher education has the Department made findings against for
purposes of borrower defense relief?
Answer. Until recently, the Department focused on adjudicating
applications covered by previously established findings at Corinthian
Colleges.
ongoing investigations of institutions related to borrower defense
Question. How many institutions is the Department currently
investigating for purposes of making findings related to borrower
defense?
Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberative,
preliminary, or ongoing investigative work, including disclosing a
number or list of institutions that may be subject to such work related
to borrower defense claims and/or findings, until the outcomes of any
investigations have been issued to the institutions or entities.
precipitous school closure and cost to taxpayers and amounts recouped
Question. Since the 2014 collapse and 2015 bankruptcy of Corinthian
Colleges, Inc., many for-profit colleges have followed suit--closing
their doors as part of a planned teach-out or shuttering precipitously.
In these cases, students are eligible for Federal closed school
discharges. Many are also eligible for Federal student loan discharges
through the Higher Education Act's borrower defense provision as a
result of their institution's fraud and misconduct. We cannot let
students be left holding the bag. At the same time, the Department's
enforcement failures, failures to hold accreditors accountable,
attempts to roll back the Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense
rules--including provisions allowing students to hold institutions
directly accountable in court for misconduct--mean that taxpayers are
ultimately on the hook.
Please provide the cumulative cost of approved closed school and
borrower defense discharges (including automatic closed school
discharges under the 2016 Borrower Defense rule) associated with for-
profit colleges since 2014.
Answer. As of March 2020, the cumulative cost of approved closed
school and borrower defense discharges associated with for-profit
institutions is more than $1.6 billion. This includes more than $535
million in borrower defense discharges and almost $1.1 billion in
closed school discharges, including automatic closed school discharges.
Question. Please provide the cumulative amount that the Department
has recouped from institutions for closed school discharge costs
associated with for-profit colleges since 2014.
Answer. The Department's recoupment of loan discharge liabilities
is a trailing process which follows the Department's quantification of
actual discharged loan amounts and assertion of liabilities. In
general, when an institution closes, it is required to submit a
``Close-Out Audit'' report to the Department. When FSA resolves a
close-out audit, it quantifies closed school loan discharges and
asserts liabilities in the final audit determination for the close-out
audit report. FSA may also pursue additional recovery of liabilities
arising after the close-out audit is resolved. In all cases, the
Department must provide institutions with appeal rights to challenge
asserted liabilities and the Department does not pursue collections
while an appeal is pending. In addition, the circumstances of some
school closures may require the Department to pursue recoveries through
protracted bankruptcy proceedings. To that end, the Department has
recouped $936,547 from institutions for closed discharge costs
associated with for-profit colleges since 2014.
Question. Please provide the cumulative amount that the Department
has recouped from institutions for automatic closed school discharge
costs associated with for-profit colleges under the 2016 Borrower
Defense rule.
Answer. The cumulative amount that the Department has recouped from
institutions for automatic closed school discharge costs associated
with for-profit colleges under the 2016 Borrower Defense rule is
$150,529.
Question. Please provide the cumulative amount that the Department
has recouped from institutions for borrower defense discharge costs
associated with for-profit colleges since 2014.
Answer. The Department has not recouped any costs associated with
borrower defense loan discharges from institutions. The Department has
only approved borrower defense applications associated with the conduct
of three institutions: Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (CCI), American Career
Institute (ACI), and ITT Educational Services, Inc. (ITT). The
Department was unable to recover the cost of discharges associated with
CCI and ACI, as those institutions closed with no assets available for
recoupment. The Department filed a proof of claim in connection with
ITT's bankruptcy proceedings. However, as of June 1, 2020, the
Department has not received any recovery from ITT.
data on pending borrower defense claims
Question. According to the December 2019 borrower defense report,
the Department is sitting on 217,452 pending borrower defense claims.
Please provide:
The average length of time the 217,451 claims have been pending;
Answer. The average length of time that these applications have
been pending is 665 days.
Question. The percentage of pending claims related to for-profit
institutions (including institutions that have been for-profit
institutions within the past 10 years), public institutions, and
private not-for-profit institutions respectively;
Answer. As of December 31, 2019, 75 percent of pending applications
were related to for-profit institutions, largely as a result of the
Department's active efforts to solicit borrower defense claims from
Corinthian students; 3 percent were related to public institutions; and
18 percent were related to private not-for-profit institutions. The
remaining applications include those without a school assigned, as well
as a small number of applications involving foreign institutions.
Question. A breakdown of the 217,452 pending claims by institution;
and
Answer. A file providing the requested data is enclosed. Please
note that institutions may appear on the list several times because the
data was pulled based on the institutions' 8-digit OPEID.
Question. A list of all group discharge applications the Department
has received from State attorneys general including the date submitted,
by whom, the school/programs, and the number of covered borrowers and
the status of each application.
Answer. The enclosed file provides a list of all attorneys general
submissions related to groups of borrowers for which the attorneys
general seek a borrower defense discharge as of March 31, 2020. The
table includes the submission date, the attorneys general, the school,
and the diploma program, if applicable. If a diploma program is not
provided for a submission, the submission was not limited to a specific
program.
Please note that under the Department's regulations, it is within
the Secretary's discretion to create a group discharge process and
define the parameters of the group. The Department cannot provide the
number of borrowers that will be included in a certain group unless and
until a group is established and defined by the Secretary. However,
individual applications submitted by attorneys general have been, and
will continue to be, considered under the individual application review
process.
Question. How many of the applications referenced in (d) are
pending? How many have been granted? How many have been denied? Please
provide a list of each.
Answer. Under the Department's regulations, it is within the
Secretary's discretion to create a group discharge process and define
the parameters of the group. The Secretary has not yet defined any
group(s) that will be adjudicated using a group discharge process.
As noted above, individual applications submitted by attorneys
general have been, and will continue to be, considered under the
individual application review process. However, the borrower defense
review platform does not currently track which individual applications
were submitted by attorneys general. Platform functionality and data
improvements that will provide this capability are being finalized.
Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020
how many borrowers covered by a group discharge application are in
default on their Federal student loans?
Answer. In January 2017, the Department granted group borrower
defense relief for Federal student loan borrowers who attended certain
American Career Institute campuses. These borrowers received a 100
percent discharge of their applicable Federal loans. Based on currently
available data, the Department does not know how many of those
borrowers were in default at the time of the loan discharge. The
Secretary has not yet defined any additional group(s) that will be
adjudicated using a group discharge process. Therefore, the Department
cannot identify any such borrowers in default on their Federal student
loans.
Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020
how many loans of the borrowers covered by a group discharge
application have been certified by the Department of Education for
Treasury offset?
Answer. In January 2017, the Department granted group borrower
defense relief for Federal student loan borrowers who attended certain
American Career Institute campuses. These borrowers received a 100
percent discharge of their applicable Federal loans and were not
subject to any collections activities after receiving the discharge.
Based on currently available data, the Department does not know how
many of those borrowers were in default at the time of the loan
discharge. The Secretary has not yet defined any additional group(s)
that will be adjudicated using a group discharge process. Therefore,
the Department cannot identify any such borrowers certified for
Treasury offset.
Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020
how many borrowers covered by a group discharge application have been
subject to an administrative wage garnishment order put in place by the
Department?
Answer. In January 2017, the Department granted group borrower
defense relief for Federal student loan borrowers who attended certain
American Career Institute campuses. These borrowers received a 100
percent discharge of their applicable Federal loans and were not
subject to any collections activities after receiving the discharge.
Based on currently available data, the Department does not know how
many of those borrowers were in default at the time of the loan
discharge. The Secretary has not yet defined any additional group(s)
that will be adjudicated using a group discharge process. Therefore,
the Department cannot identify any such borrowers subject to
administrative wage garnishment.
Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020
what are the total dollar amounts of Federal student loans (interest
and principal) covered by each group discharge application from a State
attorney general?
Answer. In January 2017, the Department granted group borrower
defense relief for Federal student loan borrowers who attended certain
American Career Institute campuses. These borrowers received a 100
percent discharge of their applicable Federal loans. The combined loan
discharges and refunds of amounts already paid by ACI borrowers totaled
roughly $30 million. The Secretary has not yet defined any additional
group(s) that will be adjudicated using a group discharge process.
Therefore, the Department cannot identify the requested dollar amount.
Question. For each of the years 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020
what are the total dollar amounts collected through the Treasury Offset
Program on defaulted student loans covered by each group discharge
application from a State attorney general?
Answer. In January 2017, the Department granted group borrower
defense relief for Federal student loan borrowers who attended certain
American Career Institute campuses. These borrowers received a 100
percent discharge of their applicable Federal loans and were not
subject to any collections activities after receiving the discharge.
The Secretary has not yet defined any additional group(s) that will be
adjudicated using a group discharge process. Therefore, the Department
cannot identify the requested dollar amount.
reconsideration requests under december 2019 partial relief policy
Question. The new partial relief policy announced in December 2019
states that it establishes a rebuttable presumption of the amount of
relief and that borrowers may request reconsideration.
How many borrowers have requested reconsideration?
Answer. The Department has received approximately 830 total
requests for reconsideration as of March 31, 2020. These requests are
from borrowers whose applications were approved for partial relief and
borrowers whose applications were determined ineligible for relief.
Question. How much staff time does the Department intend to devote
to considering these requests?
Answer. The Department intends to allocate as much staff time as is
necessary to ensure the requests are reviewed in a timely manner.
Question. What guidance has the Department prepared for borrowers
seeking reconsideration? For staff evaluating those requests?
Answer. On both ineligible and approval notifications sent to
borrowers since December 2019, the Department has informed borrowers
that they may request reconsideration by providing information
regarding what they believe was decided incorrectly on the original
application, an explanation as to why they believe the original
decision was incorrect, and any evidence that would support a different
decision. Those reconsiderations requests go into the current queue of
outstanding borrower defense applications to be addressed accordingly
by Department staff.
Question. For how many schools and has the Department developed a
relief chart like the ones published for Corinthian and ITT?
Answer. The Department has not yet developed relief charts for
schools other than Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and ITT Educational
Services, Inc., but it plans to do so in the near future.
program participation agreements, class action bans, and mandatory
arbitration
Question. 34 CFR 685.300 governs Program Participation Agreements--
the contracts between schools and the Department of Education.
685.300(e) prohibits schools from making or enforcing class action bans
and mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements.
In how many schools' Program Participation Agreements has the
Department included this prohibition?
Answer. Since July 21, 2019 and through April 2, 2020, the
Department has created and executed Program Participation Agreements
(PPAs) that have included specific language referencing class action
bans and pre-dispute arbitration agreements for 755 schools. As of
April 2, 2020, 728 of these schools were approved to participate in the
Direct Loan program, and 27 schools were not approved to participate in
the Direct Loan program. PPAs created before July 21, 2019, contained
overarching language indicating that schools were required to comply
with all Title IV, Higher Education Act and Direct Loan program
participation requirements, which would extend to the restrictions
relating to class action suits and pre-dispute arbitration agreements.
Question. In how many instances has the Department sought to
enforce this prohibition? What actions has it taken?
Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberative,
preliminary, or ongoing investigative work, including the enforcement
of the Title IV regulations. Generally speaking, through the
Department's program review authority, it will monitor compliance with
the requirements that schools end enforcement of any existing mandatory
pre-dispute arbitration clauses and class action restrictions in
enrollment agreements.
Question. Are you aware of any class actions that schools currently
participating in Title IV have forced into arbitration since this
prohibition took effect on July 1, 2017?
Answer. Of those notifications that have been processed by the
Department to date, no class action lawsuits related to borrower
defense have been forced into arbitration.
Question. In Kourembanas v. Intercoast Colleges, a class action in
the District of Maine, 17-cv-00331, the court granted Motion to Compel
on Feb. 28, 2019 (ECF No. 36). And, in Clayton et al. v. Grand Canyon
University, a class action in the Northern District of Georgia, 19-cv-
01707, the court granted Motion to Compel on Aug. 19, 2019 (ECF No.
24). What does the Department intend to do about this?
Answer. The Department does not comment on deliberative,
preliminary, or ongoing investigative work.
institutions with letters of credit or other surety
Question. Please provide a list of all institutions for which the
Department currently holds a letter of credit or other surety and the
amount of such letter of credit or other surety.
Answer. Enclosed are two files containing data on the Letters of
Credit (LOC) and other surety that the Department held as of February
5, 2020. As of February 5, 2020, the Department held 456 LOCs and other
surety from institutions, totaling approximately $675.3 million in
financial protection. The file contains institutional and other data
regarding the LOCs held by the Department as of February 5, 2020. The
second file provides the field definitions and descriptions of the
reasons why a LOC was requested from a listed institution. Please note
that this report differs from reports posted to FSA's Data Center
identifying LOCs requested by the Department during an Award Year
period. It is a ``snapshot'' of LOCs held by the Department as of
February 5, 2020, and it provides the most recent information recorded
in FSA's data sources regarding these LOCs. The report does not provide
historical context for the LOCs held as of February 5, 2020 in cases
where FSA may have required an institution to renew or amend a
previously provided LOC. In a limited number of cases, the report also
identifies and includes funds held on deposit by the Department in lieu
of a LOC.
institutions on heightened cash monitoring
Question. Please provide a list of all institutions that are
currently on Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM) 1 or Heightened Cash
Monitoring 2. Please provide copies of the audited financial statements
of all schools on HCM1 status related to financial responsibility and
the copies of the audited financial statements of all schools on HCM2
status.
Answer. Enclosed are two validated files containing the 447 Title
IV institutions that were operating under the Heightened Cash
Monitoring (HCM) method of payment and the Reimbursement payment method
as of March 2, 2020. Of these, 395 institutions were operating under
HCM1, 51 institutions were operating under HCM2, and one institution
was operating under the Reimbursement payment method. This disclosure,
as well as additional information about HCM, can be found at:
studentaid.gov/sa/about/data-center/school/hcm. Due to the significant
time and burden involved with the collection, review, and redaction of
any requisite information within the audited financial statements
covering the 317 institutions operating on HCM2 or on HCM1 due to
``financial responsibility,'' the Department respectfully requests that
the member's staff review the list and request of the Department the
remission of only those financial statements which may be of particular
interest.
reviews, investigations and audits related to incentive compensation
rules
Question. Regarding institutional compliance with the incentive
compensation rules in fiscal year 2017, fiscal year 2018, fiscal year
2019, and fiscal year 2020 (to date), please provide:
a. the number of program reviews, investigations, audits, or other
reviews that have examined institutional compliance with the
requirements of incentive compensation;
b. how many program reviews, investigations, audits, or other
reviews found noncompliance with the requirements of incentive
compensation; and
c. the actions the Department has taken to ensure that
institutions correct deficiencies in compliance with the
requirements of incentive compensation.
Answer. a. The Department has issued determinations for 39 program
reviews that were initiated during fiscal years 2017-2019 and fiscal
year 2020 through March 31, 2020 that examined institutional compliance
with incentive compensation requirements.
The Department received and finalized its review and audit
resolution process for more than 11,400 compliance audit reports whose
audit period included any portion of fiscal years 2017, 2018, 2019, or
2020 through March 31, 2020. The compliance audit reports were prepared
either in accordance with the OIG's Guide for Audits of Proprietary
Institutions and For Compliance Attestation Engagements of Third Party
Servicers Administering Title IV Programs, or in accordance with the
OMB Compliance Supplements (2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI--Compliance
Supplement) for audits reports prepared under the Single Audit Act. The
scope of these audits included audit objectives for an independent
auditor to determine whether the auditees did or did not comply with
the incentive compensation prohibitions.
Additionally, the Department conducted approximately 200 ``New
School Visits'' during fiscal years 2017-2019 and fiscal year 2020
through March 31, 2020 that reviewed incentive compensation
requirements. A New School Visit is a process focused on the start-up
issues and needs of schools that are new Title IV participants or that
might not have recent Title IV experience. A New School Visit is not a
program review, but rather a tool used to identify and eliminate any
weaknesses that, if left unaddressed, could result in improper use of
Federal funds and possible liabilities for the school. A standard
component of a New School Visit includes a discussion of incentive
compensation requirements, which may lead to the identification of a
compliance deficiency.
b. The Department has identified 10 instances of incentive
compensation noncompliance in the population of finalized program
reviews, investigations, and other reviews conducted in fiscal years
2017-2019 and fiscal year 2020 to date, and finalized compliance audit
resolutions whose audit period included any part of fiscal years 2017-
2019 and fiscal year 2020 through March 31, 2020.
c. The Department has issued fine actions totaling $3,186,002 for
three institutions in fiscal years 2017-2019 and fiscal year 2020
through March 31, 2020.
for-profit to not-for-profit conversions
Question. In recent years, several for-profit colleges have
attempted to convert to not-for-profit status in an effort to avoid the
stigma associated with the predatory for-profit college industry and to
avoid regulations meant to protect students and taxpayers. Dream Center
Education Holdings, which recently collapsed leaving thousands of
students stranded and whose conversion received preliminary Department
approval, is just one example. Please provide a list of all for-profit
conversions in the last 10 years including those pending (with current
status), previously approved, and denied or withdrawn.
Answer. A file providing the requested information is enclosed.
Within the last 10 years, the Department has received 74 applications
for a for-profit to nonprofit conversion. Of those 74 applications, the
Department has made final decisions on 39 conversion requests. Of the
39 final decisions made in the 10 year period, 26 final decisions were
made prior to January 1, 2017. Since January 1, 2017, 13 final
decisions were made. The Department made six decisions in calendar year
2011, three decisions in 2014, 17 decisions in 2015, three decisions in
2017, eight decisions in 2018, and two decisions in 2019.
Of the 39 final decisions, 37 were approved.* The Department denied
Argosy University's request for nonprofit recognition. The Department
also denied Grand Canyon University's (GCU's) request for nonprofit
recognition when it approved GCU's Change in Ownership application.
Additionally, 15 applications were closed due to a voluntary withdrawal
or school closure. There are 20 outstanding conversion requests.
* In August 2016, the four main locations operated by the Center
for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE) were originally denied their
conversion request. Following the receipt of additional information and
an updated valuation in October 2018, the Department determined that it
would be appropriate to grant those institutions conditional approval
to convert to nonprofit institutions and issued Provisional Program
Participation Agreements in December 2018. The Department's December
2018 determination of CEHE's nonprofit status--based on the new
information CEHE provided--also provided a basis to dismiss a
longstanding lawsuit filed against the Department, because that was the
relief sought in the lawsuit. To avoid duplication in the number of
decisions reported for the break-out time periods listed above, the
Department's decisions for the four main locations operated by CEHE are
included in the number of decisions that were made since January 1,
2017 and in the number of decisions that were made in 2018.
Additionally, one approved Change in Ownership transaction involving
Kaplan University and Purdue University resulted in Kaplan University's
conversion to public institution status (rather than to nonprofit
institution status).
enrollment, discharge data and debt collection status for borrowers at
recently closed schools
Question. Please provide, disaggregated for Corinthian Colleges,
Inc., ITT Educational Services, Inc., Charlotte School of Law,
Education Corporation of America, Vatterott Colleges, and Dream Center
Education Holdings, respectively:
a. the number of borrowers enrolled at the time of closure;
b. the number of borrowers and the total loan amount of such
borrowers for whom the Department estimates are eligible for
the applicable closed school discharge window (either 120 days
or as extended due to ``exceptional circumstances'');
c. the number of borrowers and the total loan amount of borrowers
who applied for a non-automatic, traditional closed school
discharge;
d. the number of borrowers and the total loan amount that has been
discharged through non-automatic, traditional closed school
discharge;
e. the number of borrowers and the total loan amount that has been
discharged through automatic closed school discharge; and
f. the number of borrowers and the total loan amount of such
borrowers in some form of debt collection (Treasury offset,
wage garnishment, assigned to PCAs).
Answer. Please find all data requested above in the attached table.
traditional closed school discharge applications since 2017
Question. How many individual applications has the Department
received for traditional (not automatic) closed school discharge on or
after January 20, 2017, disaggregated by State and by claim status
(i.e. received, pending, denied, and approved).
Answer. Please find the requested data in the attached table.
federal 90/10 data counting all federal taxpayer-funded assistance
programs
Question. On December 10, 2018, Chairman Takano, Senator Carper,
Representative Cohen, Ranking Member Murray, Chairwoman DeLauro,
Ranking Member Reed, Chairman Adam Smith, Senator Blumenthal,
Representative Susan Davis, and I wrote to you asking that you release
Federal 90/10 data which counts accurately as Federal revenue all
revenue received by for-profit colleges from Federal taxpayer-funded
educational assistance programs. This would include Department of
Veterans Affairs GI Bill and Department of Defense Tuition Assistance
funding. The Department released this data in December 2016. The
Department has still not provided this data. Please provide the data
requested in our December 2018 letter and the same data for the years
which have since elapsed.
Answer. As previously stated in its March 28, 2019 response to the
aforementioned letter, the Department determined that the data it used
in to calculate 90/10 ratios in the December 2016 report were highly
inaccurate. For example, the data used in the 2016 report failed to
accurately distinguish between VA benefits that went to the school to
cover the cost of tuition and fees, versus the portion that went to the
student to cover housing and living expenses. Therefore, the 2016
report overstated institutional revenue derived from Federal sources.
The Department will not furnish inaccurate and unreliable data,
like it did when producing the 2016 Report under the previous
administration.
open textbooks pilot implementation
Question. Over the last three fiscal years, this Subcommittee--with
the support of Chairman Blunt and Ranking Member Murray--has provided
$17 million to an Open Textbooks Pilot to expand the use of open
textbooks on college campuses to achieve savings for students. While
this program may be small, it has energized students and faculty across
the country who see open textbooks--free, high-quality alternatives to
costly traditional textbooks--as key to reducing student debt and
improving learning outcomes. Many students don't purchase required
course materials because they are too costly. It puts them at an
academic disadvantage and hits low-income, first-generation, and
students of color hardest. So, on a bipartisan basis, Congress created
this program. In fiscal year 2019, we included clear direction to the
Department to award funds through a new grant competition and to fund
at least 20 projects in order to engage additional institutions to help
keep the momentum going. The Department ignored Congress--funding just
two projects in fiscal year 2019 from the fiscal year 2018 slate of
applications. In Division A of the Joint Explanatory Statement to
Accompany the fiscal year 2020 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act
(Public Law 116-94), Congress provided clear directives to the
Department on implementation of the Pilot, including to use additional
funds to carry out a new grant competition.
Please provide a timeline by which the Department expects to:
--Publish a notice of proposed priorities for public comment;
--End public comment on the notice of proposed priorities;
--Respond to public comments;
--Publish a Notice Inviting Applications for new grants;
--End the application period of applications to be submitted; and
--Award new grants under the Pilot.
Answer. The Department published a Notice of Proposed Priorities
(NPP) for public comment on March 31 that can be found at https://
www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/31/2020-06350/proposed-
priorities-requirement-and-definitions-fund-for-the-improvement-of-
postsecondary. The public comment period for the NPP ends on April 30,
and the Department anticipates responding to public comments in a
Notice of Final Priorities that it plans to publish before the end of
June, at the same time as the Notice Inviting Applications. Current
plans call for a 60-day application period, with new awards tentatively
scheduled for November.
Question. Will the Department's notice of proposed priorities for
public comment follow Congress' directives in the fiscal year 2020
Joint Explanatory Statement?
Answer. The Department believes the NPP generally reflects the
guidance provided in the fiscal year 2020 Joint Explanatory Statement
on the Open Textbooks Pilot, but it is seeking further input on some
provisions through the NPP. For example, the NPP requests public
comment as to what award size would best permit an average recipient to
accomplish the purposes for which the funds were appropriated.
Furthermore, the Department is seeking feedback regarding matching
contributions and expanded definitions of both ``high-enrollment'' and
``open textbook'' in order to better administer and accomplish the
goals of the program.
high rate of denials under public service loan forgiveness
Question. Last year, when you came before us, I asked you about the
high percentage of denials under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness
program-a program you, again, propose eliminating. In March last year,
the Department reported 864 approvals and 75,138 denials--a 99 percent
disapproval rate. The most up to date information we have as you sit
here before us today shows 2,246 approvals and 149,091 denials--still a
99 percent disapproval rate. It seems like not much has changed.
What have you been doing? What steps have you taken in the past
year to improve the administration of this program for public servants-
like teachers, firefighters, nurses and others?
Answer. Although it is true that 99 percent of applicants for PSLF
do not receive it (``are denied''), this is because they are not
eligible for PSLF, not because the Department is denying applications
for borrowers who are eligible for forgiveness. Indeed, FSA's data
indicate that of Direct Loan borrowers who applied for PSLF, more than
80 percent of them had not entered repayment (had their grace period
expire) on any of their Direct Loans more than 10 years prior to
applying for forgiveness. This means they have failed one of the basic
qualification tests for the program and are not eligible yet.
FSA's intent is to provide a customer-first approach to the
administration of all the programs it offers, including PSLF. Its
transformative initiative, Next Gen FSA, has been designed to
accomplish that intent. The recent launch of the enhanced
StudentAid.gov site, which integrated four consumer websites into one,
created a digital ``front door'' for students, parents, and borrowers
to access FSA's information and services. Additional tools recently
released as part of this initiative are further reducing complexity and
confusion for borrowers by making it easier for them to find
information about their loans and repayment options, including
information about pursuing PSLF. For example, the Aid Summary dashboard
feature on StudentAid.gov now provides borrowers who have filed an
Employment Certification Form (ECF) with a count of their PSLF
qualifying monthly payments made to date.
Although ongoing Next Gen FSA improvements will continue to make it
easier for borrowers to pursue loan forgiveness, FSA has not waited on
its full implementation before providing significant enhancements to
customers. In December 2018, FSA launched a PSLF Help Tool to help
borrowers better understand the PSLF Program and how they can
participate. Later in 2020, FSA will be working to make significant
enhancements to the Help Tool, including adding a database of
qualifying PSLF employers and functionality that will permit borrowers
to complete PSLF-related actions electronically, including
electronically signing and submitting a new combined ECF form and PSLF/
TEPSLF application, discussed in more detail below.
Using appropriated outreach funds, the Department has also
continued its efforts to better educate borrowers about the programs'
complex statutory requirements. In September 2019, the Department
posted a new blog post on its Homeroom blog providing tips for success
for PSLF applicants, including new infographics to help borrowers
understand the program's requirements. In October 2019, the Department
launched a focused digital outreach campaign that leveraged custom
audience targeting on social media. The advertisements direct borrowers
to the Department's recent blog post about PSLF or the PSLF Help Tool.
The campaign included key word targeting to ensure that Department
advertisements or other content about PSLF appear first in Google
search results. Ads were also targeted to people who have previously
visited the Department's web content about PSLF and people working in
public service and for non-profits.
FSA is also currently working to integrate the TEPSLF request into
the PSLF application, thereby eliminating the need for borrowers to
complete the PSLF application and submit a separate email for
consideration for TEPSLF. The same revised form will also be used by
borrowers to certify their employment. FSA announced its intent to
consolidate the forms in a Federal Register notice published January
30, 2020. After other required comment and review periods, FSA
anticipates that the revised form will be available to borrowers by the
end of calendar year 2020.
Finally, to better support borrowers pursuing PSLF, the Department
is revising the policy by which it determines whether a monthly payment
qualifies for PSLF purposes. Under the new policy, a borrower will
receive credit for 1 months' qualifying payment towards PSLF,
regardless of when or by whom the payment was made, so long as the
payment due was made in full, no later than 15 days after the payment
due date, and meets all other requirements for a PSLF qualifying
payment. Under this revised policy, advance or ``lump sum'' payments
may be qualifying monthly payments (up to a maximum of 12 qualifying
payments) for PSLF. The Department anticipates implementing this change
with its PSLF servicer later in 2020.
Question. Has the Department complied with the requirements in
Division A of the Join Explanatory Statement regarding H.R. 1865?
Please provide the briefing materials shared with the Committees to
date.
Answer. The Department's Office of Legislation and Congressional
Affairs is working to schedule the requested briefing as soon as
schedules allow.
data on department expected family contribution verification selection
and outcomes
Question. Students' Federal financial aid for higher education is
dependent on their expected family contribution. For many students from
low-income families, their expected family contribution qualifies them
for Federal assistance in the form of a Pell Grant. To confirm accurate
family contributions, some financial aid applications are flagged for
additional verification. Past data from the Department shows that over
half of Pell-eligible applicants were selected for verification in
2015-2016. It is estimated that more than 1 in 5 low-income students
selected for verification never complete the process, thus never end up
receiving Federal financial aid. Students who receive Pell grants have
much higher college retention rates than their peers who are Pell
eligible but do not receive the aid. This data implies it is possible
that the verification process is disproportionately harming the
educational success of low-income students, which is the opposite
intention of the Pell Grant program. The 2017/2018 Award Year ushered
in a new verification model. The Quality Assurance Program ended, which
had given institutions of higher education discretion on application
verification, leaving the Department to select which students needed to
be verified. The risk-model developed by the Department to identify
which FASFA applications needed verification led to a drastically
higher percentage of applications flagged. In fact, some schools
reported that nearly 50 percent of Pell eligible students were selected
for verification multiple times over their course of study even though
their financial information hadn't changed.
Please provide the metrics by which the Department selects which
applications are to be verified.
Answer. Prior to 2018, FSA employed a Classification and Regression
Tree (CART) model to choose FAFSA filers for verification. The CART
model used combinations of Targeted Selection Criteria to choose FAFSA
filers for verification. In September 2017, FSA funded the creation of
an advanced python-coded machine learning model (MLM) to improve FSA's
verification selection model by better identifying applicants for whom
an error on the FAFSA was more likely to impact their Expected Family
Contribution (EFC) and, ultimately, their Federal aid award. FSA has
used this model since October 1, 2018. The MLM model updates the
criteria used for selection of FAFSA filers for verification to a
gradient boosting classification and regression model. The metrics the
model employs to choose FAFSA filers for verification include data from
the FAFSA, as well as select census and demographic data, in several
complex algorithms.
Question. What percentage of students chosen for verification, did
not complete, and failed their verification during the last award year
under model?
Answer. For the 2019-2020 cycle, which is the first cycle where the
new selection model was deployed, the percentage of applicants who
received some type of aid is higher for the group selected for
verification (67.9 percent) than for those not selected for
verification (57.4 percent). Please note, the 2019-2020 cycle remains
an open cycle, and applications will continue to be accepted through
June 30, 2020. Additionally, since applicants use the 2019-2020 cycle
when applying for summer 2020 aid, some of these applicants may not
have had a chance to complete verification, and those who only applied
for summer aid will not yet have had a corresponding disbursement of
aid. Therefore, these numbers will continue to change slightly through
the end of the cycle. The below data is through March 25, 2020.
TABLE 1: 2019-2020 CYCLE FINANCIAL VERIFICATION: V1 AND V5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification Selection Status Percent Aided
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not Selected for Verification........................... 57.4%
Selected for Verification............................... 67.9%
Total............................................... 59.8%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2: 2019-2020 CYCLE IDENTITY VERIFICATION: V4 AND V5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response Code AY2020 AY2019 AY2018 AY2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Verification completed in person, no issues 113,699 118,437 123,735 130,499
found..........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
2-Verification completed using notary, no issues 54,645 51,085 47,980 40,946
found..........................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
3-Verification attempted, issues found with 14,565 13,486 13,747 13,768
identity.......................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
4-Verification attempted, issues found with HS 2,053 2,028 2,079 3,673
completion.....................................
---------------------------------------------------------------
5-No response from applicant or unable to locate 114,435 112,597 126,057 122,516
---------------------------------------------------------------
6-Verification attempted, issues found with both 2,191 2,104 2,165 N/A
identity and HS completion.....................
---------------------------------------------------------------
No Response..................................... 161,496 140,678 159,690 182,745
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
number of veterans awarded and loan amounts discharged under total
permanent disability
Question. Now that the Department is finally implementing a process
to automatically discharge student loans for veterans who are totally
and permanently disabled, could you please provide an update on the
number of veterans identified through the matching process and the
number and amount of loans discharged to date?
Answer. More than 25,000 eligible veterans with $800 million in
loans received discharges as a result of submitting an application
after having been identified through the data match, which began in
April 2018. In addition, since the President's announcement on August
21, 2019, and as of March 31, 2020, approximately 37,000 veterans with
$830 million in loans have been approved for automatic discharge and
1,600 veterans with $50 million in loans have opted out of the
discharge.
plans to extend total and permanent disability automatic discharges
Question. How could the process that is being implemented for
veterans be applied to student loan borrowers identified as totally and
permanently disabled by the Social Security Administration? What are
the plans to extend automatic discharges to this population of
borrowers?
Answer. The Department conducted the proper due diligence to assess
the feasibility of extending the automatic discharge policy to disabled
civilian borrowers who are identified through the Department's data
match with the Social Security Administration (SSA). It determined that
extending the policy to these individuals would require the Department
to conduct negotiated rulemaking to change the applicable regulations,
as they currently require an eligible borrower to submit an application
to receive a discharge.
Extending the automatic discharge policy to disabled civilian
borrowers also raises potential operational issues. For example, unlike
VA-matched borrowers, SSA-matched borrowers must annually provide
documentation of employment earnings, or lack thereof, for 3 years
after their loans are discharged and are subject to having their
discharged loans reinstated if they do not comply with this
requirement. Therefore, it is particularly important for these
individuals to fully understand the consequences of receiving a total
and permanent disability discharge and their failing to comply with
their income verification responsibility. For these reasons, the
Department has determined that it is not appropriate, at this time, to
automatically discharge loans for this population of borrowers.
With the December 2019 enactment of the Fostering Undergraduate
Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act (FUTURE Act), the
Department is assessing how the newly amended section 6103 of the
Internal Revenue Code could potentially facilitate automatic discharges
for SSA-matched borrowers by streamlining the post-discharge income
monitoring requirement. It plans to reassess our decision concerning
automatic discharges after we have implemented the FUTURE Act.
school libraries, literacy and lack of current institute for education
sciences data
Question. Data collection on school libraries at the Institute for
Education Sciences is out of date. With numerous studies showing that
high quality school library programs are correlated with higher student
achievement and with access to these programs being an educational
equity issue, what are the Department's plans to update the data
collection on these vital resources?
Answer. The Department's current mechanism for collecting
information on school libraries is the National Teacher and Principal
Survey, which provides information on the number of schools with media
centers and the number of librarians and library media specialists. The
survey for school year 2015-2016 is available at the following link:
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/ntps1516_20180119002_
s1n.asp. The survey for school year 2017-2018 will be made available as
soon as the National Center for Education Statistics completes its
review of the data.
evidence to support inclusion of literacy fundsiin proposed block grant
Question. Your budget proposes to include the Innovative Approaches
to Literacy program and the Comprehensive Literacy Development grants
into your proposed block grant. These programs were just formally
authorized in the Every Student Succeeds Act and are the only programs
with a primary focus on literacy. Given your testimony decrying the
most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress reading scores,
what evidence does the Department have to support a block grant
strategy for improving reading achievement?
Answer. Under the Elementary and Secondary Education for the
Disadvantaged (ESED) Block Grant proposal, States can choose to target
funds on any priority they choose, including literacy. Given recent
NAEP scores, States may choose to focus significant portions of their
funding on evidence-based reading interventions. The Department
believes that NAEP data provide compelling evidence that the current
approach that many States and local districts are using to provide
reading instruction is not working. The Block Grant provides States and
districts flexible resources to implement evidence-based strategies
based on local needs. Under the ESED Block Grant, States would still be
required to submit accountability plans that would set Statewide
performance goals and targets, including performance goals and targets
in reading, and would be required to report their progress against
these goals and targets.
enforcement of cash management regulations
Question. Last year, in response to a question for the record, you
wrote that beginning October 1, 2019, the Department would begin
evaluating institutions of higher education compliance with due
diligence requirements as of October 1, 2019. Has the Department
identified any current institution's cash management agreements as
deficient in meeting the standard of the ``best financial interests of
students?'' If so, please provide a list of deficient agreements and
rationale for their deficient identification. What actions has the
Department taken to ensure that institutions correct any deficiencies?
Answer. As noted in last year's response, testing in this area was
not performed earlier due to the relationship between the due diligence
requirement and the disclosure of mean/median fees requirement, which
requires the institution to calculate and disclose the mean and median
costs of contracts with financial services companies. The disclosure of
mean/median fees requirement became effective September 1, 2017.
Institutions are expected to rely on this information to conduct
adequate due diligence reviews, which are required every 2 years. Thus,
the Department determined that October 1, 2019, the start of the first
review cycle that follows a full two-year period after September 1,
2017, would be the most appropriate time to begin incorporating
institutional compliance with the due diligence review requirement as
part of program reviews. This guidance was incorporated into the
program review procedures in April 2020. As to any specific agreements
or actions taken, please know that it is Department policy to not
comment on any deliberative, preliminary, or ongoing investigative work
to enforce the Title IV regulations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
fsa nextgen contracting and subcontracting and inclusion of state-based
and nonprofit servicers
Question. The implementation of Federal Student Aid (FSA)'s Next
Generation Financial Services Environment (NextGen) initiative must
ensure strong service for student loan borrowers. It is important that
the Department's contracting and subcontracting requirements do not
have the unintended consequence of preventing State-based and nonprofit
loan services with years of experience in student loan servicing from
continuing to contribute their expertise.
Do the current loan servicing contracts assess small business
participation in terms of a percentage of subcontracted dollars, or as
a percentage of total contract dollars?
Answer. The current loan servicing contracts assess small business
participation in terms of both subcontracted dollars and total contract
dollars.
Question. What is the current percentage requirement of
subcontracted dollars that each current loan servicing contractor must
allocate to small businesses?
Answer. The following figures represent the percentage requirement
of subcontracted dollars that current loan servicers must allocate to
small businesses:
--Small Business--31%
--Small Disadvantaged Business--5%
--Woman-Owned Small Business- 5%
--Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business--3%
--HUBZone Small Business--3%
--Veteran-Owned Small business--1%
Question. In NextGen, will contractors awarded a Business Process
Operations (BPO) contract be assessed for small business and HUBZone
participation as a percentage of total contract dollars or as a
percentage of subcontracted dollars?
Answer. Goals were required to be provided based both on total
dollars subcontracted and total contract value, which is permitted by
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subcontracting Clause. The
determination to negotiate goals as a percentage of total contract
dollars or as a percentage of subcontracted dollars will be determined
by FSA Acquisitions at award, in coordination with the Small Business
Administration.
Question. In NextGen, what is the percentage that will be required
for each BPO contractor to allocate to small businesses and to
HUBZones?
Answer. Next Gen's Business Process Operations (BPO) solicitation
requires the following goals to be submitted with a proposal based on a
percentage of total contract dollars and a percentage of subcontracted
dollars:
--Small Business--47%
--Woman-Owned--5%
--Small Disadvantaged Business--5%
--Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business--3%
--HUBZone--19 percent (Year 1), 25 percent (Year 2), 30 percent (Year
3)
Question. What is FSA's plan to include State-based and non-profit
entities in the subcontracting process for the BPO component of
NextGen?
Answer. Inclusion of State-based and non-profit entities is
dependent upon the offers submitted by prime contractors; Federal law
does not allow the Department to include such a requirement. State-
based and non-profit entities seeking to participate in BPO contracts
should reach out to the individual prime contractors' Small Business
Liaison Officers for assistance in obtaining a contract.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
justification for proposed elimination of public service loan
forgiveness
Question. In an era where student loan debt is crippling a
generation, you recommend, for a fourth time, to end the Public Student
Loan Forgiveness program. We, Congress, have rejected your
recommendations. Can you explain to me why you eliminate a program that
encourages students to pursue noble career paths that are intrinsically
necessary to our communities and our democracy and at the same time
provides them with much needed student debt relief after 10 years?
Answer. The Department proposes to sunset the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program because it does not believe it is the proper role
of the Department of Education, let alone the Federal Government, to
incentivize one type of work over another. The Department also has
concerns that this program, which is quite costly, is not well
targeted. As currently structured, it disproportionately benefits
borrowers with graduate degrees, who have higher earning power.
Further, this program provides incentives to over-borrow and be less
price-sensitive to the individual student's return on higher education.
To address student debt relief where it is needed the most--
undergraduate borrowers struggling to repay--the Department proposes a
single income-driven repayment (Single IDR) plan with affordable
monthly payments and expedited forgiveness for undergraduate borrowers
after 15 years of repayment. To further improve and simplify loan
repayment, the Department also proposes auto-enrolling severely
delinquent borrowers into the Single IDR plan.
Lastly, the issue of student debt is one that the Department and
this Administration take very seriously. The Department has started to
tackle this issue administratively by providing more data for students
and families to make more informed choices. It also included proposals
in its budget request to cap borrowing for parents and graduate
students and give greater flexibility to schools to limit unnecessary
borrowing. The Department acknowledges there is more to do in this area
and looks forward to working with Congress on ways to further control
college costs and student debt.
education freedom scholarships and tax treatment of donations
Question. Your Education Freedom Scholarship is a private school
voucher program. For every dollar a donor gives to an organization set
up to issue vouchers, that donor receives a dollar back from the
government. So it essentially costs them nothing.
Why do you think it's appropriate that donors are fully reimbursed
for their donation with a dollar-for-dollar credit?
Answer. The administration's Education Freedom Scholarship proposal
would establish a Federal tax credit for voluntary donations to State-
designed scholarship programs for elementary and secondary students. By
encouraging voluntary donations for scholarships, which could be
available for public- school or private-school options as determined by
States, the proposal would expand the opportunities for families to
find an educational setting that best suits their students' needs.
Individuals or domestic businesses that make such voluntary donations
would be eligible to receive a non-refundable, dollar-for-dollar
Federal tax credit. No contributor will be allowed a total tax benefit
greater than the amount of their contribution.
Question. Why should donations for private school vouchers be
treated differently than donations to other arguably worthy causes?
Answer. The administration's Education Freedom Scholarship proposal
would empower families to choose the best educational setting for their
children--regardless of where they live, how much they make, and how
they learn. By establishing a tax credit, this proposal would improve
educational experiences and increase options available to students
though privately funded scholarships without taking a single dollar
away from public schools, their teachers or the students who attend
them.
civil rights protections and education freedom scholarships
Question. As currently drafted, the Education Freedom Scholarship
program contains no guardrails that would bar the participation of
private schools that discriminate against students or employees based
on sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.
Would you support such guardrails as conditions of eligibility?
Answer. All children deserve access to a high-quality education
that meets their needs and an opportunity to learn free from
discrimination. The administration's Education Freedom Scholarship
proposal would empower families to choose the best educational setting
for their children--regardless of where they live, how much they make,
and how they learn. The proposal gives students and families the
freedom to decide what's best for them. No family is forced to accept a
scholarship, no taxpayer is forced to contribute, no organization is
forced to participate, and no State is forced to participate. This tax
credit would help extend education choice to the greatest number of
families possible while respecting Federalism.
States, not the Federal Government, will determine which education
providers can receive scholarships under the Education Freedom
Scholarship proposal. States may include private schools in their local
programs, but they are not obliged to do so. The Department will
continue to enforce all existing civil rights laws for all private and
public schools. If the Education Freedom Scholarship program is
enacted, the Department will not--and cannot--waive any existing civil
rights laws.
extending idea protections to students under education freedom
scholarships
Question. Private schools are not required to comply with the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. They may deny students
admission on the basis of eligibility. Even if they do offer admission,
they are not required to implement the student's individualized
education program (IEP) or section 504 plan.
Would you enforce regulations that condition private school
eligibility for tax credit-funded vouchers on the requirement that
those schools admit and accommodate students with disabilities,
according to IDEA?
Answer. The administration's Education Freedom Scholarship (EFS)
proposal can empower children with disabilities and their families to
access individualized learning opportunities, while relieving some of
the financial pressure many families experience in obtaining additional
educational support. Under EFS, States may choose to focus their
programs on complementing and expanding public school students' access
to special education programs and services, individualized supports,
services, instruction, interventions, and therapies. Private school
settings also are one of a variety of educational options that States
designing scholarship programs could include as an eligible education
provider.
Should a State include private school settings as an eligible
education provider, families of students with disabilities could then
voluntarily choose to use their scholarships to access a private school
education program. IDEA requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to
ensure the equitable participation of children with disabilities
enrolled by their parents in private schools. However, under IDEA,
these students (often referred to as parentally-placed students) do not
have an individual entitlement to services they would receive if
enrolled in a public school. Instead, the LEA is required to expend a
proportionate amount of IDEA Federal funds to provide services to
qualified children with disabilities. Changing IDEA is a matter for
Congress, and the administration remains happy to work with you should
Congress take up IDEA reauthorization.
private religious schools, title ix, and discrimination on basis of
religion
Question. Private religious schools may discriminate on the basis
of religion. Where they are under the control of a religious
organization, they may also not be subject to the sex discrimination
prohibitions of Title IX.
Do you believe that private schools that discriminate on the basis
of religion and sex should be eligible to participate in a federally
subsidized program? Would you support participation of schools that
accept only boys?
Answer. It is important to recognize, in considering both of these
questions, that States, not the Federal Government, will determine
which education providers can receive scholarships under the Education
Freedom Scholarship proposal. States may include private schools in
their local programs, but they are not obliged to do so. The Department
will continue to enforce all existing civil rights laws for all private
and public schools. If the Education Freedom Scholarship program is
enacted, the Department will not--and cannot--waive any existing civil
rights laws.
tax credit voucher models and discrimination against lgbtq students
Question. Private schools, like those recently in the news in
Florida, are funded in part by the State's tax credit voucher scheme--
like what you propose at the Federal level. Those private schools are
not upheld to the same transparency, accountability or anti-
discrimination protections of public schools. Therefore, they are free
to exclude, reject, or otherwise discriminate against students using
funds that provided a Federal tax incentive--financial benefit--to
taxpayers. As a result, schools receiving vouchers through a tuition
tax credit voucher scheme are openly discriminating against LGBTQ
students.
Are you promoting Federal policy that allows discrimination against
LGBTQ students? Students with LGBTQ parents?
Answer. States, not the Federal Government, will determine which
education providers can receive scholarships under the Education
Freedom Scholarship proposal. States may include private schools in
their local programs, but they are not obliged to do so. The Department
will continue to enforce all existing civil rights laws for all private
and public schools. If the Education Freedom Scholarship proposal is
enacted, the Department will not--and cannot--waive any existing civil
rights laws.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
title iv-a usage data
Question. Following up on a question proposed in the hearing,
please provide any information the Department has collected regarding
how school districts are utilizing the funds they receive under the
Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grant program under Title IV-A
of the Every Student Succeeds Act. If no such data collection has yet
occurred, please provide information about the Department's plans to do
so, including any timeline. If the Department does not intend to
collect such data, please provide a rationale for that decision.
Answer. The Department released findings from a ``first-look''
study on local use of Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants
funds in February; see https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/esea/title-iv-
first-look-2020.pdf. More information on the Department's efforts to
collect data on the use of program funds, including through the
Consolidated State Performance Reports and a formal program
implementation study, is available on pp. D-68-69 of the Department's
fiscal year 2021 Congressional budget justifications. The budget
justification also includes a summary of key findings from the ``first-
look'' study.
public posting of approved institution plans for federal work study
flexibility pilot
Question. While the Department has posted the names of the 190
institutions approved for this new Experimental Sites Initiative (ESI)
on February 19, it has not posted the applications submitted by those
institutions. When does the Department plan to publicly post the
applications of approved institutions?
Answer. The Department does not plan to publish the letters of
interest by institutions that were approved to participate in the
Federal Work Study (FWS) Experiment under the Experimental Sites
Initiative. In the May 23, 2019, Federal Register notice announcing the
FWS experiment, institutions were asked to submit letters of interest,
not formal applications, and were not informed that their letters of
interest would be published. The Department does not typically publish
applications or letters of interests for experiments under the
Experimental Sites Initiative.
data on institution applications for federal work study pilot
Question. Institutions were required in their applications to
describe the types of private-sector job opportunities, work-and-learn
programs, or required externships or student teaching experiences that
will be targeted by the institution as a result of the experiment. For
the 190 institutions approved, please provide data on which
institutions indicated in their application that they intend to use at
least part of their FWS allocation for:
--private-sector jobs (please provide a complete list of the types of
jobs in addition to the corresponding institution);
--work-and-learn programs (please provide a complete list of the
types of programs in addition to the corresponding
institution);
--externships (please provide a complete list of types of externships
in addition to the corresponding institution); or
--student teaching (please provide a complete list of types of
student teaching in addition to the corresponding institution).
Answer. The May 23, 2019 Federal Register notice announcing the FWS
experiment requested, but did not require, that institutions submit
information about its intent to offer jobs related to these categories.
Additionally, the notice did not provide instructions for how to define
the terms ``private-sector jobs,'' ``work-and-learn programs,''
``externships,'' or ``student teaching.'' Therefore, the Department
cannot state with certainty whether the information included in the
letters of interest accounts for all job offerings intended by
institutions approved for participation in the experiment.
With those caveats in mind, the Department analyzed the information
in the letters of interest in order to respond to this request. It
estimates that:
--Approximately 85 percent of applications include an apparent
reference to an outside employer, but at this time the
Department has no way of knowing the tax status of those
employers based on the information provided;
--Approximately 40 percent of applications include a reference to
teacher training of some kind; and
--Approximately 15 percent of the applications include a reference to
``externship,'' ``internship,'' and/or ``apprenticeship.''
Because the experiment is generally focused on ``work-and-learn''
programs, the Department determined that all of the letters of interest
for institutions approved to participate included at least one
reference to a ``work-and-learn'' job or program, broadly defined. The
Department plans to collect information regarding the types of programs
and employers that institutions partner with as part of its evaluation
of the experiment.
number of federal work study pilot participants partnering with for-
profit organizations
Question. Of the 190 institutions that are approved to participate,
how many indicated in their applications that they intend to partner
with for-profit organizations to provide employment?
Answer. Please see the response to the previous question. Note
that, though the letters of interest often referred to arrangements
with employers other than the institution itself, the Department is
unable to determine with any certainty whether the letters of interest
referred to for-profit employers or non-profit employers. Many letters
included only the name of the employer, and the Department does not
have the resources to research each of these organizations to determine
its tax status. Additionally, because the May 23, 2019, Federal
Register notice announcing the FWS experiment did not require
institutions to list every employer they planned to work with, the
letters may not indicate all employers that the institutions intend to
partner with. As noted above, the Department plans to collect
information regarding the types of programs and employers that
institutions partner with as part of its evaluation of the experiment,
including each employer's tax status.
community service job allocation and federal work study pilot
Question. An institution that participates in the Federal Work-
Study (FWS) Program is required to expend at least 7 percent of its FWS
Federal allocation to pay the Federal share of wages to students
employed in community service jobs. This provision has been waived
under this ESI. Of the 190 institutions approved, how many indicated in
their applications that they will expend less than 7 percent of its FWS
allocation to support community service? If this information is not
included in the application, will you provide the Committee with the
number of institutions that expend less than 7 percent of its FWS
allocation within 6 months?
Answer. In the May 23, 2019, Federal Register notice announcing the
FWS experiment, the Department did not request or require that
institutions express in their letters of interest whether they would
waive the community service requirements as part of their participation
in the experiment. The Department will include information regarding
the number of institutions that waived the community service
requirement in its reports to Congress regarding implementation and
evaluation of the experiment. Note that Sec. 487A(b)(2) of the Higher
Education Act requires the Department to publish such reports on a
biennial basis.
federal work study pilot funding use for employment at for-profit
organizations
Question. Of the 190 institutions approved, how many indicated in
their applications that they will be using these funds for student
employment at for-profit organizations? In addition, please provide a
complete list of the for-profit organizations identified in the
approved applications.
Answer. Though many of the institutions indicated plans to employ
students at private sector organizations, none of the letters of
interest received by the Department specifically indicated an
institution's intent to use the additional allocation of FWS funds in
this manner. Though institutions may only use the additional allocation
received under the experiment for jobs and functions created under the
experimental waivers, institutions are not required to use the
additional allocation received under the experiment solely to pay wages
to students who are employed with for-profit organizations. Many
institutions may choose to use it for other activities, such as
supporting Job Location and Development programs or paying FWS wages to
students participating in student teaching programs, nursing clinical
rotations and other kinds of work-based learning experiences required
by the institution's academic programs.
federal work study pilot funding share of compensation to private for-
profit organizations
Question. Under this ESI, the Federal share of compensation for
employment in private for-profit organizations is increased from 50
percent to 75 percent for small businesses. Will you commit to
providing the Committee with the Federal share of compensation for
employment in private for-profit organizations within 6 months and from
then on, at least once annually?
Answer. The Department will include information regarding the
number of institutions that approved a wage share percent of less than
50 percent for small businesses, as per the guidelines of the
experiment, in its report to Congress regarding implementation and
evaluation of the experiment. Note that Sec. 487A(b)(2) of the Higher
Education Act requires the Department to publish such reports on a
biennial basis.
data-related activities under the every student succeeds act
Question. What efforts has the Department undertaken to help States
and school districts understand specific set-aside or other funds under
ESSA to support data-related activities to improve student outcomes,
such as increasing data literacy for staff, making data more accessible
and helpful to educators, and improving transparency and data quality?
Does the Department intend to issue additional guidance to support such
efforts?
Answer. The Department has provided guidance to States on the need
to use data to plan program spending. For example, the 2016 Non-
Regulatory Guidance for Title II, Part A, discussed the need for State
and local educational agencies to understand and identify the rigor of
evidence associated with interventions in order to select strategies
that are most likely to improve student outcomes and to generate and
share evidence about particular interventions. The guidance also notes
that implementation plans may include strategies to monitor performance
and ensure continuous improvement, including plans for data collection,
analysis, or evaluation. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers
program (21st CCLC) has supported technical assistance activities to
help State educational agencies understand their authority in using up
to 5 percent of their 21st CCLC grant funds for State activities,
including data-related activities from evaluating subgrantee projects
to building local capacity in data analysis. The Department notes,
however, that most decisions about the collection, analysis, and use of
education-related data are made at the State and local level. The
Department continues to assess options for providing guidance and
technical assistance to State and local leaders in this area, and to
launch new activities when appropriate. For example, the Department's
Institute of Education Sciences is planning a 2021 grant competition on
using longitudinal data to support State-level education policymaking.
school safety clearinghouse staffing, vetting of best practices, and
community moderation
Question. The Department, alongside the Departments of Homeland
Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services, currently maintains a
clearinghouse on school safety issues.
Please provide the number of the Department's staff members that
manage the schoolsafety.gov clearinghouse and their qualifications.
Answer. Note--the website referenced in all responses to questions
on this topic is https://www.schoolsafety.gov.
The Department of Education (Department) has designated two staff
members to manage the workload associated with the SchoolSafety.gov
website. In addition to their duties related to the Clearinghouse
website (SchoolSafety.gov), these staff members have key roles in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). One staff member
serves as a subject matter expert for the Department on school safety,
preparedness, and emergency operations and management. The second staff
member serves as a Group Leader for the Department's school safety
programs, focusing on safe and supportive learning environments,
emergency response issues, violence prevention, school climate, and
mental and behavioral health.
In addition, as a collaborative effort of the Departments of
Education, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services,
the Federal School Safety Clearinghouse Editorial Board (``Board'') was
established last year to review and to validate decisions about the
products, tools, and resources submitted for potential inclusion on the
Clearinghouse website. The Departments of Education, Homeland Security,
Justice, and Health and Human Services each have a decision vote on the
Board. One of the staff members referenced above serves as the
Department's representative on the Board.
Question. Please describe the Department's vetting process for
listing best practices on the clearinghouse's website, and can the
Department commit that all of such best practices on the site have a
basis in evidence?
Answer. The Department's vetting process for recommending best
practices and other resources for inclusion on the Clearinghouse
website, consists of the identification, collection, and screening of
school safety materials and resources. This involves review by career
subject matter experts and the leadership of OESE of the
recommendations for posting to the site. The Department's
recommendations are then shared with other Federal partner agencies for
review (Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the
Department of Health and Human Services) and approval. Once approved,
the resources are then forwarded to the Board for final review and
validation decisions. All of the Department's posted best practice
resources have an evidence base.
Question. What are the Department's plans to monitor and moderate
the information sharing community hosted on the clearinghouse, to
ensure that users do not promote harmful policies that may negatively
impact the school's learning environment or infringe students' civil
rights?
Answer. As a member of the Board, the Department's representative
reviews and approves content to post on the clearinghouse website,
SchoolSafety.gov, consistent with the standards set forth in the
Federal School Safety Clearinghouse Memorandum of Understanding. Once
posted, content can be removed from SchoolSafety.gov at the
recommendation of the agency with subject matter expertise or by a vote
of the Editorial Board.
The public values the exchange of information related to school
safety. The Department shares concerns about public communications but
also believes that public dialogue on policy matters is most vigorous
and effective if not overly burdened by censorial restrictions. Staff
review of comments is consistent with constitutional parameters and
principles of free speech.
The Department also notes that considerable differences of opinion
exist among persons of good will as to the manner in which various
policies may affect students' civil rights, including the right to life
and security of free speech.
Question. Does the Department intend to dedicate staff to moderate
such activity on the clearinghouse?
Answer. The Department of Education has committed two staff members
to manage various activities associated with the Clearinghouse website.
Staff are in OESE's Office of Safe and Supportive Schools.
diversity in the teaching profession
Question. Research shows that students of color benefit
tremendously from having teachers of color, particularly one of the
same racial background. Studies have found that students of color that
have teachers of color are less likely to be chronically absent or
suspended from school, more likely to be recommended for gifted and
talented programs, and low-income Black students who have a Black
teacher for at least 1 year in elementary school are less likely to
drop out of high school and more likely to consider college. And while
students of color make up the majority of students in public schools,
the diversity gap for teachers of color still exists across every
State.
Does the Department agree that students of color benefit from
having teachers of color, particularly of the same racial background,
and if so, what is the Department's strategy for increasing the number
of teachers of color in America?
Answer. The Department is committed to ensuring that all students
have effective teachers and, as part of that commitment, is supporting
strategies, described below, that increase teacher diversity. The lack
of racial and gender diversity among public-school teachers is not a
new issue. In 2000, when 61 percent of American students were white, 84
percent of teachers were white. Despite intense attention to teacher
diversity since then, the portion of teachers who are white decreased
just four percentage points, to 80 percent, by 2015. Meanwhile the
portion of students who are white decreased 12 points to 49 percent.
Similarly, women have dominated the teaching workforce, at 75 percent
in 2000 and 77 percent in 2015. In both years for the elementary
grades, 89 percent were women.
Question. What is the Department doing to encourage States to
increase teacher diversity through institutions of higher education or
other high-quality alternative certification programs?
Answer. The Department has included priorities designed to increase
teacher diversity in discretionary grant programs. For example, the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has included a
priority for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and
Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) in the competitions for Personnel
Preparation grants. The 2017 Supporting Effective Educator Development
(SEED) competition included a competitive preference priority for
promoting diversity in the educator workforce, including improving the
recruitment, support, and retention of educators from diverse
backgrounds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher Murphy
department role in usda decisions around school meals and plans to
support meal distribution
Question. As schools close due to cases of Coronavirus, there will
be a number of ripple effects throughout communities. One of the
biggest could be that students who are eligible for school meals will
have no way to get those meals and could go hungry. I was encouraged to
see that this week USDA announced that waivers would be available in
the event of school closures to ensure students can still access the
school meals they depend on.
Generally, what role does the Department have in these decisions
around school meals? How are you working with USDA to support schools
and districts getting the word out to families about congregate meal
sites and regulatory waivers offered by USDA? How are you supporting
school districts that do not participate in the Summer Meals Program to
distribute meals?
Answer. Under the provisions of Section 4 of the Child Nutrition of
Act of 1966, which is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the law assigns no role or responsibility to the
Department of Education (ED or Department) in decisions about school
meals, including waivers.
However, please know that the Department disseminates information
from the USDA on the school lunch program. In addition, in recent weeks
the Department hosted conference calls to brief the membership and
staff of the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National
Association of State Boards of Education and other elementary and
secondary education stakeholders. These briefings were held on March 12
and 20, respectively. Senior leaders from USDA and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention also participated in these briefings
providing helpful information to the participants. On April 8, ED
participated in a multi-agency call, hosted by the White House, in
which the USDA provided additional information regarding their Food
Program.
The Department continues to host COVID-19 briefing calls to ensure
our stakeholders have up-to-date information from ED and other key
Federal agencies, including the USDA. The Department has created a
website dedicated to COVID-19 information as it relates to many of our
programs at: https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus. ED will regularly update
this page as more information and resources become available.
public comment and subsequent changes to national center for education
statistics data collection
Question. On November 6, 2018, the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) within the Department of Education provided the
general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on
proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information.
Specifically, the Department sought public comment regarding the
EDFacts Data Collection for School Years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and
2021-2022 (with 2018-19 continuation). The Department asked the
following questions: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper
functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and
used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4)
how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department
minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including
through the use of information technology.
In October 2019, the Department released an updated set of data
collected through EDFacts that retired, revised, and added a
significant number of questions impacting the data that is collected
and made available to researchers, advocates, and other organizations
and entities.
For each of the 18 retired questions:
a. How many public comments requested the removal of the question?
b. Of the public comments that requested removal of the question,
how many were a State government agency, local government,
school board or educational agency, academic/think tank, civil
rights organization, community organization, Congress,
institution of higher education, national advocacy
organization, or individual (e.g. principal, teacher, parent)?
For each of the 24 new questions:
c. How many public comments requested the addition of the
question?
d. Of the public comments that requested the addition of the
question, how many were a State government agency, local
government, school board or educational agency, academic/think
tank, civil rights organization, community organization,
Congress, institution of higher education, national advocacy
organization, or individual (e.g. principal, teacher, parent)?
For each of the 42 questions revised:
e. How many public comments requested the revision?
f. Of the public comments that requested the revision, how many
were a State government agency, local government, school board
or educational agency, academic/think tank, civil rights
organization, community organization, Congress, institution of
higher education, national advocacy organization or individual
(e.g. principal, teacher, parent)?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to provide more information
about the EDFacts information collection. As context, while EDFacts
data may have value for researchers, advocates, and other individuals
and entities, virtually all--90 percent--of the information collected
is administrative data the Department needs to fulfill its statutory
responsibility to monitor the implementation and use of funds in
formula grant programs. It is important to understand that changes to
the data elements in EDFacts are driven by changes to the statutes
authorizing these programs. These changes were not introduced to meet
the statistical needs of NCES or outside researchers, advocates, or
other individuals or entities.
EDFacts is designed to reduce reporting burden on States by
consolidating separate reporting instruments for multiple Federal grant
programs into one information collection. Previously, SEAs were
required to report separately for each program, often entering the same
data multiple times. As you will see in the information provided below,
States (and other commenters) generally supported the proposed changes.
Where they did not, the Department revised or eliminated proposed
changes.
EDFacts data are the primary source of information about program
participants, participant performance (often by subgroup), counts of
personnel needed to implement the program, and other information
necessary for monitoring program implementation and impact. The
programs for which EDFacts collects data--including formula grants
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by
the Every Student Succeeds Act, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Carl D. Perkins Act, as amended, and the General
Education Provisions Act-provide approximately $30 billion to support
the educational needs of over 50 million students in public schools.
SEAs receiving grant awards under these programs are required to report
these data as a condition of the grant award.
In the response to the questions below, the Department has provided
information on each data group that the Department proposed to retire,
add, or revise in the November 6, 2018 Federal Register notice. It is
important to stress that these proposed changes are related and should
be viewed in that context. Where the Department proposed to retire a
specific data group, another data group may have been revised or added
to capture that information or to respond to changes in the program
authorizations enacted by Congress. More detailed information and
explanation is publicly available through the public docket for this
information collection package and can be accessed at: https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=ED-2018-ICCD-0117.
As with all Department information collections, NCES takes its
responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act seriously and grant
making offices across the Department strive to keep the administrative
reporting burden on States to a minimum, while ensuring that the data
it collects are of sufficient quality and detail to meet the needs of
program offices charged with monitoring the implementation of Federal
grant programs. As noted below, some changes initially proposed to the
EDFacts data collection were revised based on the comments received
from SEAs and others. For background, the Department received comments
from the following groups on the Federal Register notices requesting
comments on the proposed changes to the EDFacts data collection:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 day comment 30 day comment
Submitters period period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State................................... 40 13
Association............................. 26 13
Individual.............................. 76 56
Other................................... 1 0
-------------------------------
Total............................... 143 82
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the public comments were in response to directed questions
the Department posed to the field in November 6, 2018 notice. The
directed questions explained the Department's intent with proposed
changes and requested input about feasibility of reporting data on the
proposed changes.
a and b. There were no major comments received on the proposed
retired data groups. Please see the attached summaries of responses to
comments for detailed information about comments received about the
information collection package:
--Attachment 1 EDFacts (2019-20 to 2021-22 Response to 60-Day Public
Comments)
--Attachment 2 EDFacts (2019-20 to 2021-22 Response to 30-Day Public
Comments)
c and d. The Department proposed to add 24 new data groups in the
information collection package and accompanying Federal Register notice
requesting public comments for the 60 days. These new data groups were
proposed to address changes enacted with the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by ESSA, the
reauthorization of Perkins, and to improve the Department's
understanding of charter schools. Several of the proposed new data
groups would have expanded the data collection to cover postsecondary
data for programs authorized under Perkins and improved charter school
reporting. The public comments received did not support some of the new
data groups (States did not have the infrastructure to report the
informative, but not required, changes), so the Department removed them
from the final information collection package.
The final information collection package added 13 (of the original
24 proposed) new data groups to the EDFacts collection. Of the 13, 8
data groups provide data required by the reauthorization of Perkins and
the other 5 include a new charter item and expansion of existing
EDFacts data groups. See attachments F for a detailed explanation.
e and f. The final Information Collection package included 28 data
group (question) revisions and 12 revised data categories (permitted
values that go with the data groups) from the prior three-year
Information Collection Package. NCES was unable to replicate a count of
42. None of the proposed revisions were initiated by the public, but
the Department received comments about the following specific
revisions. In the November 2018 Federal Register notice, the Department
proposed adding school psychologists to a personnel reporting category
for the Common Core of Data; this revision was overwhelming supported
by public comments and adopted. The Department also proposed changing a
data group related to IDEA to align with implementation of programs for
children with disabilities (5-year-olds can be either in preschool or
in kindergarten). The Department adopted the recommendations based on
public comments from the field. Also, under IDEA, the Department
collects counts of staff providing special education and related
services. These data have been collected by age group (3 to 5 and 6 to
21). The Department proposed changing this data group to collect by
grade spans (elementary, middle, high school). The public comment did
not support this change, so the Department removed the proposed
revisions. See attachments for a detailed summary of responses.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin, III
mckinney-vento homeless children and youth funding
Question. Many people are shocked to learn that there are 1.5
million homeless children and youth enrolled in public schools across
this country, including more than 10,500 in my own State. Children and
youth experiencing homelessness are hidden in our schools and in our
communities, moving from place to place, and often staying in places
like motels or temporarily with other people. Education Week recently
published an article on the 1.5 million children and youth experiencing
homelessness and highlighted the critically important work of school
district homeless liaisons. These liaisons are charged with ensuring
that homeless children and youth are identified and connected to the
services that they need to succeed, inside and outside of school. They
are able to provide these services through the McKinney-Vento Act's
Education for Homeless Children and Youth funding. These services
ensure that students be connected to counseling, clothing, school
supplies, tutoring, special education evaluations, healthcare, and much
more. The fiscal year 2021 request for the Department of Education
calls for consolidating 29 Federal education programs into a single
block grant--including the McKinney-Vento funding. The budget proposal
only asks for $19.4 billion for this new block grant, which is $4.7
billion less than the funding that Congress appropriated to these 29
programs in fiscal year 2020.
If McKinney-Vento funding is consolidated with 28 other Federal
programs--as this budget proposes--how are rural States and school
districts in West Virginia supposed to continuing providing services to
homeless children and youth with less resources?
Answer. Under the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for
the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), States and school
districts would still be required to identify and serve homeless
children and youth. Specifically, both State educational agencies
(SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) would be required to
develop and implement plans consistent with sections 1111 and 1112 of
the ESEA, respectively, which include provisions describing how they
will meet the needs of homeless students, including through a range of
services similar to those supported by the Education for Homeless
Children and Youth program. SEAs and LEAs also would continue to
maintain protections for homeless students consistent with the
requirements of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and would
report performance on State academic assessments and graduation rates
for homeless students. Furthermore, after ESED Block Grant funds are
allocated by formula to SEAs and LEAs, LEAs would then have the
flexibility to determine what portion of their allocation they would
dedicate to serving homeless students. This could mean, for example,
that LEAs could dedicate more funding to serve homeless students than
they currently receive through their allocations from the Education for
Homeless Children and Youth program under the McKinney-Vento Act if
they determine that there is a great need for those services in their
area.
substance misuse and abuse education in schools
Question. My home State of West Virginia has been devastated by the
opioid epidemic. We are the hardest hit State in the Nation and have
the highest overdose death rate. This country has lost hundreds of
thousands of folks to substance use disorder including 963 West
Virginians in 2018 alone. In National Institute on Drug Abuse reported
that 1 out of 8 high school seniors used prescription opioids
recreationally. Of those seniors, 7 out of 10 also used another
substance like marijuana or alcohol. We cannot let this continue. It is
our duty to invest in prevention education in order to save the next
generation. That is why I introduced the Saving America's Future by
Educating Kids Act (SAFE Kids). This bill would direct the Department
of Education along with several Federal health agencies to develop
evidence-based, age appropriate curriculum on the negative impacts of
substance misuse and abuse. It would also establish a competitive grant
program for States to implement this curriculum.
What resources are currently available through the Department for
States to use for substance use educations? Is there anything in your
budget proposal that would help States implement prevention education?
Answer. Key sources of Federal education funding and other support
for substance use education and prevention include the Student Support
and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) Grants authorized under Title IV, Part A
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which in fiscal
year 2020 will provide $1.2 billion to States and school districts for
use during 2020-2021 school year, including an estimated $7.6 million
for West Virginia. States allocate 95 percent of SSAE funds to school
districts, which in general have flexibility to use up to four-fifths
of their allocations for activities to support safe and healthy
students, including substance abuse prevention and mitigation if a
local needs assessment identifies such activities as a high priority.
Under the proposed ESED Block Grant, school districts would have even
greater flexibility to dedicate a significant share of Federal
education funds to preventing and mitigating opioid abuse. The
Department also funds School Climate Transformation Grants (SCTGs) to
SEAs and LEAs under the School Safety National Activities program.
SCTGs support the development and implementation of multi-tiered
systems of support, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports, that can help guide the selection and implementation of
evidence-based behavioral practices that reduce and respond to drug and
alcohol abuse. Nearly all of the 83 currently funded projects include
strategies to prevent or mitigate the effects of opioid abuse. Under
the ESED Block Grant proposal, the Department would fund these projects
to their completion, and States and districts subsequently could use
block grant funds to continue or expand such activities.
plans for fiscal year 2020 trio and gear up competitions
Question. In West Virginia, we have a lot of students who are first
time college students, many of whom come from low-income families that
don't have the resources or experience to help their children navigate
things like AP classes, SAT tests, college applications, financial aid,
and finally college itself. That is why programs like TRIO and GEAR UP
are so important. These programs provide the support that high school
students need to thrive in higher education. Without them, we'd see too
many students who wouldn't know what opportunities are available or who
wouldn't have the emotional and academic support to succeed. I'm
disappointed that the fiscal year 2021 budget proposal recommends
consolidating these programs while reducing funding. Congress has
continually invested in this program because the data shows it is
working for students across the country.
Both TRIO and GEAR UP will have active competitive grant
competitions this year. What is the Department currently doing to
ensure that the competitions will be conducted fairly and
expeditiously?
Answer. The Department's overall fiscal year 2020 plans for TRIO
and GEAR UP are described in the Congressional Justifications for these
programs. For example, the Department plans to award new State and
Partnership GEAR UP awards to high-scoring applications from previous
competitions, with about $13 million for four new State awards and
about $8.6 million for three new Partnership awards. For TRIO, the
Department is running competitions for Student Support Services and
Staff Training in fiscal year 2020. The notice inviting applications
(NIA) for the Student Support Services program was published in the
Federal Register on December 17, 2019, and can be found at https://
www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/17/2019-27115/applications-
for-new-awards-student-support-services-program. The NIA describes in
detail how this competition will be conducted. Similarly, the NIA for
the Staff Training program, which was published in the Federal Register
on January 31, 2020, and can be found at https://
www.Federalregister.gov/documents/2020/01/31/2020-01813/applications-
for-new-awards-training-program-for-Federal-trio-programs, describes
the process and procedures for conducting a fair competition.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Blunt. And the subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., Thursday, March 5, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]