U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–891 PDF 2014

REVIEWING THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL 

YEAR 2014 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 21, 2013 

Serial No. 113–18 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Martha Roby, Alabama 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 21, 2013 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on Education 

and the Workforce ......................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Duncan, Hon. Arne, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education ................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Additional Submissions: 

Questions submitted for the record by: 

Barletta, Hon. Lou, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 77 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ............................................................................................ 79 

Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey ............................................................................................. 78 

Hudson, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina ................................................................................... 77 

Chairman Kline ......................................................................................... 74 

Loebsack, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa .................................................................................................... 80 

Roby, Hon. Martha, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Alabama ............................................................................................. 77 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana ............................................................................................... 75 

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress from 

the Northern Mariana Islands .............................................................. 81 

Salmon, Hon. Matt, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ............................................................................................... 76 

Secretary Duncan, response to questions submitted for the record ............. 82 

Mr. Rokita, letter, dated June 25, 2012, requesting clarification and additional information from Secretary Duncan ................................................. 53 

(1) 

REVIEWING THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL 

YEAR 2014 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Tuesday, May 21, 2013 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, McKeon, Wilson, Foxx, 

Roe, Thompson, Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, 

Bucshon, Roby, Heck, Hudson, Messer, Miller, Hinojosa, McCarthy, 

Tierney, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, Bishop, Loebsack, Courtney, Fudge, 

Polis, Sablan, Yarmuth, Wilson, and Bonamici. 

Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary; 

James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services Policy; 

Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Amy Raaf Jones, Education 

Policy Counsel and Senior Advisor; Cristin Kumar, Professional 

Staff Member; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Brian Melnyk, Professional Staff Member; Brian Newell, Deputy Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Jenny Prescott, Staff Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Education and Human Services Oversight Counsel; Dan Shorts, Legislative Assistant; Nicole Sizemore, 

Deputy Press Secretary; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane 

Sullivan, Staff Director; Brad Thomas, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; 

Kelly Broughan, Minority Education Policy Associate; Jody 

Calemine, Minority Staff Director; Jacque Chevalier, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Tiffany Edwards, Minority Press Secretary 

for Education; Jamie Fasteau, Minority Director of Education Policy; Scott Groginsky, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Brian 

Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; 

Megan O’Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Michael Zola, Minority 

Deputy Staff Director; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority Senior Economic Advisor. 

Chairman KLINE. Before we begin, I would like to take just a moment to say a few words about the tornado that swept across central Oklahoma yesterday afternoon. According to recent reports— 

and we were checking this just a few minutes ago—as many as 91 

people lost their lives and hundreds more have been injured. 

2 

The death toll includes young children, many of whom were seeking shelter at local elementary schools. Emergency responders and 

volunteers are now putting themselves in harm’s way to rescue 

neighbors, friends, and loved ones, and I sincerely hope for the 

safety and the safety of all those. 

My thoughts and my prayers are with the victims, their families, 

and the people of Oklahoma, and I know yours are, as well. 

And I now recognize Mr. Miller for any remarks he wishes to 

make. 

Mr. MILLER. I thank the chairman, and I certainly want to join 

him in his remarks. We all have a sense of sadness and shock at 

what took place in Moore, Oklahoma. Some of us heard our colleagues, Tom Cole—it is his home town—describe the tragedy. And 

of course, this morning the numbers got worse. 

But the amazing response of that community to help one another 

and their first responders, I join you with giving them our very, 

very best thoughts and prayers. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank you, George. 

Let’s take just a moment now and, please, all of us, to honor the 

victims and their families with just a brief moment of silence. [Moment of silence.] 

Thank you. 

Okay. A quorum being present, the committee will come to order. 

Well, good morning, and welcome back, Secretary Duncan. We 

realize your time is valuable and we do appreciate the opportunity 

to speak with you today about the President’s budget proposal. 

I would like to begin with a brief overview of what is in the administration’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year. 

The President has asked for more than $71 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education, up $5 billion 

from last year’s request and $3 billion from the year before. This 

is on top of a request for $7 billion in mandatory funding for Pell 

Grants, $17.5 billion to reform the teaching profession, and $1.3 

billion for a new universal preschool program, bringing the total 

budget proposal to a, frankly, staggering $97.1 billion. 

Without question, the President’s budget for the Department of 

Education has exploded over the last 5 years. The roughly $60 billion spent by the Department in 2009 seems almost reasonable by 

comparison. 

Yet despite the significant increase in education spending, we 

haven’t seen any measurable improvements in student performance 

or graduation rates. It is time to acknowledge the fact that throwing more money into the nation’s education system is not the right 

answer to the challenges facing our classrooms. We have tried it 

for decades now. 

Since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 

federal spending on education has increased nearly every single 

year, but we just aren’t seeing results. So we need to work together 

on a new way forward that will better serve students and taxpayers. 

Now, let’s discuss an item that is not in the President’s budget. 

Mr. Secretary, you and I have talked about this so many times. 

The very, very first time I ever saw you, when I was sitting over 

3 

in that corner, we were talking about this subject, and that is the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

Once again, the number in the President’s budget is, in my judgment, simply appalling. Per the law, the federal government is supposed to fund up to 40 percent of the cost of education of students 

with special needs. 

Well, once again, the administration’s budget does not even come 

close to that figure. In his budget request, President Obama’s contribution to IDEA remains at a paltry 15—-15 percent. 

I am concerned that instead of meeting our commitments and 

improving existing initiatives, the administration continues to propose more spending for new, untested programs. For example, instead of more IDEA funding the President’s proposed an expansive 

early childhood initiative. While we recognize the value of quality 

early learning experiences, we must remember a number of programs with similar goals are already out there, including Head 

Start, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, and dozens of 

state preschool programs nationwide. 

Reforming and improving existing programs throughout our education system should take precedence over new initiatives, and I 

believe this is one area Congress and the administration can work 

together. A large part of this effort must be rewriting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

While I have made my concerns with the waiver process abundantly clear, I recognize the importance of freeing states and school 

districts from the law’s outdated metrics and regulations. However, 

this must be done through a full reauthorization of the law, not executive fiat. 

Mr. Secretary, you and I agree on the importance of restoring 

local control and flexibility. You and I agree we must empower parents in our education system and support school choice initiatives. 

And you and I agree teachers should be judged on their ability to 

motivate students in the classroom. 

You have been repeatedly quoted in the press stating that you 

want Congress to reauthorize the law. The committee will soon 

renew its efforts to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and this time I ask for the administration’s leadership 

as we work to advance the legislation to the House and Senate. We 

would like to put a new law on the President’s desk before the end 

of the 113th Congress. 

Let me end on a positive note. I appreciate that, like—I know, 

George—I appreciate that, like Republicans, the President has acknowledged the value of moving student loan interest rates back to 

a market-based system. As you know, the committee recently approved, with bipartisan support, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, legislation that mirrors the President’s proposal that ties 

student loan interest rates to the 10-year Treasury note. 

I am grateful for the time you have spent working with us on 

this proposal, Mr. Secretary. Your input was valuable. 

I hope the administration will work with us to move this bill 

quickly through the legislative process and into the President’s 

hands before the interest rate cliff hits millions of students on July 

1st. 

Again, thank you for being with us today. 

4 

I would now like to yield to the senior Democratic member of the 

committee, Mr. Miller, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

I’d like to begin with a brief overview of what’s in the administration’s budget for 

the upcoming fiscal year. The president has asked for more than $71 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Education—up $5 billion from last year’s 

request and $3 billion from the year before. 

This is on top of a request for $7 billion in mandatory funding for Pell Grants, 

$17.5 billion to ‘‘reform the teaching profession,’’ and $1.3 billion for a new universal 

preschool program—bringing the total budget proposal to a staggering $97.1 billion. 

Without question, the president’s budget for the Department of Education has exploded over the last five years. The roughly $60 billion spent by the department in 

2009 seems almost reasonable by comparison. Yet despite this significant increase 

in education spending, we haven’t seen any measurable improvements in student 

performance or graduation rates. 

It’s time to acknowledge the fact that throwing more money into the nation’s education system is not the right answer to the challenges facing our classrooms. We’ve 

tried it for decades now. Since passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act, federal spending on education has increased nearly every single year. But we 

just aren’t seeing results, so we need to work together on a new way forward that 

will better serve students and taxpayers. 

Now let’s discuss an important item that is not in the budget. 

Mr. Secretary, considering the glut of new spending in the president’s budget, the 

lack of funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is simply appalling. Per the law, the federal government is supposed to fund up to 40 percent of 

the costs of educating students with special needs, but once again, the administration’s budget does not even come close to that figure. In his budget request, President Obama’s contribution to IDEA remains at a paltry 15 percent. 

I am concerned that instead of meeting our commitments and improving existing 

initiatives, the administration continues to propose more spending for new, untested 

programs. For example, instead of more IDEA funding, the president has proposed 

an expansive early childhood initiative. While we all recognize the value of quality 

early learning experiences, we must remember a number of programs with similar 

goals are already out there, including Head Start, the Child Care and Development 

Block Grant, and dozens of state preschool programs nationwide. 

Reforming and improving existing programs throughout our education system 

should take precedence over new initiatives, and I believe this is one area Congress 

and the administration can work together. A large part of this effort must be rewriting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

While I have made my concerns with the waiver process abundantly clear, I recognize the importance of freeing states and school districts from the law’s outdated 

metrics and regulations. However, this must be done through a full reauthorization 

of the law—not executive fiat. 

Secretary Duncan, you and I agree on the importance of restoring local control 

and flexibility. You and I agree we must empower parents in our education system, 

and support school choice initiatives. And you and I agree teachers should be judged 

on their ability to motivate students in the classroom. 

You have been repeatedly quoted in the press stating that you want Congress to 

reauthorize the law. The committee will soon renew its efforts to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and this time, I ask for the administration’s 

leadership as we work to advance legislation through the House and Senate, get 

through the conference process, and put a new law on the president’s desk before 

the end of the 113th Congress. 

Let me end on a positive note. I appreciate that, like Republicans, the president 

has acknowledged the value of moving student loan interest rates back to a marketbased system. As you know, the committee recently approved with bipartisan support the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, legislation that mirrors the president’s 

proposal to tie student loan interest rates to the 10 year Treasury note. 

I am grateful for the time you have spent working with us on this proposal, Mr. 

Secretary. Your input was very valuable. I hope the administration will work with 

us to move this bill quickly through the legislative process and into the president’s 

hands before the interest rate cliff hits millions of students on July 1st. 

5 

Again, thank you for being with us today. I would now like to yield to the senior 

Democratic member of the committee, George Miller, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary Duncan, for joining us here today to 

discuss President Obama’s agenda for transforming education in 

America. 

This hearing comes at a time when students and schools are 

making big transitions to new academic standards, to new assessments, to new accountability and school improvement systems, and 

teacher and principal evaluations. However, in all this movement 

forward, I fear that students and parents have lost a federal partner, creating an uncertain environment as a result of Congressional inaction. 

There is a failure to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Act 

and there is the heavy hand of automatic budget cuts through sequestration. There is the danger of getting more than $20 billion— 

gutting more than $20 billion from the supplemental nutrition programs that help low-income families keep food on the table and 

their students prepared to come to school. There is the threat of 

piling on even more college debt onto students and families. 

And there is the continued threat of the Republican budget proposals that would drastically cut vital education resources. As reported just last week, the Department of Education is facing nearly 

a 20 percent reduction in funding on top of the cuts already made 

through sequestration. You may have noticed, as theywe prepare to 

send the military budgets forward with improvements, the cuts fall 

on education and we don’t even know if that appropriation bill will 

get out of committee. 

With all of these, Congress is failing to provide the support to 

help students and families succeed at a time of massive transformation. For each of the past 2 years Republicans have released 

budgets filled with giveaways to the wealthiest Americans at the 

expense of educating our nation’s children. 

This year isn’t any different. In March, Republicans put forth a 

budget that not only keeps in place the across-the-board cuts 

known as sequestration, but actually calls for even more draconian 

cuts in education programs across the country. 

In contrast, I am glad to see that President Obama recognizes 

education as an investment and not an expense. His budget seeks 

to ensure our nation is equipped to grow our economy and to help 

retain our global competitiveness. 

The Obama budget proposals recognize that competitiveness has 

to start early through quality, comprehensive early childhood education programs. Investing in greater access to high-quality preschool, child care, and voluntary home visitations is a proven way 

to close the achievement gap, strengthen school readiness, and prepare the next generation for high-skill jobs. 

President Obama is also rightfully outlining goals of our nation, 

including college and career readiness and returning the United 

States to first in the world in college graduation rates. Unfortunately, the Republican budget negatively impacts students by making it harder to go to college and harder to pay off debt. It would 

6 

eliminate the in-school interest subsidy and allow interest rates to 

double for subsidized student loans. 

To add insult to injury, just last week the Republicans in this 

committee pushed through legislation that would put more debt on 

the backs of students in order to pay down the deficit. In fact, the 

Congressional Research Service found that students and families 

would pay a higher interest rate cost under the Republican proposal even if interest rates double. Students would be better off if 

we just let the interest rates double, and that is just unacceptable. 

This plan asks low-income students to pay down the debt while 

asking nothing from the more fortunate among us to pay their fair 

share in taxes. We can do better and we must do better. As my 

Democratic colleagues pointed out last week, education is a vital 

public good. We must serve the good with the public investment. 

We must also get back to the business of doing real legislative 

work. 

Mr. Secretary, 2 years ago you charged Congress to fix No Child 

Left Behind, but in the 2 years since then Congress has remained 

at a standstill. In the face of Congress’ inability to act, you have 

given 37 states plus Washington, D.C. the needed relief from parts 

of NCLB that no longer work and are desperately in need of 

change. 

Almost a dozen waivers are still pending, and while I would 

much rather Congress achieve the full ESEA reauthorization, I understand why your action is necessary. 

That being said, I must say that I have serious concerns over 

some of the decisions the department has made in granting those 

waivers and how some of the states have implemented them. We 

see some states lessening their focus on student subgroups, on 

weakening the impact of performance targets, and moving away 

from focusing on graduating students with a regular diploma in a 

reasonable amount of time. 

I would remind you that the key to the federal role in education 

is to protect and promote equity. I imagine that you are beginning 

to plan with—how you will consider the renewal of these waivers 

by the states. As you do, I would urge you to hold a high bar for 

everyone to insist that they meet that high bar even where changes 

are necessary. You must be the conscienceconscience of the nation, 

resisting temptation to focus on what is good for adults rather than 

what is good for students. 

I wish we did not need to discuss the waiver renewal. I wish we 

were working in a bipartisan fashion to renew this law, the way 

we have done for many, many years over the history of the law. 

It is the only way we could get a bill to the President’s desk and 

signed into law. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that we are on 

that track. 

So in the meantime, I urge you to insist that our schools set high 

expectations for students, give educators and students the tools 

they need to meet those expectations, and implement the proposals 

made by almost every governor across this nation to improve their 

school systems with the help that they are getting from the waivers. And the Congress should now turn its attention to a full bipartisan reauthorization both of the Elementary Secondary Education 

7 

Act and also the Higher Education Act so we can work out a bipartisan long-term fix for student aid questions. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Secretary Duncan for joining us here 

today to discuss President Obama’s agenda for transforming education in America. 

This hearing comes at a time when students and schools are making big transitions—transitions to new academic standards, new assessments, new accountability 

and school improvement systems, and teacher and principal evaluations. 

However, in all of this movement forward, I fear that students and parents have 

lost a federal partner, creating an uncertain environment as the result of Congressional inaction. 

There’s the failure to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

There’s the heavy hand of automatic budget cuts through sequestration. 

There’s the danger of gutting more than $20 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that helps low-income families keep food on the 

table. 

There’s the threat of piling even more college debt onto students and families. 

And there’s the continued threat of Republican budget proposals that would drastically cut vital education resources. 

As reported just last week, the Department of Education is facing a nearly 20 percent reduction in funding on top of the cuts already made through sequestration. 

With all of these, Congress is failing to provide the support to help students and 

families succeed in a time of massive transformation. 

For each of the past two years, Republicans have released budgets filled with 

giveaways to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of educating our nation’s children. 

This year isn’t any different. 

In March, Republicans put forth a budget that not only keeps in place the acrossthe-board cuts known as sequestration but actually calls for even more draconian 

cuts to education programs across the country. 

In contrast, I am glad to see that President Obama recognizes education is an investment and not an expense. It seeks to ensure our nation is equipped to grow our 

economy and help retain our global competitiveness. 

The Obama budget proposal recognizes that competitiveness has to start early 

through quality, comprehensive early childhood education programs. 

Investing in greater access to high-quality preschool, child care, and voluntary 

home visitation is a proven way to close achievement gaps, strengthen school readiness and prepare the next generation for high-skill jobs. 

President Obama has also rightfully outlined goals for our nation including college 

and career readiness and returning the United States to first in the world in college 

graduation rates. 

Unfortunately, the Republican budget negatively impacts students by making it 

harder to go to college and harder to pay off debt. It would eliminate the in-school 

interest subsidy and allow interest rates to double for subsidized student loans. 

To add insult to injury, last week Republicans on this committee pushed through 

legislation that would put more debt on the backs of students in order to pay down 

the deficit. 

In fact, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that students and families would pay higher interest costs under the Republican proposal, even if interest 

rates doubled as scheduled for the neediest students in July. 

This plan asks low-income students to pay down the debt while asking nothing 

from the most fortunate among us to pay their fair share of taxes. 

We can do better. And we must do better. As my Democratic colleagues pointed 

out last week, education is a vital public good. We must serve that good with public 

investment. 

We must also get back to the business of doing real legislative work. 

Mr. Secretary, two years ago you charged Congress to fix No Child Left Behind. 

But in the two years since, Congress remains at a standstill. 

In the face of Congress’s inability to act, you’ve given 34 states plus Washington, 

D.C. needed relief from parts of NCLB that they so desperately need. Almost a 

dozen waivers are still pending. While I would much rather Congress achieve a full 

ESEA reauthorization, I understand why your action was necessary. 

8 

That being said, I do have serious concerns over some decisions the department 

has made in granting waivers and in how some states have implemented them. 

We see some states lessening their focus on student subgroups, weakening the impact of performance targets, and moving away from focusing on graduating students 

with a regular diploma in a reasonable amount of time. 

I would remind you that the key federal role in education is to protect and promote equity. I imagine you are beginning to plan for how you will renew some of 

these state waivers. 

As you do, I urge you to hold a high bar for everyone and to insist on changes 

where necessary. You must be the conscience of the nation, resisting the temptation 

to focus what’s good for adults rather than what’s good for students. 

I wish we did not need to discuss waiver renewals. I wish we were working in 

a bipartisan fashion to renew this law—the way we have done for years. It’s the 

only way we could get a bill to the president’s desk and signed into law. 

Unfortunately, that is not where we are. 

So in the meantime, I urge you to insist that our schools set high expectations 

for students and give our educators and their students the tools to meet those expectations. 

That is what we must all focus on in this Congress. A high-quality education is 

one of the most important opportunities we can give our children. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I look forward to your testimony. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all committee members will be 

permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. And without objection, the hearing record 

will remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witness. He 

is known, actually, to all of us really well. I just do want to make 

a couple of points that I always find interesting. 

Secretary Duncan was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. 

You have been with us quite a while, Mr. Secretary. 

And just to show his stick-to-itiveness, he is still here, and from 

2001 to 2008 he was the longest-serving big city education superintendent in the country. 

Perseverance, Mr. Secretary. We are glad to have you. Floor is 

yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, and I just wanted to say again, on the Oklahoma situation—I spoke last night with the state superintendent, 

who does a fantastic job, Janet Barresi. Whatever we can do to 

help out in this situation, we are committed to do that. 

Placed a call to the local—Moore’s public school superintendent, 

Susan Pierce, this morning. She is a 40-year veteran and was due 

to retire at the end of June. 

And I just want to thank all the heroic teachers and first responders. There has been significant loss of life, significant loss of 

the life of children in schools, but just amazing, amazing work done 

by teachers and administrators and first responders. And obviously, all of our thoughts and prayers are, frankly, with them this 

morning. 

9 

I am pleased to be able to talk with you today about President 

Obama’s vision for investing in education in ways that ensure quality opportunity for every child and that deliver a strong return on 

investment for the taxpayer’s dollar. That ROI is so important, especially in tough economic times like this. 

As we walk through this conversation, I am going to ask you to 

visualize and keep in the back of your mind a 4-year-old little girl, 

because at the end of the day this isn’t just about programs or accounts or budgets; it is about the consequences of the choices we 

make for real families and real children. 

I think and I desperately hope that we all agree that improving 

our education outcomes is a vital national interest that we all 

share. The decisions we make will have a major impact on our 

economy, on our economic competitiveness, and on that 4-year-old 

girl’s chances of having the good life she deserves as part of a 

thriving middle class. 

That is a core American value, but right now, frankly, it is in 

some danger. You have already heard that we have lost our place 

as the global leader in college completion, that we now rank 14th. 

We should, frankly, be embarrassed. It is no badge of honor that 

we have fallen so far behind our international competitors. We 

want good jobs to stay in this country and not migrate overseas. 

Here is another indicator that should concern us: Let’s start by 

looking at what is happening in employment for young adults. 

Next slide, please. 

In 2000 we were doing better than France, Britain, Japan, Germany, and Canada, but by 2011 we were doing worse than all of 

them. Why? David Leonhardt, the Pulitzer Prize-winning New 

York Times economics writer, said, and I quote—‘‘The United 

States has lost its once large lead in producing college graduates, 


80891-4.eps
10 

and education remains the most successful job strategy in a 

globalized, tech-heavy economy.’’ 

And that is why we are working so hard to try and improve opportunities for every child, to make the United States the global 

leader in college completion again. We have been working for 4 

years to raise standards, improve teaching, establish strong systems of technology and data, fix our most broken schools, and make 

college more accessible and affordable. And we have made some 

real progress. 

Next slide, please. 

Mr. Chairman, you sort of asked the question, ‘‘Have we made 

progress?’’ and I think while the progress is not fast enough—we 

have a long way to go—the honest answer is there has been real 

progress. High school graduation rates are at their highest level in 

over 3 decades, and for the first time in a long time we are actually 

on track to a 90 percent high school graduation rate by the year 

2020. 

Next slide. 


80891-5.eps
11 

We have talked a lot about the quote-unquote ‘‘dropout factories,’’ 

those high schools where 40, 50, 60 percent or more of young people are dropping out. In the past 3 years, from 2008 to 2011, we 

have 700,000 fewer children—less children—attending quote-unquote ‘‘dropout factories.’’ That is a big step in the right direction. 

Those young people now have a much better chance of not just 

graduating but then going on to some form of higher education. 

Next slide, please. 


80891-6.eps
12 

In terms of Pell Grants—and we know Pell Grants often go to 

first generation college-goers, and English language learners, and 

folks who don’t happen to be born with a silver spoon in their 

mouths. From 2008 to 2010 we went from about 6 million Pell recipients to 9.4 million Pell recipients, more than a 50 percent increase. And again, these are young people who may be—are often 

the first in their families to ever have the opportunity to graduate 

from college. 

And then the enrollment rates—next slide, please? Yes, thank 

you. 


80891-7.eps
13 

The enrollment rates in the college have gone up significantly, 

particularly among the African American and Latino populations, 

which we think is so important. And in a country that is becoming 

majority minority, this is the face of our country as we move forward. So real progress there. 

And Hispanic students, 32 percent now attending college compared to 22 percent in 2000. African American, 38 percent today 

versus 30 in 2000. So real progress. Long way to go, but feel very 

good about that. 

Both you, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Miller talked about 

the flexibility we are providing to states, and with up to 37 states, 

and we think that is going absolutely in the right direction. Again, 

we would love to fix No Child Left Behind and fix it in a bipartisan 

way, but until Congress gets its act together we are going to continue to partner directly with states to make sure that they are not 

stuck with a law that is years outdated and had many perverse incentives in there. 

But we have a lot of hard work ahead of us. 

Next slide, please. 


80891-8.eps
14 

Too many low-income kids and minority children simply aren’t 

receiving the education they need to reach the middle class. And 

let’s look at these numbers, starting with high school. 

Fully 96 percent of kids from the highest income group complete 

high school. It is just almost a given—96 percent; while less than 

two-thirds, only 63 percent, of those who come from the lowest economic quartile do. 

The next slide is even more stunning and, I think, compels us to 

act. 


80891-10.eps
15 

Fewer than one in 10 of low-income children eventually graduate 

from college. Less than one in 10—9 percent. Compare that to more 

than half of our high-income students walking across the stage 

with a diploma. Not enough there either, but a huge difference in 

outcomes. 

Think about what that does and how that hurts us as a country—in jobs, in terms of our international competitiveness, and 

what it means for the lives of children and families who are trying 

to escape poverty and trying to escape psychosocial failure. 

Next slide. 


80891-11.eps
16 

So how do we change the odds? Where should we invest to 

change? 

I want to read you a quick quote from James Heckman, who is 

a Nobel Prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago. He 

says, ‘‘Investing in disadvantaged young children is a rare public 

policy with no equity-efficiency tradeoff. It reduces the inequity associated with the accident of birth and at the same time raises the 

productivity of society at large.’’ 

What is the most important single thing we can do in education 

to change those outcomes that I just talked about? And I am convinced it is investing in high-quality early childhood education—in 

preschool. 

On average, the average child from a low-income family starts 

kindergarten when they are 5 years old in September; they start 

school 12 to 14 months behind their peers in language development 

and pre-reading skills. That is morally and educationally unacceptable. 

And we know how to fix it. As Professor Heckman says, this is 

one of the few public investments with no tradeoffs because the 

ROI—the return on investment—of high-quality preschool is so 

high. 

Next slide. 


80891-12.eps
17 

But to date, quite frankly, as a country we are not yet serious 

about preschool. The United States ranks 28th among OECD countries in the enrollment of 4-year-olds in early learning. 

And maybe that is not surprising. The United States also ranks 

25th among OECD countries in public funding for early learning. 

And if we expect to compete effectively in a global economy, we 

have to invest in what matters most and what makes a difference. 

The President’s Preschool for All proposal can be a game-changer 

in expanding access and quality for the kids and families and communities who need it the most. It is a major investment to tackle 

a major issue. 

Think about that 4-year-old girl. Whether she is from Goodhue 

County, Minnesota; or Winston-Salem, North Carolina; or San 

Diego, she deserves a supportive, word-rich environment. She 

needs the chance to develop both her cognitive and non-cognitive 

skills. 

She may not have a home life that can pick up that academic 

slack, but we can help support and strengthen struggling families. 

That young girl deserves access to high-quality preschool. 

Our international competitors are ahead of us. James Zimmerman, former CEO of Macy’s, and John Pepper, former CEO of Procter & Gamble, have written, and I quote—‘‘Universally available 

pre-kindergarten is not only the right thing to do, but the smart 

thing to do.’’ 

Other countries have realized this. China reportedly has set a 

goal of giving 70 percent of all children 3 years of pre-kindergarten 

education. 

Why is it the smart thing to do? Because of the ROI—the return 

on investment. 


80891-13.eps
18 

Dr. Heckman found that for every dollar we invest in preschool, that dollar returns $7 just in public funds. Some of that comes 

from greater productivity; some comes from reduced need for cash 

handouts and other supports. And almost $3 of every $7 comes 

from reduced costs of crimes and cops and jails. 

Stop and think about that one for a moment. We should ask ourselves, preschools or prisons? Where do we want to invest? What 

costs less? What helps society more? 

The answers are very, very obvious. Affordable, high-quality 

early learning is the most important thing we can do in education 

to help children and help to strengthen families. 

But I can tell you what doesn’t help: incoherent cuts to programs 

serving our most vulnerable students. Especially since it is up for 

a vote this week, I must address the House Appropriations Committee proposed FY2014 302(b) allocations. They represent a cut of 

22 percent from FY13, pre-sequester level. 

Cutting education in that way would be a baffling, self-destructive move that would devastate efforts to improve our international 

competitiveness. It is exactly the wrong thing to do for our economy. It would represent dumb government dumbing down America. 

Those cuts would multiply the damage of sequestration, which 

continues to hurt low-income and special needs students, young 

families counting on Head Start programs, military families, Native American children, and communities whose schools rely on Impact Aid. 

But together we can choose another path and make smart, strategic, long-term investments. Let’s return our focus to plans with 

positive ROI. 

President Obama’s proposed early learning investment is the 

front bookend of a cradle-to-career pipeline that aims to prepare 

students for college and for work. We are working to strengthen 

that pipeline with an emphasis on college completion, which has 

become the ticket to a solid middle-class life. 

Central to that effort is keeping interest rates low on student 

loans, which will require your action before July 1st to prevent 

those rates from doubling. We know that you share that concern, 

but we need to keep working with you to find an approach that will 

keep college affordable for students and families now and into the 

future. 

To make college more accessible we have dramatically simplified 

paperwork to make it easier for families to access federal student 

aid. The result will be even more high-need students attending college. 

In K-12, ESEA flexibility has provided crucial space for innovation and system-wide improvement, the best help we can get to 

states until you guys fix ESEA in a bipartisan manner. Under 

ESEA flexibility, we are seeing states raise standards, refine systems of support and accountability for schools, and hold more 

schools accountable for the learning of students with special needs 

and minority children, far too many of whom were literally invisible under No Child Left Behind. 

We have also acted to improve services for students with special 

needs. During our administration, we have requested hundreds of 

millions of dollars in increased funding in addition to the unpreceVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Apr 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\FC\113-18\80891.TXT DICK
19 

dented $11 billion provided in the Recovery Act to students with 

special needs, including significant improvements at the preschool 

level. 

We are also focused on the needs of students in rural communities. Each of our 2014 competitive grant proposals will include 

criteria or priorities targeting rural areas specifically, and we welcome the input and thoughtfulness of Congress as we work to ensure that all of our competitive grant programs give strong opportunity to rural schools. 

We want to see every community in America have excellent opportunities. Our children and our nation deserve no less. 

What that improved opportunity adds up to is a return on investment for our economy and for America’s families. According to a recent Brookings study, the benefits of a college degree compared to 

an investment that returns 15.2 percent a year. 

We know that the engine of our economy in a globally competitive environment is the best-educated workforce in the world. It is 

the only way to build a strong, vibrant, and growing middle class. 

And we know that giving every child an opportunity is the right 

thing to do. It is who we are as a country. 

Thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Secretary Duncan follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Education 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I’m pleased to be 

here today to talk with you about President Obama’s priorities and plans for the 

Department of Education, particularly as they relate to the President’s fiscal year 

2014 budget request for education. 

This morning I’ll sketch out some important progress made in the President’s first 

term. I will highlight urgent educational challenges that remain, not only for our 

Nation as a whole but in every congressional district and community in the country. 

And I will talk about ROI—the return on investment in education spending—with 

special emphasis on the President’s landmark preschool plan. Finally, I want to 

close by summarizing a number of other key elements of the President’s education 

2014 Budget. 

The big takeaway message here is that education is more than a set of numbers 

on the ledger line. Education is not just an expense—it’s an investment. In fact, it 

is one of the most critical investments in the future that we, as a Nation, can make. 

America cannot win the race for the future without investing in education—it’s that 

simple. 

Budgets entail value choices. They reflect the aspirations of our citizens and leaders. And I am glad to say that, for the most part, Federal education funding has 

enjoyed bipartisan support, even in tough times. In America we invest in the future, 

not just in spite of challenges, but as the means of overcoming them. 

Dating back to even before the States ratified the Constitution, the fledgling Continental Congress passed the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance 

of 1787, granting Federal lands to States to create and support public schools. 

In the midst of the Civil War, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act, creating 

our Nation’s land grant colleges. FDR signed the GI Bill during the midst of the 

epic battle of Normandy, expanding not only the opportunities for returning veterans but those of their children for generations to come. 

Fortunately, our Nation is not in the midst of World War II or the Civil War, and 

we are not in the midst of the Depression. But this is a time of fiscal challenges. 

And as President Obama said in his State of the Union address, it is a time to work 

for ‘‘smarter government.’’ We don’t always live up to this goal in Washington. But 

I’ve yet to meet a lawmaker who has stated a preference for dumber government. 

Unfortunately, sequestration, with its indiscriminate cuts to education, the military, and other critical public investments, is not an example of government at its 

finest. 

You won’t see our high-performing competitors funding education by sequester. In 

a knowledge-based, globally-competitive economy, our competitors are determined to 

20 

invest in education. They want to accelerate their progress, not cut back on public 

education. 

South Korea’s investment in education, as a percentage of GDP, increased by 

nearly a third from 2000 to 2009, whereas our investment, as a percentage of GDP, 

increased by just 6 percent. Education spending as a percentage of GDP rose at 

more than twice the U.S. rate in many other countries as well during the last decade, including Australia (up 15 percent), Denmark (18 percent), and the Netherlands (21 percent). 

Today, the U.S. is one of only four Organization for Economic Co-operation and 

Development—OECD—countries where students in low-income schools have to cope 

with higher student-to-teacher ratios than their peers in more advantaged schools. 

But the question is not just whether we should continue to invest in education, 

but how can we make smarter investments in education? How can our education 

system become more productive? One way to answer these questions is to look at 

the return on investment in our education policies. 

Progress During President Obama’s First-Term 

During the President’s first term, the Administration worked hand-in-hand with 

the Congress to make critical new investments in education. We launched new programs like Race to the Top and Promise Neighborhoods, redesigned the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program, and dramatically expanded the Pell Grant financial aid program for low-income students. All of those efforts expanded educational 

opportunity and challenged the status quo where it had become unproductive. 

In a development that none of the experts foresaw, 46 States, plus the District 

of Columbia, came together to design and adopt the Common Core standards. For 

the first time, almost every State is supporting higher standards that show if students are truly college- and career-ready—whether they are from Mississippi or 

Massachusetts. This was a sharp change from what we saw in the 4 years from 

2005 to 2009, when 19 States actually lowered their academic standards for students. We can thank courageous State leadership for stopping this insidious 

dummying down of standards. 

Today, we are starting to see the payoff of those first-term investments and setting higher expectations for our students. In 2010, the on-time high school graduation rate hit its highest level in 3 decades. In 2008, less than two-thirds of Hispanic 

students graduated on time from high school. Today, about three in four Hispanic 

high school students graduate with their class. 

Because the graduation rate of Latino students rose from 2008 to 2011, an additional 164,000 Latino students graduated on time. That is 164,000 people with a 

better chance of getting a good job, owning their own home, and supporting a family. 

On-time graduation rates for African-American students are up, too. In 2008, only 

about three in five black students graduated from high school on time. Today, two 

in three do so, resulting in an additional 83,000 African-American students graduating on time in 2011. 

These gains are due in part to a sharp drop in the number of high school dropout 

factories—schools where fewer than 60 percent of ninth graders graduate 4 years 

later. Since 2008, the number of high school dropout factories has dropped by almost 

20 percent, from about 1,750 high schools to roughly 1,425 high schools. 

For our families, that means nearly 700,000 fewer teenagers are trapped in those 

high schools today than in 2008. That is a big step in the right direction. 

In higher education, we’re seeing substantial increases in college enrollment, too, 

especially for Hispanic students. More than half-a-million additional Hispanic students—about 550,000 in all—are enrolled in college today than were enrolled in 

2008. That is 550,000 more people who are getting their shot at the American 

dream and the opportunity to thrive in a globally competitive world. And overall, 

the number of Pell Grant recipients has increased more than 50 percent, from 6.2 

million in 2008 to more than 9 million 3 years later. That is the biggest expansion 

of educational opportunity in higher education since the GI Bill. 

In a knowledge-based economy, the ROI—the return on investment—for many of 

the strategies the Administration has pursued is huge. We believe our efforts to support and strengthen the teaching profession through improved teacher evaluation, 

better professional development, and the RESPECT program will pay large, longterm dividends for our children and our communities. 

Economists at Harvard and Columbia have documented that having a good teacher rather than an ineffective one can increase the lifetime earnings of a class of students by over $260,000. Multiply that by the number of classes a teacher would instruct over the course of her career, and it is clear that even a single good teacher 

can have a multi-million dollar effect on the economy. 

21 

The ROI for attending college is huge, too. Unlike when I and many members of 

the Committee were growing up, there are no good-paying jobs anymore for high 

school dropouts—and even those with a high school diploma struggle to make a living, with the average high school graduate making $1.3 million during his or her 

lifetime, compared to $2.3 million for the average college graduate. 

The Theory of Action for the President’s Preschool Plan 

Our focus on ROI is a key justification for President Obama’s groundbreaking preschool proposal. Preschool for All would create a new Federal-State partnership to 

enable States to provide universal high-quality preschool for 4-year olds from lowand moderate-income families, up to 200 percent of the poverty line. 

Contrary to what you may have heard, the President’s plan would not be a new 

Federal entitlement program. States would use Federal funds to create or expand 

high-quality preschool programs in partnership with local school-based and community providers. States would provide an increasing match for the program, and every 

cent of the $75 billion provided by the Federal Government over the next 10 years 

would be paid for by increases in taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products. Our intent is for every State to choose to participate. 

Our theory of action in expanding high-quality preschool is going to be the same 

as it was in the first term, with a strong emphasis on supporting and partnering 

with States, incentivizing innovation, and identifying what works to strengthen education and accelerate achievement. 

That means that at the Federal level, we should be tight on ends but loose on 

means. The Department should set a high bar for quality in preschool programs. 

But it should leave it up to State and local leaders to choose the best means for 

reaching that bar. 

Under the President’s plan, States would be required to meet quality benchmarks 

linked to better outcomes for children—like having high-quality State-level standards for early learning, qualified and well-compensated teachers in all preschool 

classrooms, and a plan to implement comprehensive assessment and data systems. 

The urgent need today for greater access to high-quality preschool for children 

from low- and moderate-income families is not really in dispute. Fewer than 3 in 

10 4-year-olds today are enrolled in high-quality preschool programs. And we know 

that, on average, children from low- income families start kindergarten 12 to 14 

months behind their peers in language development and pre-reading. 

Despite these data, as the following charts demonstrate, the United States ranks 

28th among industrialized nations in the enrollment of 4-year-olds in early learning, 

and among 29 industrialized nations, the U.S. devotes less public spending to early 

learning as a percentage of GDP than 24. 


80891-1.eps
22 

The ROI on High-Quality Early Learning 

In an era of tight budgets, it’s essential that we ask ourselves, what is the smartest use of our education dollars? The answer, I believe, is that high-quality early 

learning is the best education investment we can make in our children, our communities, and our country. As President Obama has said, ‘‘if you are looking for a good 

bang for your educational buck,’’ high- quality preschool is the place to look. 

In the near-term, high-quality preschool reduces placements in special education. 

It reduces grade retention. It boosts graduation rates. In the long-term, high-quality 

preschool both increases the odds of holding a job and decreases crime and teen 

pregnancy. 

Nobel laureate James Heckman recently examined evidence from a rigorous, longitudinal evaluation of the Perry Preschool project and found that the high-quality 

preschool program returned seven dollars for every one dollar it invested. A longitudinal study of the Chicago Child Parent Centers also found an ROI of seven to one. 

States like Oklahoma and Georgia know about these data and are leading the way 

in creating universal preschool programs. In fact, numerous States led by GOP governors—including Alabama and Michigan—are investing in quality and expanding 

coverage to more 4-year-olds. 

Not only are States investing in high-quality preschool, voters are approving sales 

tax and property tax increases to fund preschool initiatives. Last November, voters 

in San Antonio, Denver, and St. Paul, Minnesota, approved tax increases to support 

preschool programs in their communities. 

Voters and parents understand that in today’s global economy, ensuring access to 

high- quality preschool is not a luxury but a necessity. They understand that investing in high-quality preschool is a win-win proposition, with a big economic return. 

And they understand that we have to stop playing catch-up in education. We have 

to level the playing field for young children, so everyone can begin kindergarten at 

the same starting line. 

This is why the centerpiece of President Obama’s education budget for fiscal year 

2014 is a pair of major new investments in early learning: a $75 billion mandatory 

request, over 10 years, to support the Preschool for All initiative; along with a $750 

million discretionary request for Preschool Development Grants. 

Preschool for All would create a new Federal-State cost-sharing partnership aimed 

at making high-quality public preschool available to all 4-year-olds from low- and 

moderate- income families while also providing incentives for States to serve additional children from middle-class families. The companion Preschool Development 

Grants proposal would help build State capacity to implement the high-quality preschool programs required by Preschool for All. 

Other Priorities in the President’s 2014 Request for the Department of Education 

These preschool proposals are part of an overall request of $71.2 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2014, an increase of $3.1 billion, or 4.5 percent, over the fiscal year 2012 level. 


80891-2.eps
23 

In addition to early learning, this request is focused on strengthening K-12 education, making our schools safer and creating positive learning environments, supporting career- readiness for all, improving affordability and quality in postsecondary education, and supporting the Administration’s Ladders of Opportunity initiative for high-poverty communities. 

Strengthening K-12 Education 

The 2014 request provides essential funding for traditional State formula grant 

programs that are the foundation of Federal support for State and local efforts to 

ensure that all students meet college- and career-ready standards, including a $14.5 

billion request for the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program and 

$11.6 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Grants to States 

program. At the same time, we would continue our emphasis on creating meaningful 

incentives to leverage more effective use of Federal education funding in key areas 

such as putting a great teacher in every classroom and a great leader in every 

school; building local capacity to support successful school turnarounds; and improving teacher preparation and classroom instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). 

Reforming Federal Support for Effective STEM Education 

The Administration is proposing a comprehensive reorganization of Federal STEM 

education programs as part of a Governmentwide realignment that would reorganize or restructure 116 programs across 13 agencies. 

Reforming Federal support to support an effective, cohesive national STEM education strategy is a top Administration priority. Scientists and engineers are key 

innovators in our society. They play an essential role in developing new industries 

and opportunities that create jobs and spur economic growth. Our Nation depends 

on an innovation economy, and America’s capacity to build and create should never 

be limited by a shortage of talent in the STEM fields. At the core of this strategy for improving K-12 STEM education is a $150 million 

request for STEM Innovation Networks, which would support creating partnerships 

among school districts, institutions of higher education, research institutions, museums, community partners, and business and industry. These networks would develop comprehensive plans for identifying, developing, testing, and scaling up evidence-based practices to provide rich STEM learning opportunities in participating 

local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools. They also would work to leverage better and more effective use of the wide range of STEM education resources available 

from Federal, State, local, and private entities, including federally supported science 

mission agencies. Other key elements of the Department’s STEM request include $80 million for 

STEM Teacher Pathways to support the President’s goal of developing 100,000 new 

effective STEM teachers by recruiting, training, and placing talented recent college 

graduates and mid-career professionals in the STEM fields in high-need schools; and 

$35 million to establish a new STEM Master Teacher Corps, which would identify 

teacher leaders in STEM fields who would take on leadership and mentorship roles 

in their schools and communities aimed at improving STEM instruction and helping 

students excel in math and science. 

More Effective Teachers and School Leaders 

Consistent with the Administration’s proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the President’s Budget would provide $2.5 billion 

for Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants to provide flexible, formula-based 

support for States and LEAs that commit to improving their teacher and principal 

evaluation systems and to ensuring that low-income and minority students have equitable access to teachers and principals who are effective at raising student 

achievement. We also would renew our request for a 25 percent national activities 

set-aside totaling nearly $617 million that would allow the Department to build evidence on how best to recruit, prepare, and support effective teachers and school 

leaders and to invest in efforts to enhance the teaching and leadership professions. In addition, the budget includes $400 million for the reauthorized Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund, an increase of $100 million over 2012, to help States and 

LEAs improve the effectiveness of teachers and leaders in high-need LEAs and 

schools, in particular by creating the conditions to identify, recruit, prepare, support, 

retain, and advance effective and highly effective teachers, principals, and school 

leadership teams in those schools. We also are asking for $98 million to support a 

redesigned School Leadership Program that would more than triple the Federal investment in training for principals. This proposal would promote evidence-based 

professional development for current school leaders aimed at strengthening essential 

leadership skills—such as evaluating and providing feedback to teachers, analyzing 

24 

student data, developing school leadership teams, and creating a positive school climate. 

Supporting School Turnarounds and Data-Based Innovation 

We would expand our commitment to helping States and school districts turn around their lowest-performing schools through a $659 million request for the reauthorized School Turnaround Grants (STG) program. The request includes an increase of $125 million that would be used for competitive awards to help school districts build their capacity to implement effective interventions in persistently lowest-achieving schools or priority schools, and to sustain progress in schools that have 

successfully completed a 3-year STG project. In addition, the Department could use 

up to $25 million of these funds to build district capacity by expanding the School 

Turnaround AmeriCorps initiative, a new partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service that places AmeriCorps members in low-performing 

schools to support their school turnaround efforts. The request also would strengthen K-12 education through a $215 million pro- posal for Investing in Innovation (i3), an increase of $66 million, to expand support 

for using an evidence-based approach to test new ideas, validate what works, and 

scale up the most effective reforms. Up to $65 million would be available for the 

Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education (ARPA-ED), an initiative modeled 

on similar entities at the Departments of Defense and Energy that would aggressively pursue technological breakthroughs with the potential to dramatically improve the effectiveness and productivity of teaching and learning. And an $85 million request for statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) would provide an increase of $47 million to support the development of P-20 reports and tools to inform 

policy-making at the State and local levels, as well as the development of in-house 

analytic capacity for States and school districts. 

Supporting Career-Readiness for All 

To out-innovate and out-compete the rest of the world, secondary schools and 

postsecondary institutions need to strengthen the links in our education system to 

better support career training and skills. The President’s 2014 Budget seeks to promote career-readiness for all, in large part through a $1.1 billion request for a reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education (CTE) program. The reauthorized CTE program would strengthen alignment among secondary and postsecondary CTE programs and business and industry, and create a better accountability 

system for improving academic outcomes, technical skills, and employability outcomes. We also are proposing $300 million for a new High School Redesign program, 

which would support partnerships of school districts, employers, and postsecondary 

institutions that would redesign high schools in innovative ways to ensure that all 

students graduate from high school with (1) college credit, earned through dual enrollment, Advanced Placement courses, or other postsecondary learning opportunities; and (2) career-related experiences or competencies, obtained through organized 

internships and mentorships, structured work-based learning, and other related experiences. In addition, we are asking for $42 million to fund a demonstration and evaluation 

of Dual Enrollment programs. This proposal would establish or expand dual enrollment programs, aligned with career pathways and local workforce needs, which offer 

high school and adult students the opportunity to earn college credits while enrolled 

in a high school or GED program. Research has shown that participation in dualenrollment programs is linked to increased high school graduation, higher rates of 

college enrollment and persistence, and higher college credit accrual rates. 

Affordability and Quality in Postsecondary Education 

The 2014 request continues to support the President’s ambitious goal that America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 

2020. The urgent and growing need for higher education reflected in the 2020 goal 

comes at a time when paying for college is a challenge for many American families. 

As a consequence, the President’s budget proposes comprehensive reforms to increase affordability and quality in higher education, including $1 billion for a new 

Race to the Top—College Affordability and Completion competition. That competition would drive change in State higher education policies and practices to improve 

college access, affordability, completion, and quality. The request also includes $260 

million for a First in the World fund, modeled after the Investing in Innovation (i3) 

program, which would make competitive awards to encourage innovation in higher 

education to tackle and improve college completion rates, increase the productivity 

of higher education, build evidence of what works, and scale up proven strategies. 

Funding would also support validation systems for competency-based learning, 

25 

which has the potential to improve completion rates, and funding for programs that 

employ alternative validation systems that can demonstrate good outcomes for students at minimal to no cost for them. 

In addition to promoting systemic reforms in higher education, the President’s 

2014 request includes student aid proposals that would make college more affordable, including linking student loan interest rates to market rates and preventing 

a scheduled July 1, 2013, doubling of Subsidized Stafford Loan rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The President’s budget would expand repayment options to ensure that loan repayments for all student borrowers do not exceed 10 percent of a 

borrower’s discretionary income, and significantly increase aid available under the 

Campus-Based Aid programs. For example, the request includes a $150 million increase for the Work-Study program as part of an effort to double participation over 

5 years, as well as reforms to the Perkins Loans program that would expand loan 

volume by some eight and one-half times, up to $8.5 billion, while making Perkins 

Loans available at up to an additional 2,700 college campuses. 

Building Ladders of Opportunity—and Promise Zones 

The President’s 2014 Budget for education would help directly address the growing concern that too many communities in America—urban, rural, and, increasingly, 

suburban—suffer from the negative effects of concentrated poverty, including developmental delays among young children, poor educational outcomes, high rates of 

crime and incarceration, health problems, and low employment. One new strategy 

for addressing the challenges of concentrated poverty is the Promise Zones initiative, which will revitalize high-poverty communities across the country by attracting 

private investment, increasing affordable housing, improving educational opportunities, providing tax incentives for hiring workers and investing in the Zones, and assisting local leaders in navigating Federal programs and cutting through red tape. 

This interagency effort will explore opportunities to make better use of all available resources—Federal, State, and local—to address the negative effects of concentrated poverty. The President’s budget would support Promise Zones through significant requests in his signature place-based programs, including $300 million for 

the Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods, a $400 million request for 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Choice Neighborhoods program, and $35 million for the Department of Justice’s Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Grants program, in addition to tax incentives to promote investment and economic growth. 

Making Schools Safer 

In January of 2013, President Obama released his plan to reduce gun violence, 

make schools safer, and increase access to mental health services. The 2014 request 

supports this plan’s common-sense proposals with new investments designed to improve school emergency plans, create positive school climates, and counter the effects of pervasive violence on students. For example, we are asking for $30 million 

in one-time emergency management planning grants to States to help their LEAs 

develop, implement, and improve emergency management plans designed to enable 

districts and schools to prepare for, prevent and mitigate, respond to, and recover 

from emergencies and crisis events. 

The request also includes $50 million for School Climate Transformation Grants, 

to be coordinated with related proposals at the Departments of Justice and Health 

and Human Services. These grants would help create positive school climates that 

support effective education for all students through the use of evidence-based behavioral practices. Funds would be used to scale up a multi-tiered, decision-making 

framework that has been shown to reduce problem behaviors, decrease bullying and 

peer-victimization, improve the perception of school as a safe setting, and increase 

academic performance in reading and math. In addition, $25 million for Project Prevent grants would help school districts in communities with pervasive violence 

break the cycle of violence through the provision of mental health services to students suffering from trauma or anxiety (including PTSD), conflict resolution programs, and other school-based strategies to prevent future violence. 

I want to close by talking briefly about school safety and gun violence. This issue 

is very personal for me. Frankly, it’s something that has haunted me from the time 

I was a little boy, growing up on the South Side of Chicago. 

I grew up playing basketball on the streets in many of Chicago’s inner-city communities. I had older teenagers who looked out for me and who helped protect me. 

Far too many of them ended up being shot and killed. After graduating from college 

and playing ball overseas, I came back to Chicago to run an ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ program for a class of sixth graders. One of my first memories was of one of our young 

men, Terriance Wright, whose teenage brother was shot one afternoon. 

26 

Going to that funeral, and trying to help that family through that process, was 

brutal. We have far too many parents burying their children—that is not the natural order of life. When I led the Chicago Public Schools, we lost one child due to 

gun violence every 2 weeks. That is a staggering rate of loss. In Chicago, we took 

steps that no public school system should ever have to take. We created burial funds 

for families that couldn’t afford to bury their children. 

So, I absolutely refuse to accept the status quo. And I have two simple goals for 

change that everyone can agree on: first, that many fewer of our Nation’s children 

die from gun violence; and second, that many more children grow up free from a 

life of fear. 

If we refuse to act now, if we refuse to show courage and collective will in the 

aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, I think we will never act. 

Sometimes the time picks you; sometimes you pick the time. Today, sadly, the 

time has picked us. If we don’t move forward now in a thoughtful way to protect 

our children, then we, as adults, as parents, as leaders, have broken a trust with 

children to nurture them and keep them safe from harm. 

On my wall in my office in Chicago, I kept a picture that one of our teenagers 

had drawn for me. It was a picture of him as a fireman. And the caption that he 

wrote to go along with it was: ‘‘If I grow up, I want to be a fireman.’’ That’s a deep 

statement about this young man’s world. Think about what it means that so many 

of our youth today think about ‘‘If I grow up,’’ not ‘‘When, I grow up.’’ 

Everything we are preaching to young people about going to college, building careers, deferring gratification, and planning for the future, is all undermined when 

a child is afraid they will get caught up in the craziness of gun violence. We need 

all our children, whether it is in Newtown, Connecticut, the South Side of Chicago, 

or Aurora, Colorado, to think of themselves in terms of ‘‘when I grow up.’’ 

And when children do have that confidence, our opportunity gaps, our achievement gaps, will shrink. When that day comes, education will fulfill its role in America as the great equalizer. It will truly be the one force that overcomes differences 

in race, privilege, and national origin. 

Conclusion 

The need is urgent. And I say to the committee, whether you are Republican or 

Democrat, our children and our country cannot wait. We cannot postpone providing 

every child with a world-class education. 

I look forward to working with you to develop and implement a fiscal year 2014 

Budget for education that reflects the needs of our children and our Nation. And 

I would be happy to take any questions now that you may have. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary—one of those days. 

You may be spared my questions entirely here. 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is part of my strategy. 

Chairman KLINE. Yes, I know. It is working. 

I am going to begin, after clearing my throat, by taking a moment to talk about the President’s proposal—your proposal—to 

move to a market-based interest rate on all federal student loans. 

As you know, the basics of your plan, the administration’s plan, 

falls largely in line with our goals for student loan interest rates. 

For example, your proposal moves to a market-based interest rate 

on all loans; our proposal moves to a market-based interest rate on 

all loans. Your proposal is based off the 10-year Treasury note; so 

is ours. 

You have three different formulas for calculating the student 

loan interest rates. I thought it would be a little better to narrow 

it down to two; we can talk about it. 

We aimed to get our proposal as close to budget-neutral as we could and ended up with savings of $995 million over 5 years and 

$3.7 billion in savings over 10 years. Your proposal is a little different, costing $29.8 billion over 5 years and saving $6.7 billion 

over 10. 

To protect students in the high interest rate environments and 

try to find common ground with some of my colleagues on the other 

27 

side of the aisle, our bill includes a reasonable interest cap. Your 

legislation does not include a cap but expands the income-based repayment program, bringing the total cost of your proposal to $33.4 

billion over 5 years with $3.1 billion in savings over 10 years. 

I would say our proposals are pretty close and others agree. I am 

going to quote for just a moment from a Washington Post editorial 

yesterday. It says, quote—‘‘This year President Obama proposed 

pegging loan rates to the rate at which the government borrows 

plus a relatively modest markup. On Thursday the House Education and Workforce Committee endorsed a similar policy. Its bill 

may reach the House floor this week.’’ It will, indeed, reach the 

House floor this week. 

Continuing, ‘‘Backers of the President’s plan and those behind 

the House’s say the proposals are designed to be roughly budgetneutral over 10 years. There is no reason to delay passing such a 

policy.’’ 

So, Mr. Secretary, we have some competing ideas up here. I just 

want to get you on the record, if I can, as to where the administration stands. Are we going to go to an interest rate that has pegged 

to the market for a long-term solution or are we going to keep kicking the can down the road? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I just think, Mr. Chairman, that Congress, 

not just in this specific instance but generally, we have to start 

taking on tough issues. We have to take them on together in a bipartisan way, and we have to think for the long haul. 

So we are very interested in a long-term solution. We are interested in this being budget-neutral, not sort of trying to reduce the 

deficit on the backs of students. But I appreciate your thoughtfulness. We want to continue to work with you and other members. 

And the idea of coming back every 2 years to try and fix something, to me it is just a very—with all the real challenges that 

the—you know, the country is facing and what is going on today 

in Oklahoma, the fact that we can’t think long-term, the fact that 

we can’t sort of take a tough issue, deal with it, move it off the 

table, move onto other issues, I just don’t understand that thinking. 

So we are interested in a long-term fix, we are interested in it 

being budget-neutral, and look forward to continued conversations 

with you and others to try and find some common ground. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I hope we can continue to work together as we bang this thing through the legislative process over the next couple of weeks. 

I mentioned this briefly to you earlier today so I am going to ask 

that you give me some information for the record, but as you know, 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980—that is how long this law 

has been around—requires federal agencies to publish in April and 

in October semiannual regulatory agendas in the Federal Register 

describing economically significant regulatory actions that are 

being developed. Further, Executive Order 12866—you may win 

this thing yet—requires agencies to publish every 6 months a regulatory agenda, including all regulations under development or review during the 12 months following publication. 

Let me cut to the chase. Last year, for the first time since 1980, 

we had an administration that didn’t publish the spring agenda at 

28 

all—just skipped it. And when the fall agenda came due, well, they 

just let that go past, too, until they published it on December 21st. 

We are in a new year. April has passed us; we haven’t seen such 

an agenda. 

So my question for you, Mr. Secretary, for the record is, can you 

tell us when the Department of Education submitted its input to 

OMB? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, sir. On May 8th. 

Chairman KLINE. There you go. Thank you very much. 

Well done, Gabby. 

I know. That is why you bring them. I know—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. They are a lot smarter than I. 

Chairman KLINE. Yes. Well, they are all smarter than us. 

All right, I am—my time is about to run out. I just want to make 

the point again about the administration has brought forward a 

very, very big new proposal. You explained it, you talked about 

early education for 4-year-olds in the country. It is a cost of over 

$70 billion over a 10-year period, and you really didn’t do anything 

for IDEA. 

And when I go and sit down with principals and teachers and superintendents and parents at roundtables in my district and I ask 

them, ‘‘What is the most—single most important thing the federal 

government can do for you?’’ it is to step up and meet the federal 

government’s obligation—obligation to fund special ed. 

Once again, I am just disappointed, Mr. Secretary. My time is expired. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your comments on the 

302(b) allocations. I think this is just a dagger that is aimed at the 

heart of the federal role in education and has huge ramifications 

for local schools. 

I would also say, there is a big difference between your plan and 

the President’s plan in the fact that you lock students in to get the 

long-term benefit of the low interest rates today as opposed to the 

variable rates, which locks them in at a much higher rate later on 

and they don’t know what the cost of college is going to be. 

I want to go back to the point I was making with respect to the 

waivers, and I want to make very clear that there is an understanding between us that No Child Left Behind, as was ESEA— 

perhaps No Child Left Behind more successfully than the ESEA in 

many ways—that this a fundamental civil rights law of this country. That is how President Bush saw it. You may remember the 

anger when President Bush said that the system had the soft bigotry of low expectations for many students inside the American 

education system, but the fact was that these students were hidden, their performance was washed out by averages and a constant 

changing of the benchmarks, and we can’t go back there. 

And I am glad to see what is happening on graduation rates but 

we have got to understand that the graduation rate has to be real, 

and we now see some states suggesting that they want to do something that is sort of sub-GED, and maybe graduating students over 

6 years or what have you. I have no problem trying to recover students who didn’t make the 4-year cycle, and we have seen successVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Apr 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\FC\113-18\80891.TXT DICK
29 

ful efforts in New York State to do that and elsewhere in some of 

the larger cities, with really successful recoveries to a regular diploma. 

But, you know, we lamented before No Child Left Behind that 

students couldn’t read the diploma that they were granted. Now 

the question is, what does the diploma mean to an employer, to a 

college, and others? 

And we have got to maintain that integrity in this system as you 

go through the renewals on waivers—around this question, because 

as we know, we had dropout factories that were making AYP; they 

just happened to be losing 50 percent of the students on the way 

to graduation. And we cannot let states start to construct some 

semblance of that system as they seek relief from the tough chore 

of getting excellence on behalf of our students and getting proficiency on behalf of our students, so point made. 

Finally, I just want to thank you so much, and the administration and the President, for emphasizing early childhood education. 

It is very clear the benefits of early childhood education. 

I realize there is sort of a fad among the education elites now 

sort of suggesting that perhaps it makes no difference, that really 

it doesn’t make any difference. I always find that interesting when 

you know how much rich people are prepared to pay for the early 

childhood education and development opportunities for their children. People pay $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year for that 

experience in Washington, D.C., major metropolitan areas, and 

elsewhere, seeking to have their child have that advantage starting 

school. 

The difference they make is they then take their child from that 

early childhood high-quality environment and they put them in a 

good school. So we put them into a terrible school and we say, ‘‘Oh, 

it didn’t work.’’ I would lose grade year competency if I was in some 

of these schools. 

And so I think that we have got to understand that this is a continuum. All of the science that we have learned about brain development, about skills development, about vocabulary acquisition, 

and all of those fundamental skills tell us that this is a very wise 

investment. 

As I understand—and I know we are still in the drafting stage 

there on the President’s program—basically, he is providing money 

to states for states to make the decisions about; all they have to 

do is be willing to invest in high quality—to improve the quality 

of the existing system and to expand the participation, and that is 

what the money is. They decide how they want to allocate this in 

the earliest drafts that I have seen. 

So this isn’t about us telling the states what to do; it is about 

us providing resources to help them meet the demand and the 

quality issues. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I will try and respond to each of your points. 

So on the first point of maintaining a high bar and the civil rights 

commitment through waivers and going forward, hopefully, with 

reauthorization, please know that you have my commitment and 

you have been an absolute champion here, and I appreciate your 

leadership so much. 

30 

One of the biggest benefits of the waivers, which I think people 

still don’t fully understand, is again, there are literally hundreds 

of thousands of children with special needs, minority children who 

were invisible under No Child Left Behind—was not the intent, but 

that is what happened. 

And states are now holding themselves accountable for children 

who didn’t exist under the previous accountability system. That is 

a huge step in the right direction. We need to maintain that bar 

as we go forward. 

On the House budget, just to be very, very clear—I appreciate 

your commitment to try to fund more for special needs children. 

With the House Appropriations’ 302(b) allocation there would be a 

cut in IDEA funding of over $2 billion—$2.04 billion. So it is clearly not going the direction that you propose. 

And the investment in early childhood education would actually 

lead to a reduction in young people being labeled ‘‘special education’’ and would, you know, reduce those costs over time. 

But this is the best—Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller, this is 

the best investment we can make. Again, when you have a Nobel 

Prize-winning economist who comes to this very skeptically, frankly, and talks about a minimum of a seven-to-one return on investment, how many investments does this body make where you get 

a seven-to-one return on investment? 

And we just have to get out of the dysfunction. We have to stop 

thinking short-term. This is a long-term play. The benefits are 10, 

15, 20, 30 years out. 

Politicians too often are wired to think about short term—the 

next election cycle. But if we invest in high-quality early childhood 

education—today less than 3 in 10 of our children have access to 

high-quality pre-K, and then we wonder why we have achievement 

gaps. We wonder why we are always playing catch up. 

We can fix this at the front end, make the right investment, 

make sure it is high-quality. It is not a mandate to states; it is an 

option. 

And the reason, again, for all the dysfunction here in Washington, I am actually hopeful about this because we see governors 

in a bipartisan way, Republican and Democrat, who are investing 

very significantly in early childhood because they get it. They understand it. We just want to partner with states that are interested 

in investing themselves. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Just a comment, Mr. Secretary, before I recognize Ms. Foxx. I do 

battle with my own party on special ed, as well, but whatever those 

issues are doesn’t change the fact that once again, the President 

has, in my judgment, ignored that—what should be a commitment 

and obligation of the federal government. 

Ms. Foxx? 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

Mr. Secretary, the program integrity regulations have been the 

center of intense scrutiny from the higher education community 

and Members on both sides of the aisle in Congress. As you know, 

the courts have invalidated several of these regulations, yet you recently announced the Department plans to reregulate both gainful 

31 

employment and the distance education piece with state authorization. 

The House has had strong bipartisan votes opposing both of 

these regulations. Why do you continue to pursue flawed regulations and what changes to the regulations are you considering? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, obviously part of what we are doing to 

go up through negotiated rulemaking is to hear public comments 

and to get good feedback, and we welcome your feedback, your 

staff’s feedback. And all we are going to do, very simply, is where 

you have, you know, on the gainful side, we have—if we are going 

to hit the President’s goal of leading the world in college graduation rates we need everybody producing students who are graduating with real skills. We—— 

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Secretary, are you willing to make the gainful employment apply to everybody in higher education? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, we need to sort of talk through a number of issues here. My point is, what we want to do is we want to 

make sure that real training is leading to real jobs, and where that 

is happening we want to see that happen more often. 

Where you have folks who are already struggling financially 

going in greater debt and not having an opportunity to get a goodpaying job, they will be in a worse financial position when they 

started. I think that is a poor use of taxpayer dollars. 

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Secretary, my colleagues will tell you, I am very 

sensitive about the word ‘‘training’’ as opposed to ‘‘education.’’ I 

think we educate people and we train animals. 

I remain concerned, Mr. Secretary, about the current state authorization regulation and newly announced rulemaking session. It 

is one thing to say that states must authorize institutions that operate within their states; it is entirely another to dictate precisely 

how these states are to do it, and then if you don’t agree with it, 

punish the students who are attending the institutions within the 

state. 

Aren’t you using the federal regulatory process to push states 

into regulating institutions according to a federal prescription? 

Secretary DUNCAN. No, I don’t think so. Again, we just want to 

make sure that—we want to lead the world in college graduation 

rates. We used to lead the world; today we are 12th. 

You should be ashamed of that. I should be ashamed of that. Everyone here should be ashamed of that. 

We want to get better and we want to make sure that where significant taxpayer dollars are going to institutions, they are doing 

a good job of educating young people. 

Ms. FOXX. One more thing on the state authorization: You have 

issued a ‘‘dear colleague’’ letter in March 2011, but how—about 

how the states can come in compliance. You have extended the 

deadline twice. Can you identify which states still need to come 

into compliance and what notice is being given to them? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I don’t have that here but we are happy to 

get you that information right away. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I have noted the charts that the Secretary 

brought today, and I simply must make a couple of comments 

32 

about them. You know, I don’t know who it was who said, ‘‘There 

are lies, damned lies, and then statistics.’’ 

Having dealt with that all my life, I was very curious on this 

high-quality preschool issue, that it is given to us as a percentage 

of GDP and that number one is Denmark, which has 5,000,574 people in 2011, and they, indeed, spent $10,429; they are number one. 

Iceland is number two; their population is 319,000 and they spent 

$9,745 per student. 

And number three is the Russian Federation. I am not sure that 

we want to compare the United States of America to these other 

places, especially the Russian Federation. 

But I would like to point out that the United States spent more 

per student than any of these places that are highlighted. We spent 

$10,995. 

So if you want to look at it as a percentage of GDP, but we are 

really not comparing apples and apples. We are comparing apples 

and tangerines, I guess, I am not sure, if you look at Iceland and 

Denmark in comparison to us, in terms of numbers, with 320 million people. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me be really clear here: children in your 

congressional district aren’t competing for jobs in your district or 

in your state; they are competing for jobs with children in Singapore, in South Korea, in India, in China, in Russia, in Denmark, 

in Iceland. And we either want our children to be able to compete 

for those high-wage, high-skill jobs and keep those companies in 

our country, or we are going to see those companies migrate to 

where the most skilled workers are. That is the choice we have to 

make. 

Ms. FOXX. And we are spending more per student than those 

places, so—— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Duncan, it is always a pleasure to have you testify before this committee, and thank you for your outstanding leadership 

and perseverance for joining us on the Education and Workforce 

Committee, as I said. 

I am pleased that President Obama’s proposed 2014 budget 

makes strategic investment in early learning and also on K-12 and 

higher education. I have been a strong champion for education K20, and I have a daughter out of—the second out of four girls—specialized in early learning preschool education for pre-kindergarten 

programs, 3-and 4-year-olds. 

She was chosen as the outstanding teacher in that category in 

about 38 school districts and she oftentimes reads what we are 

doing in Congress and makes the comment that not enough children are being given that opportunity with 3-and 4-year-olds. And 

certainly, one of the charts that is in the material you gave us, 

high-quality preschool, the U.S. ranks 25th in public funding for 

early learning out of 36 countries, certainly is in line with what she 

is telling me going on in Texas. 

So let me say, Secretary Duncan, that in your testimony you 

highlight that the graduation rate for Latino students has improved from 2008 to 2011, with an additional 164,000 Latino stuVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Apr 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\FC\113-18\80891.TXT DICK
33 

dents graduating on time, and I understand that high school graduation rates for African American students also improved, so that 

today two in three African American students are graduating on 

time, and to me that is progress. So I congratulate you. 

And I am glad to see that we are making this progress in closing 

the achievement gaps for those students. Looking at the chart that 

shows the number of students in dropout factories in 2008, 2.25 

million, dropped down considerably in 2011. And the number of 

those school districts known as dropout factories dropped from 

1,746 to 1,400 in 2011, again showing great progress. 

So I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, looking at the Republican 

party’s Paul Ryan proposed budget would most likely result in significant cuts to federal education programs that I am talking about. 

Question is, what impact is sequestration having on disadvantaged 

children and youth, and can you discuss the effects of this Ryan 

budget on President Obama’s college completion goals? 

Secretary DUNCAN. And let me just—I will address that directly, 

I just want to go back to while we are very pleased to have 700,000 

fewer children enrolled in quote-unquote ‘‘dropout factories,’’ the 

fact is, we still have about 1.5 million young people in dropout factories. So this is not, you know, ‘‘mission accomplished.’’ This is not 

‘‘we are there yet.’’ 

We have to get better faster. We can’t, you know, get that rate 

down to zero fast enough—that number down to zero. And so we 

have a lot of hard work ahead of us. 

So we need to invest. We need to not invest in the status quo 

and in vision of reform, but any time you have a budget that would 

see $2.5 billion taken away from poor children, Title I money, $228 

million taken away Impact Aid, children from military families, 

children on Native American reservations, we talked about over $2 

billion cut in IDEA programs, $4 billion cut in Pell Grants—you 

know, we are trying to get more young people going on to college, 

not less—it is devastating. And again, we just cut off our nose to 

spite our face. I just don’t understand. 

Let me be really, really clear: our competitors—our international 

competitors—Japan, India, China, Singapore—they are not managing their education strategy by a sequester. That is not how they 

are doing this. 

They are investing, they are innovating, they are putting more 

money in. South Korea has increased its investment over the past 

decade by about a third. They know what it takes to get good jobs 

to come to their country and stay. 

I just worry that we are poorly serving our nation’s children and 

our nation’s economy if we fail to invest and fail to give our children an opportunity to compete in a global marketplace. The world 

has fundamentally changed and we keep acting like we are in an 

era that has been gone for, you know, 30, 40, 50 years. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Secretary, I would like to hear your views on H.R. 

1911, the Republican bill that would make college more expensive 

and out of reach. In particular, how does this proposal affect students of color? 

Secretary DUNCAN. So again, I think and I hope—maybe I am 

wrong—I desperately hope, fervently hope that we could all agree 

that our goal should be to lead the world in college graduation 

34 

rates again. That is the right thing for young people, right thing 

for the country, right thing for our country’s economy. 

I talked earlier in my testimony about the return on investment 

of a college degree of being about 15.2 percent a year. That is a 

huge return on investment. The long-term benefits are indisputable. 

So anything that makes college less accessible, less affordable, 

more distant for first-generation college goers, we do ourselves a 

grave disservice. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Dr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. I thank the Chairman for yielding. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

Before I start, I have got a special guest today, Christina Everett 

from Tennessee, who is a foster youth shadow day, so she is my 

shadow. 

Christina, would you stand up and be recognized here to this 

group? Thank you for being here. 

I also want to send my sympathy. Two years ago my district had 

a terrible tornado and I understand exactly what those folks are 

going through right—it is indescribable what you see on television 

compared to what is actually there on the ground. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I share your enthusiasm for education. The 

week before the election I got tired of talking to adults and I went 

to seven schools and talked to young people—elementary schools up 

to middle schools. That is the future of the country and I agree 

with what most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 

said. 

I do want to get some reality. A year ago we were in—the Chairman and I were in India, along with Dr. Foxx, and in India we 

went to the department of education. They have a million schools 

in India; 700,000 of them don’t have electricity. 

When you compare that, I think most people can’t comprehend 

that you would have a school without electric power but those are 

the facts. We were there just a year ago. So it is a different standard. 

I want to go to the early childhood and what studies—and certainly it sounds intuitively like if you spend more money there you 

will ultimately, down the road, get a better outcome. What studies 

are you citing? Because I have looked at this very—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. There are many, many studies, and we can 

get you a whole series of studies, but the one I cited specifically 

here, and there are others, is the preschool project that Dr. Heckman studied for—it has been a longitudinal study for more than 4 

decades and approaching the 5th—— 

Mr. ROE. That is what I wanted to know. Let’s go over that 

study. 

That study—those two that are—that are quoted—that the President quoted—rests on two academic studies: and I may be pronouncing this wrong, but Abecedarian study—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

35 

Mr. ROE [continuing]. And the Perry study. These are 4-and 5- 

decade studies. These studies actually started in 1972 and with 111 

infants in North Carolina, and the Perry Project started in 1962 

with 123 poor children and their families in Ypsilanti, Michigan. And what it showed was—we have mentioned the $7—the studies cost between $16,000 and $41,000 per child in current dollars, 

and also, the money was spent on very intensive interventions— 

home visits, parent counseling, nutrition, health care. I mean, it 

was incredibly complicated. And that is what we are basing this on, 

these two decades-old studies that were only about 150 people 

total. 

Secretary DUNCAN. No. Those are important studies; they are by 

no means the only ones, and we will get you all this data, Congressman Roe. But recent short-term studies in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 

which has done a great job, preschool led to gains of 6 to 7 months 

in literacy skills and 4 months in math skills, particularly high 

jumps for Hispanic students. 

Very recent study coming out of Boston, preschools led to 7- 

month gains in literacy and math and significant gains in basic 

cognitive skills like inhibition and attention—— 

Mr. ROE. Well, I will get those. And I did want to tell you that 

I had to peel this onion back pretty far, and let’s look at the Head 

Start program—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. And just quickly, some interesting studies 

coming out of Tennessee that talk about the benefits. I want to 

make sure you are aware of those. 

Mr. ROE. I am very aware of those. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Okay. 

Mr. ROE. In December of last year the HHS released a very comprehensive Head Start data, which took years—346-page study, 

and it said that the Head Start, several states and those who didn’t 

through the third grade. Some got in; some did not. 

There were no measurable differences between two groups across 

47 outcome measures. In other words, the Head Start impact was 

no better than just a random—how do you explain that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. So again, it is really important you look 

at the details of the study. And, Congressman Roe, what that study 

did is looked at children who had access to Head Start, not who 

actually attended Head Start, and 20 percent of the children in 

that study actually didn’t attend. So it is very important that we 

have rigorous—— 

Mr. ROE. But if you did or didn’t, you didn’t turn any different. 

It wouldn’t matter. 

Secretary DUNCAN. No. Again, you had children who were in that 

study who were part of the Head Start cohort, 20 percent of whom 

didn’t attend. So again, happy to sit down with you and sort of 

walk through, you know, the facts. It is important this be highquality—— 

Mr. ROE. The group that didn’t attend did just the same as the 

group that did, whether they dropped out or not. 

Secretary DUNCAN. No. Again, the cohort—— 

Mr. ROE. We can discuss. A couple things I want to—I will get 

over is I do want to work with you with—and I am very committed 

to this—is the number of dropout factories. I think that is a travVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Apr 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\FC\113-18\80891.TXT DICK
36 

esty in this country. And we should concentrate on those 1,400 

schools where those children are being failed today. 

And secondly, I want to work with you on the Pell Grant program, where we invest that money more wisely. I would be willing 

to look at a higher number if we knew what the outcomes would 

be. In other words, get it to the students who really are effectively 

using it, because a lot of my community colleges that I talk to, they 

see kids who get the grant drop out and then basically it is lost 

and wasted. I want to see that money invested in kids who are 

being successful. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. McCarthy? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome again, Secretary Duncan. 

I just want to go back on—in September of 2011 the department 

offered states the opportunity to waive the requirement of providing supplemental education service, SES, to students despite assurances proposed in the waivers, like in my home state of New 

York, that it will not shrug off responsibilities to provide support 

services to students and give districts the opportunity to still offer 

SES. I am concerned with the post-waiver realities. 

I know you have a lot of data, but could you tell me what the 

criteria the department is using to evaluate state compliance with 

its commitment to ensure critical services that are being delivered 

to the students? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, well again, at the end of the day, while 

we have approved 37 states’ plans—plans are important—I want to 

look at outcomes for children, and so are those achievement gaps 

being closed? Are children who have been disadvantaged, you 

know, improving or not? 

Plans on paper tell you some things that are important. What is 

more important to me is what is actually happening to real students. 

Let me tell you why we did it. One of the things I really resented 

about Washington, quite frankly, when I led the Chicago Public 

Schools, was that despite the very limited funding coming from 

Washington, Washington tied my hands as to how I could spend 

that money. And I wanted to be held accountable for results, but 

I wanted the flexibility to spend that money as I saw fit. 

And I almost had to sue my current Department of Education 

when I was in Chicago for the right to tutor about 25,000 children 

after school, and my Department of Education was telling me in 

Chicago I couldn’t do that. That, to me, was absolutely crazy. It 

was backwards. 

And so with limited dollars, with education being underfunded, 

we thought it was very important not to dictate to districts and to 

superintendents and to school boards that you have to use 20 percent of your Title I money around SES, and we are going to hold 

you accountable for results. 

They are good providers. Use them. Have them grow. Do some 

things yourselves. But to say you have to spend money in this way, 

that prices are fixed, just simply didn’t make sense. 

So again, my fundamental thinking about this is to hold people 

accountable to a high bar, be tight on goals, but be loose on 

37 

means—give people flexibility in terms of how they hit that higher 

bar. That is why we provided flexibility. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Well, I don’t mind the flexibility. What I mind 

is, are we making sure that the students are getting the programs 

that they want, and how do we know that they—the states are 

doing that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. So again, we will monitor their plans. 

And again, but to be very clear, beyond monitoring plans, we will 

have ongoing checks here, we will have a renewal process. But I 

want to look at, is student achievements improving? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Have you seen any information coming in since 

2011? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. It is very early. Again, you—I saw some 

data. I saw graduation rates are up, dropout factories are down. 

So there is early data, but again, we need to be looking at it 

state by state, and I will look at 50 states and who is moving the 

needle faster, create a little healthy competition there. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. And I agree with that, you know, because I am 

looking at the—certainly the dropout data, which is one of the biggest factors that, you know, many of us care about, because once 

we get those kids that drop out very rarely do they ever come back 

into the system, and those are the kids that, unfortunately, sometimes end up in prison. 

So those are the factors that I have, that we have the opportunity to reach these kids and we have an opportunity to change 

their lives, and I just want to make sure that the states and the 

local districts flexibility are using it, especially the underserved 

schools, because that is who we are really targeting. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Just one other added point on the—I think, 

again, all of us, I think, have to be united in getting that dropout 

rate down to zero. A lot of students leave high school not because 

it is too hard but it is too easy, it is boring for them. And one of 

the things in the President’s budget proposal is a $300 million request to redesign high schools to focus both on college and careers 

and more hands-on, engaged learning and relevance to the workforce. 

I have been in a couple high schools, including one in New York 

recently, that did an amazing job of students seeing that bridge between what they are doing in the classroom and what is going on 

in the real community. For far too many kids that is a huge divide 

and they feel they are wasting their time, so we want to really invest in states and districts that are serious about helping students 

understand how, what I am learning in class is relevant to the jobs 

in my community. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. We have a BOCES program out on 

Long Island. It is absolutely fabulous working with students. Anyone that would meet these students, certainly they are college material, but this is not what they choose. So they—a lot of them do 

go on to college, and I think that is important. Not every student 

wants to go to college. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And to be really clear, because I think what 

other countries do which I don’t like—some countries track students: you are on the college track or career. I never want to do 

that. To me it has got to be both-and, not either-or. 

38 

And to your point, let students figure out what they want to do 

with their lives at different points. We need to give them options, 

not limit those opportunities. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Walberg? 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

Last week I had the opportunity to meet with more than a dozen 

college and university presidents from my district and surrounding 

districts to discuss primarily the issue of the high cost of tuition, 

high cost of higher education, and ultimately, then, the cost to students with, as we have discussed here numerous times, the cost of 

loan debt. We know that the Department of Education requires 

these colleges and universities to collect a great deal of information 

and then to report that information to the Department. That level 

of reporting, according to them, continues to grow. 

And so I would ask, Mr. Secretary, since the—it ultimately comes 

back to the student paying the freight for all that goes on education, including excessive reporting, if that be the case. Has anyone in your Department looked at the financial impact of all of this 

record-keeping and what it is costing not only the universities and 

colleges but the students? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. No, that is a great question. We look at 

that very closely, and I would encourage you—I do this all the time 

when I meet with college presidents—where we have regulations 

that are redundant or burdensome or, you know, compliance-orientated, not adding any value, please let me personally know that 

very directly, and those are the kinds of things we don’t want to 

continue to impose on folks. 

And so where it is helpful, you know, where it is useful information, we want to do that. But where there is unneeded burden 

there, please hold me personally accountable for challenging that. 

So dollars are scarce. We don’t want to waste time. We don’t 

want to waste resources. We want them focused on increasing completion rates, not on paperwork that doesn’t make sense, so—— 

Mr. WALBERG. I would be glad to do that. Appreciate that offer 

and I will share that, certainly, but—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is hard—— 

Mr. WALBERG [continuing]. Do you have any illustrations of what 

you are doing right now to reduce some of that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We can walk through a series of things. My 

challenge is, often when I ask this question I don’t get back concrete, specific to-dos, and so again, the more specific you can be 

the—you know, this piece of data or this whatever—we are asking 

it three times or doing it in a wrong way. So the more concrete you 

can be, that would be helpful. 

A bigger issue is obviously this idea of college costs. And frankly, 

we can reduce paperwork; that is not the driver of college costs 

there. 

We have done a lot with FAFSA simplification to make it easier 

for folks to apply for financial aid. Part of the President’s proposal 

is a Race to the Top for higher education that would incentivize 

39 

three things: incentivize states to continue to invest—this has to be 

about shared responsibility; incentivize universities to keep down 

their own costs—some are doing it really well, others, frankly, 

aren’t; and to incentivize universities to build cultures not just 

around access but around completion. The goal can’t be to go to college; the goal has to be to help people graduate the back end. 

So we want to be a partner and that is what—you know, part 

of what we are proposing to Congress. 

Mr. WALBERG. Let me go on to Pell, since we talked—mentioned 

FAFSA and the programs to help students with tuition costs. I recently heard from several financial aid officers in my district that 

they are concerned about fraud in the Pell Grant program. This 

isn’t new to you information, I am certain. 

Either people are enrolling in community colleges simply to get 

access to student aid dollars with no intention of ever trying to 

complete an academic program or they are fraudulently enrolling 

to simply take the money and run. Can you point to some specific 

actions that this administration has done to clamp down on fraud 

within the Pell Grant programs? 

Secretary DUNCAN. So fraud rings are a real concern and it is 

real money out there, so I have a list of 10. I won’t read them all 

to you, but in October 2011 we issued a ‘‘dear colleague’’ letter to 

the school community addressing the findings that came from the 

OIG. We have established an anti-fraud ring task force, chaired by 

Jeff Baker, to address the issues raised in that report. 

We have created a mailbox and a call line that folks have information there. We are developing a process for schools to review and 

flag unusual enrollment activities that lead to, you know, often are 

early indicators of potential fraud rings. 

I can go through a series of things. So we take this very, very 

seriously. If there are additional ideas or actions we should be taking, happy to consider—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Is there any move to tie FAFSA reporting to the 

IRS records, the tax records, so that we don’t have redundancies, 

we don’t have mistakes—unintentional or intentional fraud in the 

applications? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. So the IRS can pre-populate those 

things. So that is a piece of it but it goes beyond that. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I would hope that we would get to ways that 

we can really reduce the subjectivity of reporting and make sure 

that students, parents, and otherwise know that what they give is 

accurate information. 

Secretary DUNCAN. We will share with you and your staff what 

we are doing, and if you have suggestions on how—ways we can 

do it better, I would be very happy to hear those. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

I have some pre-K initiative questions. Very, very happy to see 

that in the budget. I don’t know how many times we have to go 

over study after study that the sooner you get these babies ready 

40 

the better they are going to do and the outcomes are going to be 

better. And so I appreciate the President’s and your initiative on 

that. 

Earlier question, just for my clarification, maybe something you 

can answer now or certainly provide the committee information on: 

the regulatory question around gainful employment—looking at 

that outcome. Is it possible to provide the committee—and as I understand, it was inclusive but there was a section that dealt—the 

reaction at least that I received, and maybe it was unusual, from 

the for-profit colleges relative to that regulation. 

What is the percentage of federal funds that go into for-profits 

versus the student enrollment versus the outcome? Because I believe that if not today, certainly that information would be important for the committee because this question keeps coming up. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. I don’t have those exact numbers in 

front of me. The percent of money over time has gone up significantly to the for-profits. 

And let me be really clear: I am not anti-for-profit, where forprofits are helping young people or 58-year-olds gain skills to get 

them real jobs and a real living wage, we want to see them grow 

and prosper. 

Where for-profits or other folks are putting people in a worse financial situation than when they started and using taxpayer 

money to do that, we think that is a poor use of taxpayer resources. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And I agree. Because if the mantra is the tax dollar and the waste thereof, then certainly that information would be 

important to the committee. 

What happens with Head Start, Mr. Secretary, once the Pre-K 

initiative is fully implemented, given the cuts that are coming and 

given the re-competition, which I thought was necessary and proper in some of the instances where those agencies weren’t working 

well? What happens to Head Start? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We have a great, great partnership with 

Kathleen Sebelius, who runs HHS. She is a good friend. We, you 

know, travel all the time together. 

To be really clear, this is a 0 to 5 initiative. Again, this is a goal 

to try and end achievement gaps and stop playing catch up and 

stop admiring the problem. So over time HHS would focus on the 

0 to 3 space—more home visiting, and again, working with those 

struggling families to help those parents gain the skills they need, 

focus on Head Start and Early Head Start, and then over time the 

transition of 4-year-olds would be into the pre-K program. 

But really, it is a 0 to 5. And the goal, again, I have just got to 

reiterate, the average—the average child coming from a disadvantaged background starts kindergarten at 5 years old 12 to 14 

months behind. 

That should be untenable to all of us here. That has been true 

for far too long, and the goal is to level the playing field, to have 

young children start at the same starting line at 5-year-olds in kindergarten. It is as simple as that. 

If I could add one more thing that is really important from the 

research—research, part of the benefits are academic—clearly, you 

know, language and literacy and math skills—but a big part of 

these benefits that these long-term studies are showing are what 

41 

is called non-cognitive skills—the ability to sit in a room like this 

and to participate, the ability to have resilience and grit. And those 

non-cognitive skills play huge dividends, and you guys couldn’t be 

as successful as you are if you didn’t have those. 

Not every child grows up in a family or household that has those 

kinds of opportunities. So it is the academic dividend benefit plus 

the non-cognitive side that seems to have these lifetime, huge impacts on young people’s ability to enter into middle class and be 

successful. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Two quick questions: In the pre-K initiative, the 

English learner component, is—I read it quickly, but I don’t know, 

is it—does that include it in the initiative so that we are—we make 

sure that all families and kids are going to be able to fully participate? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. The young kids who are, you 

know, low-income and then sort of work your way up, and where 

states wanted to do more, in the middle class—middle-income families they would have the right to do that. 

And if states were doing a lot in the pre-K space they could use 

our resources to do more full-day kindergarten, which we think is 

the right step. So we are going to provide lots of flexibility to partner with states, build upon their strengths, and fill in gaps where 

there are holes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And related, one of the first hits, in terms of sequestration, was in Indian Country, and in particular, in education 

on the reservation and in those nations. As you see that question 

and as you see it in reflection in the President’s budget to address 

what I think was not only a shortfall but—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, there is a desperate—— 

Chairman KLINE. Excuse me. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We are trying to give all members a chance. 

Dr. Heck? 

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thanks to Mr. Duncan. 

Good to see you again. Appreciate you taking time to be here. 

Just first a quick observation on the average increase of graduation rates, and going back to what Dr. Foxx had said earlier about 

statistics, I think it is great that the average rate is 78 percent, 

and as you mentioned, on track to hit 90 percent, but I think we 

have got to be real careful about using the average because that 

always implies a high and a low, and we know that the top five 

largest school districts, of which mine is number five in the Clark 

County school district, the average of those five come out to 69 percent. So maybe we would better start using the median or something a little bit different to make sure we are tracking all school 

districts. 

One issue very important to me is the Carl D. Perkins Career 

and Technical Education Act, and I have always been a strong supporter of CTE ever since my days in the state house and maintain 

the philosophy that high school seniors should be college or career 

ready when they graduate. We have talked a lot here today about 

access and affordability of college, but not everyone is meant to go 

to college. And those who choose to forego college in order to enter 

42 

the workforce directly after high school need options and necessary 

training. 

I appreciate the administration’s proposal to reauthorize the Perkins Career and Technical Education Act but do have some concerns with this proposal to designate $100 million to create a new 

competitive CTE innovation fund. As I know you are aware, CTE 

funding is allocated based on demographics, and because CTE is 

discretionary funding there can be fluctuations from year to year 

so the hold harmless provision was put into place back in 1998 to 

prevent states from ever receiving less than they were allocated in 

1998. 

And it obviously was established to prevent states from being 

disproportionately affected. And while well-intentioned, states like 

my home state of Nevada have had significant population growth 

since 1998, and if we use the 1998 hold harmless provision in combination with the diversion of $100 million for the innovation fund, 

it puts Nevada at a significant disadvantage that can potentially 

result in a funding reduction of 42 percent. 

With that in mind, did the Department of Education take these 

potentially devastating cuts to states like Nevada, which would receive a 42 percent cut, into account? Should this proposal go into 

effect? And does the Department have a proposal to revise the 

funding formula allocation for CTE funding to provide for a more 

equitable distribution of funds amongst the states? 

Secretary DUNCAN. So happy to work through those specific 

issues with you and the governor and, you know, we put out a 

blueprint for Perkins reauthorization, as you said. Happy to get 

comments, feedback from anybody. Our goal is not to devastate any 

state, clearly, so I don’t know all the details and intricacies there, 

but more than happy to look at it. 

But I think the fundamental point we are trying to make is, 

again, as a country I think we did better—whether you call it VocEd, or CTE, honestly, as a country I think we did this better 20 

or 30 or 40 years ago and have gotten away from this. We want 

to see this become much more part of the norm of what high 

schools are offering. We want to spur innovation, spur creativity. 

Some places are doing it; other places it doesn’t exist. Some high 

schools are still training people for jobs that disappeared a couple 

decades ago. We want to find ways to increase the access to quality 

CTE programs at the high school and even having some feeder programs in the middle school. 

So that is the goal. Happy to talk through any details with you 

and your team. 

Mr. HECK. Certainly, and I appreciate your efforts to work together to try to prevent significant cuts to CTE funding by some 

states. In addition, states like Arizona, Florida, North Carolina also 

would see significant cuts based on the hold harmless from 1998 

as we move forward, so I appreciate your help in trying to avoid 

that. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Happy to look at it. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

43 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here and thank you for your 

leadership. 

I am very worried about the federal campus-based student financial aid programs. I think sequestration has had, as you know, a 

significant impact on programs like college Work Study and SEOG. 

A 22 percent cut in appropriations will do even further damage to 

those programs. 

And I am particularly worried about Perkins. As you know, current law has the Perkins Loan fund returning to the Treasury October 1, 2015, so that means we have two more academic years left 

of a program we have had since I think 1958. 

The Department has made a proposal—or the President has 

made a proposal—a couple of years now to dramatically expand 

Perkins, basically turn it into campus-based direct lending, to help, 

you know, significant numbers of additional students. But let’s be 

honest. I don’t think that program has much of a chance in this 

Congress. In fact, I think probably the acting commissioner of the 

IRS has a better shot of being named Government Man of the Year 

than we have getting that program through. 

So I guess my question is, does the Department have a plan B? I mean, I would—that is $1.4 billion worth of student financial aid 

that could disappear overnight unless we are able to either keep 

the program as it currently exists or extend it in some form or 

fashion. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Obviously your long history makes you an absolute expert in this area, so I would love to further the conversations beyond today. But sort of stepping back big picture, we have 

a huge challenge of keeping college affordable—and not just in disadvantaged communities, in the middle class. And whether I go to 

the grocery store or to the dry cleaners or fly on an airplane, everywhere I go people are telling me that the cost of college is crushing 

them. 

And so the question is, again, as a country, do we want to have 

the best-educated workforce in the world or do we want to continue 

to be 12th or 14th or 16th? And so looking at all of these things 

in a holistic way, figuring out how we make college more affordable 

has to be our collective goal. 

Our proposal on the table is a race to the top for higher education. Played significantly in the early childhood space; think we 

have had dramatic impact on K-12. Haven’t played in higher ed. 

We at the federal level, as you know so well, can’t do it by ourselves. It has to be shared responsibility. 

But if we can get states to invest and reinvest—40 states recently have cut funding for higher education, Republican and 

Democratic, so 80 percent of the country. There is no upside there. 

Not enough universities are using technology to reduce costs and 

to increase, you know, graduation rates and pass rates. 

So we want to try and put some significant carrots out there to 

incentivize different behavior. So I would love to get your insight 

as to, you know, our—whether our proposal makes sense or better 

ideas you have. 

But the debt burden is staggering. The cost is far too high. And 

none of this is good for young people, their families, or for the country. 

44 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. Well, thank you for that. I would be delighted 

to work with you and your colleagues in the Department. 

I guess I want to emphasize the importance of the campus-based 

financial aid programs. As someone who used to administer those 

programs, they are often the difference between whether a student 

enters or doesn’t enter, and most often, a difference—makes the 

difference between whether a student stays. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Whether they stay or whether they have to 

leave. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. Second question quickly: You talked about a culture 

of completion. Again, I am in full agreement, and there is a lot of 

pieces to that. 

But one piece that I would hope we could resurrect is cooperative 

education. Cooperative education is, as you know—you and I have 

talked about this; this is something that I think is one of the best 

things that colleges can do for students, but it also—it correlates 

very positively with completion. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. So students not only stay enrolled, they finish and 

then they have a—they generally—70 percent of them have a job 

waiting for them. So if we want a culture of completion, if we want 

students to enter a job market that isn’t as hospitable as we would 

like it to be, cooperative education really can be a part of that solution. And I would hope that we could move towards resurrecting 

the federal role in cooperative education. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Again, thank you. Please push us to think 

about that and other thoughts and ideas you have on this topic, 

which again, I think is an issue of national security and economic 

competitiveness. We need to be bold; we need to be thoughtful; and 

we need to work together. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Salmon? 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Duncan, the proposed budget contains several new and 

costly programs to address college affordability and innovation, including $1 billion for the Race to the Top, $260 million for the first 

in the world, reformed campus-based aid to prevent the expiration 

of Perkins Loans. 

What is the Department doing to remove existing regulatory barriers that prevent colleges from sharing innovative practices and 

reducing costs before spending billions more on new, untested programs? 

More specifically, I know you are aware your department implemented new incentive compensation regulations. In doing so, you 

eliminated the so-called ‘‘safe harbors’’ that had been put in place 

over multiple administrations. In response to advocates from the 

Democrat side of the aisle, your department maintained one of the 

safe harbors by expressly permitting revenue-sharing between colleges and third parties to innovate and share expertise. 

But instead of applying the regulation fairly, your department 

prohibited any entity or institution that is affiliated with another 

institution of higher education from participating in this market. I 

45 

have a letter sent to you by Chairman Kline and Ranking Miller— 

Ranking Member Miller saying that you were looking to fix this 

unfair rule in the negotiated rulemaking process. However, it is not 

on the agenda of issues to be addressed and the Federal Register 

notice states that the process will take years. 

There is bipartisan support to fix this problem immediately—to 

expand innovation, help colleges reduce costs for students—something you say you care deeply about. Simple, straightforward legislative language has been drafted that keeps in place ample protections. Would you commit today to support these—this legislation 

and work constructively with those of us on both sides of the aisle? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Happy to look at that, and if there is bipartisan support for anything these days we ought to look at that very 

seriously. 

Mr. SALMON. Well, I appreciate your commitment to do so. 

One final question dealing with Common Core standards. I have 

always been kind of a states’ rights guy and I believe that the top 

quality of education really is affected at the state level, and more 

specifically, by the local school districts. 

I don’t see anything in the Constitution that really deals with 

education. In fact, I think conversely, the 10th Amendment gives 

the states the lion’s share of the responsibility if not all the share 

of the responsibility for education. 

Also, the General Education—Educational Provisions Act prohibits the federal government from directing education. Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act—ESEA—prohibits the establishment 

of a national curriculum. 

So I have a lot of constituents on the education front that are 

very, very concerned about a federal takeover of curriculum. They 

see it as a bribe to the states and a bait-and-switch. It is a promise 

of money that if the states go along with this federal curriculum 

then they will get the money. 

Many states have taken the bait, but a lot of the students and 

parents are really not very happy with this. What are we doing to 

make sure that we maintain local control of curriculum? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, sir, facts matter, and as a matter of 

fact, we are prohibited by law from touching curriculum. Never 

have, never will, no intent. So it is not a black helicopter ploy and 

we are not trying to get inside people’s minds and brains, which 

I have been reading about. 

Let me be really clear: what many states on a voluntary basis 

have done, including your state, is raise standards, so you want our 

children competing to high standards internationally benchmarked, 

so again, they are not at a disadvantage relative to children in 

India and China and Singapore. How you teach to those higher 

standards—the curriculum—is absolutely controlled at the local 

level. Always has been, always will be. You have never heard me 

once in 4-whatever years talk about that. 

So let’s not get caught in the hysteria and the drama. Let’s look 

at the facts. If Arizona wants to raise their standards tomorrow, 

Arizona wants to lower their standards tomorrow, you have the absolute right to do that. I would encourage you not to—— 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Secretary Duncan. 

46 

Secretary DUNCAN. I would encourage you not to lower your 

standards—— 

Mr. SALMON. I don’t believe anybody is caught up in any kind of 

hysteria whatsoever. I just had a straightforward question and you 

have answered it. I appreciate it. You have said that the federal 

government has no intention of getting involved in directing what 

the states do for curriculum and I appreciate it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And to be very clear, we are prohibited by 

law from doing that. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Fudge? 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I, too, have a guest with me today. Jenny Corvath, from 

Dayton, Ohio, who is one of our foster care advocates. Thank you 

for being here. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony, and thank you 

for your focus on children, which sometimes, I think, gets lost in 

this very committee. 

Before I begin, though, I do want to make a comment about the 

Smart Solutions piece that they talked to you about earlier. Let me 

just for the record say that it is not smart and it is not a solution. 

All it does is just—it is just another vote that is going to try to balance the budget or make cuts on the backs of those who can least 

afford it. 

And for those who are concerned about IDEA, I know that I don’t 

think I have a colleague on the other side who voted for the stimulus. Even though it is not enough, there were significant resources 

in the stimulus bill for IDEA—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. $11.3 billion. I think the—— 

Ms. FUDGE. $11.3 billion. 

Secretary DUNCAN [continuing]. The largest increase, I think, in 

the history—it has to be—in the history of IDEA. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you so much. 

Now let me just ask you a couple of questions. Recently I worked 

with the National Urban League to introduce H.R. 1343, the 

Project Ready STEM Act, and I see that in your budget your are 

asking for an additional or—$150 million for STEM innovation. 

Now, if these funds are appropriated, what emphasis will the Department place on ensuring that a portion of these funds are specifically used to expose low-income and minority youth to STEM 

education? 

Secretary DUNCAN. And thanks. We haven’t talked enough about 

STEM today so I really appreciate you raising it. So this is clearly 

an area of tremendous interest amongst young people. This is 

clearly an area where so many of the jobs of today and, even more 

importantly, the jobs of the future are going to be in the STEM 

fields, so equipping our students with the skills to successfully compete for those jobs is hugely important. 

This is not just a Department of Education initiative. The President has really challenged us as an administration to do more in 

this area. He is personally very passionate about this. 

There have been lots of disparate programs across the administration—many really good ones, but maybe the collective impact 

47 

hasn’t been as strong as it should be. So he has asked us to lead 

an effort to help bring together all the resources behind STEM to 

make sure that we are doing a couple different things: one, that we 

are creating a master teacher core of STEM teachers who can be, 

you know, mentors and leaders and help keep those teachers in the 

field and help grow the next generation of STEM teachers. We 

need about another 100,000 STEM teachers going forward. 

And then we want to invest in communities, again, whether they 

be inner city or, you know, wherever they might be, where there 

are real strong public-private partnerships around STEM, where 

the business community, where the higher education, where K-12 

are all working together, so these STEM innovation hubs to help 

increase that pipeline and make sure that real training is leading 

to real jobs. So there is a chance, I think, to do some really creative 

things, and we, as we always do, we will ensure that disadvantaged 

communities have access to these kinds of opportunities. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

And secondly, I will soon be introducing the Promoting Health 

for Youth Skills In Classroom And Life, it means PHYSICAL Act. 

This bill recognizes physical and health education as core subjects, 

ensuring that schools have the option to use Title I and Title II 

funds for physical and health education programs. 

We know about the epidemic of obesity in this country, and I am 

just curious, as this committee moves toward the reauthorization 

of ESEA, what are your thoughts on recognizing physical and 

health education as core subjects through the reauthorization process? 

Secretary DUNCAN. You and I were both—and I think both still 

trying to be athletes, and the chance to run around, to burn off a 

little steam, I always say that for me to do well academically, I 

needed those opportunities. And that is—what is true for me I 

think is true for so many young children today. 

So my wife is a former phys ed teacher, and whatever we can do 

to make sure, whether it is P.E., I am a huge proponent of recess— 

we need more recess. These have to be a normal part of the day. 

And again, we have all these false fights in education, and somehow some people believe if you are doing more of that you are hurting yourself academically. It is quite the opposite. When students 

are active physically it helps their brain development. There is all 

kinds of research. They can sit and concentrate and not be, you 

know, jumping up and down. 

And so whatever we can do to bring P.E. back into the norm, 

whatever we can do to encourage recess—the nutrition part of this 

is really important, but so are those healthy skills, healthy lifestyles that if we instill them early in life will stay with students 

hopefully for a lifetime. I can’t overstate how important that is— 

a chance to run around, a chance to play, a chance to be part of 

a team. 

That should just be a normal, healthy part of growing up, as it 

was for so many of us, and unfortunately, it is not always today. 

Again, I think there is a real—a tremendous downside to not having that there. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

48 

Chairman KLINE. Gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Messer? 

Mr. MESSER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. First, I just want to 

thank you for your work. We agree on many topics, disagree on 

some, but I know of no one who questions your commitment to the 

young people of this country and their efforts to have better opportunities, and so thank you. 

Get three quick topics. There is a lot to cover, but hopefully we 

can touch on all three. 

First, want to make you aware, if you are not—I think you may 

well be, but of the Improving Postsecondary Education Data for 

Students Act, the bill that passed out of this committee in a bipartisan way last week. It is not the sexiest of topics but it is designed 

to make sure that families, as they go through this most important 

investment of higher education, have good data. 

There is a lot of data out there. I think our hope is that we can 

try to streamline that data and also improve reporting burdens for 

colleges, and any comments or thoughts you have on—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. I don’t know all the details of the bill, 

but I love the direction you are trying to go and just having greater 

transparency. We haven’t talked about this, having young people 

and families choose the right colleges for them for the right reasons 

and have full information—what is a grant, what is a loan, what 

are graduation rates. These things can be almost impenetrable for 

far too many families, and whatever we can do to add transparency, to add clarity. 

Not to go on too long, but we have the best system of higher education in the world unquestionably, but we are—the marketplace 

for choosing the right school is wildly inefficient. Too many people 

choose the wrong school for the wrong reasons. So whatever we can 

do—and again, anything bipartisan I would love to work on—— 

Mr. MESSER. Yes, well great. We were glad to work with the 

folks in this committee, certainly committed to working with you 

and hopefully can—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. And it doesn’t have to be sexy. If it makes 

a difference for young people, if it helps those graduation rates 

climb, that is really important. So don’t discount the importance of 

what you are doing. 

Mr. MESSER. Oh, no. Information matters, no question about it. 

The second question: several different questioners addressed Pell 

Grants. I am a product of Pell Grants. I think it is an incredibly 

important program. I am glad we have got more students who have 

access to that. 

As you are probably well aware, we spent $36 billion on that last 

year, hundreds of billions over a period of years. And yet, it is my 

understanding we don’t really report or measure as a society what 

the outcomes of Pell Grants are. What are your thoughts on whether we ought to report and measure those outcomes? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Again, part of the transparency we want to look at is what are universities do to, again, 

not just have cultures of access but around cultures of completion, 

and looking at apples versus apples, Pell Grant recipients versus 

non-Pell Grant recipients, seeing which universities are taking this 

49 

part of the mission seriously and not. We want to provide maximum transparency there, and so it is the right investment. 

It is one of the things I am most proud of, frankly, that we have 

gone from about 6 million Pell recipients to about 9.4 million, but 

there is still tremendous unmet need. 

And then again, I just have to reiterate, the proposed budget 

coming out of the House Approps would be—would lead to a reduction in access to Pell Grants by over $4 billion. How is that in our 

nation’s best interest? 

Mr. MESSER. Yes. And again, the point I would make—sounds 

like you agree—is when you start to measure what the outcomes 

are it gives you the opportunity to shape policy. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Mr. MESSER. The third issue—and understandably, these are 

tight budget times. I have heard a lot of comments today about 

tight budgets in both K-12 and in higher education, as well. 

I want to raise a concern with you that was raised to me by my 

local school superintendent. Shelbyville Central School System has 

about 3,800 students. Our annual budget is about $40 million. 

About $3.6 million of that is provided by federal funding. 

And the superintendent has raised the issue of the impact of 

Obamacare on our local budget. As you are probably well aware, 

the provisions of Obamacare require health insurance for any employee that works more than 30 hours a week. And the question 

is with certain teacher’s aides and other employees, they now will 

be required to cover them with Obamacare or cut back the hours 

for these teacher’s aides and have impacts on student learning. 

The local superintendent has estimated it is about an $800,000 

impact on this school, about a 2 percent cut on a $40 billion—$40 

million budget. But if you look at the federal impact of 3.6 in funding, it is about a 20 percent reduction in the federal benefit. 

I would like to hear, one, are you aware of this issue? And secondly, would you support the idea of exempting K-12 and higher 

education institutions from the requirements of Obamacare? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I don’t know those specific details. What I 

would be happy to do is if you give me his name and number, 

happy to reach out. We actually have a team in our department 

working on implementation of the Affordable Care Act. 

Happy to talk to him, hear his concerns, see if there is anything 

we can do to be helpful. So if you could leave me his contact information we will follow up directly. 

Mr. MESSER. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your help. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony and your years of 

service and your obvious dedication to the students. 

When I review the blueprint for reform and the budget summary 

I see a lot of discussion about accountability and assessment. Reminds me of the time a few years ago—your comment about P.E.— 

when I toured an elementary school in my district and they 

bragged about how great their third grade test scores were and I 

said, ‘‘How did you do that?’’ They said, ‘‘We cut P.E.’’ Big concern. 

50 

And I see competitive funding proposals. And, Mr. Secretary, in 

your testimony you say budgets entail value choices, and what I 

am looking for is a value choice that furthers development of innovative, creative critical thinkers. 

You talk about long-term vision, about global competitiveness, 

and frankly, I don’t think businesses and employers are looking for 

good test-takers. They are looking for people who are inquisitive, 

collaborative, good communicators, people who are creative and innovative, who aren’t afraid to take risks. And that comes from 

using both halves of the brain, from a well-rounded education that 

especially includes the arts, music, P.E. 

We need to stimulate intellectual curiosity. You talked about the 

kids who drop out because they are bored. So in the proposed budget there is $75 million to develop and expand innovative practices for improving teaching and learning and 

the arts, health education, foreign languages, civics and government, history, geography, environmental education, economics and 

financial literacy, and other subjects. $75 million. 

So in light of the fact that a lot of students today will be doing 

jobs that don’t exist now and making things that haven’t been invested yet, what policies will lead to schools that really cultivate 

creative, entrepreneurial students—excuse me—and how can $75 

million possibly be adequate for something that is so critical? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. No, it is a huge, important topic, and I 

appreciate you raising it. So that is obviously a funding source. I 

would argue to you that when you see states raising standards, college and career ready and critical thinking skills and all those 

things that you need to be successful with higher standards, that 

is a part of what you are getting at. 

But please challenge me and challenge our team. I can’t overstate how all those things you talked about need to be the norm 

for public schools, not the exception—and to be really clear, not the 

norm just of high school, but for first and second and third and 

fourth graders who then start to get these skills and self esteem 

and develop a passion or a love for something beyond just the traditional academic subjects. 

So there are lots of other ways we are—STEM we, you know, 

haven’t talked enough about, huge proposals around STEM, which 

gets to much of what you are asking. But please challenge us to 

do more. 

The other thing that is so important in the waiver process—what 

I hated about No Child Left Behind was there was a fixation just 

on an absolute test score, and I do want to look at growth and gain 

and how much students are improving. Obviously if you have a, 

you know, great third grade test score and a 50 percent dropout 

rate you are not helping kids. 

And what you have seen in many states through the waiver process is real creativity here, moving away from a focus on one test 

score, looking at graduation rates; looking at reductions in dropouts 

rates; looking at college-going rates; looking at what percent of students are staying in college—perseverance; looking at what percent 

of kids are going to college but need remedial classes, meaning they 

are really not ready. So just in our fundamental accountability system we have tried to move away from a focus just on a test score 

51 

to a more holistic, comprehensive set of indicators that, if you are 

going to reduce dropout rates, I think you have to attack all the 

things you are talking about and engage kids in different ways. 

So we are trying to change the incentive structure. Happy to 

share what different states are doing. But those kinds of opportunities and learning experiences need to be the norm, not the exception. If you have thoughts on how we can do that better I would 

love to hear them. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Well, I am going to be introducing a 

resolution supporting the ASCD’s Whole Child Initiative, also 

working on the STEM to STEAM Caucus. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. There is a lot of great brain research on how the 

arts and design actually improve and enhance the STEM disciplines. 

And in my remaining time I just want to make a comment about 

the importance of early childhood education. Last weekend I had 

the opportunity to hear Dr. Donna Beegle in Oregon, who spoke 

about rising up out of poverty. 

She is the only person in her family who has not been incarcerated. She came from very poor circumstances. Tough, tough life 

growing up. 

And I kept waiting for her to say how she broke out of this cycle 

of poverty, and finally she did at the end. It was a Head Start 

teacher who got her on the right path. And what she is doing now 

compared to where she came from was really remarkable. 

And it is anecdotal but it just goes to support the importance of 

that early learning. It is a great investment in early childhood education. If we want to get to the issues of income and equality we 

give every child an equal opportunity for that early learning. 

So thank you and the administration for that priority. I really—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, if I can, just on 

the arts piece quickly, another place where we are emphasizing the 

arts is in the turnaround space, these chronically underperforming 

schools. We have a set of schools that are using the arts curriculum 

to turn it around. 

I was literally in one yesterday morning here in D.C., Savoy Elementary. I would encourage you to go visit—pretty amazing. I saw 

3-and 4-year-olds working on an opera. That is not what I was 

doing when I was 3 and 4. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And Orchard Garden—as well. 

Secretary DUNCAN. That principal was with us yesterday. He is 

amazing. 

So that is another funding stream where you have seen some 

really creative work to engage kids in their own learning. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentlelady’s time has expired, and the world 

is a much better place because I never worked on opera. 

Mr. Rokita? 

Secretary DUNCAN. You and I both. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. I thank the Chairman for not working on 

opera. 

52 

Secretary Duncan, thanks for being here today. I would say that 

I just saw the Joffrey Ballet, though, in Chicago a few weeks ago. 

I know you are probably familiar with that, and these kids in Chicago who are learning that, as well, is absolutely fascinating—one 

of the most athletic experiences I have witnessed, actually. Never 

thought I would see that in a ballet. 

Talk to me a little bit about the waiver process. How much time 

do you spend—or did you spend—personally involved in that process, reviewing it, deciding who gets a waiver and who doesn’t? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Not a lot of personal time state by state— 

some. Where there were tough calls staff would bring that, you 

know, when things were on the fence. But where there is a pretty 

clear yes or no I spent less time. I spent a lot of personal time trying to think about what were the tenets, what was the philosophy 

behind the waivers, what we were trying to accomplish, what we 

were trying to move away from—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. I appreciate that. 

And the reason for my question is because in—you and I have 

had now two personal phone calls, and—which I, as I said on the 

phone calls and I will say on the record here, I greatly appreciate 

it. And regarding this administration, you are one of the ones that 

I think I can really communicate with and reason with and have 

a relationship with, and I appreciate that and I thank you for it. 

But now I am seeing some letters that are coming, and I doubt 

you are writing them, that are—but—you know, if you are the head 

of an organization you are creating the culture. We are finding that 

out all around this country now in different places, especially the 

federal government. And the letters don’t track our personal phone 

conversations in this respect. 

Back in 2012 we asked to see your schedule for the purpose of 

determining—because we have oversight over No Child Left Behind 

and the waivers circumvent No Child Left Behind. You can argue 

if that is good or bad; that is not the point of my question. But we 

have a duty here to see what the Department is spending its time 

on and what you are spending your time on with regard to these 

waivers which, again, circumvent federal law. 

And we couldn’t—we got an objection to that looking at your 

schedule. Then I see a letter that—where you sent a letter to the 

states that received waivers asking about the implementation process, and that is the letter we sent. Then you felt the need to send 

a letter instructing the states so the Department has been transparent and assumed every other state would check with their legal 

counsel in responding to our—this committee’s letter just like you 

did when you responded to our letter. 

Now there are different ways—you can’t read in the context of 

letters, but you could take that to mean it was almost like a subtle 

threat. ‘‘Check with your counsel. Don’t have to respond to these 

people here until you have checked with your counsel and determined what is appropriate or not.’’ Can you clear that up? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, absolutely, on both. So to be clear, I 

don’t—wasn’t even aware of the request of my schedule, but I think 

it would be hard to look at my schedule and know what time is 

spent—— 

53 

Mr. ROKITA. It was a June 25, 2012 letter, and I will reintroduce 

it to the record—— 

[The information follows:] 


80891-23.eps
54 


80891-24.eps
55 


80891-25.eps
56 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is fine. 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. Without objection. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Happy to give information that is helpful. My 

point is, looking at my schedule would not—it is a difficult way to 

figure out how much time, whether it is in meetings, doesn’t know 

what the title of the meeting is, how much time at night I am 

spending thinking about this. To me it seems like a ham-handed 

way, frankly, to try and get at the issue. 

If you have a direct question, happy to answer any question—— 


80891-26.eps
57 

Mr. ROKITA. Well, okay. Would you send your schedule and then 

add to it a narrative about, ‘‘Hey, I am spending this’’—round figures—‘‘this kind of time, this much time.’’ 

Secretary DUNCAN. It would be a wild guess. We have spent a 

lot of time—lot of time thinking about it. 

Mr. ROKITA. Could you try to re-answer the question then and 

give a date certain when you give us an answer? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Happy to look again. Don’t know the details. 

Not quite sure—— 

Mr. ROKITA. How much time do you need? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Not quite sure what the intent of the question, what is the—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Anything you can ask, you can look at your schedule 

yourself, refresh your memory, and just give us a ballpark figure 

how much personal time you have spent or are spending on these 

waivers. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Okay. And again, just to be clear, I have 

spent a lot of time thinking about the philosophy behind them; I 

have spent less time on individual waivers, just to be real clear. 

Mr. ROKITA. What date might we expect something? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I will check. Not sure. Happy to look—— 

Mr. ROKITA. You can’t give us a date? 

Secretary DUNCAN. No, I can’t—— 

Mr. ROKITA. A month? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I can’t give you a date because it is a—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Two months? 

Secretary DUNCAN [continuing]. It is an odd request, sir. I don’t 

quite understand—— 

Mr. ROKITA. It shouldn’t be that odd of a request to understand, 

when we are circumventing federal law, how much time you are 

personally spending on these decisions. I don’t think that is a crazy 

question. 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is the first time I have had that question 

in 4-something years, so that is why I am a little taken aback. 

Never had that question before in any—in any setting. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay, well it was asked first in—in June of 2012. 

Since we are running out of time, let me move on. On—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. I mean, the other one, just to be clear, obviously zero intent to do it ever. Frankly, states were a little worried 

when they received that letter and we have good relationships with 

virtually every state and we were trying to say, sort of, actually to 

mitigate, to—to knock down the worry. And the Chairman asked 

me lots of questions; I try and give lots of answers. He asked me 

some questions a couple days ago; got him some answers today. 

And we have a good, trusting relationship. 

But frankly, it was scary to some states and we were trying 

to—— 

Mr. ROKITA. I appreciate that. 

On Common Core—I know you got one question there today on 

that—the standard is for—for you to adopt college- and careerready standards that are common to a significant number of states. 

That is the language. 

Is there any other standard other than Common Core that would 

suffice in order—— 

58 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time is expired—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. No, no, no. This is an important one. I am 

sorry. Just really quickly, because it is—— 

Chairman KLINE. I am sorry. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We will take it for the record, or I will give you a chance later, Mr. 

Secretary. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I need to take the chance because that is factually incorrect, so I need to be really clear. 

Chairman KLINE. Noted. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

At a time when Congress is disinvesting from children I want to 

thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank the President for putting forward a budget proposal that upholds our sacred obligation to educate our young people. In particular, I applaud your focus on funding early education at a time when sequester cuts are decimating 

programs like Head Start and research in STEM education. 

Robust funding for education is essential for ensuring that young 

people can live out their fullest potential and that this nation’s 

economy can reach its long-term potential. The earlier we begin 

teaching our children in the field of science, technology,—engineering, and math, I know it works. I served as an educational coordinator for Head Start for 3 years. We must start early. 

I have one foster care advocate from Florida here today, Otto 

Phillips. 

Raise your hand, Otto. 

Research over the last decade shows how important rates of 

teacher qualification and retention are in ensuring that pre-K is 

high-quality and produces all the benefits for children we want to 

see. The findings of the National Institutes for Education Research 

demonstrate that low levels of compensation diminish the ability to 

retain the highly trained workforce necessary for high-quality early 

childhood education. 

How can the Administration ensure that the workforce is adequately compensated and positioned to provide high-quality education that produces the desired benefits for children, especially in 

beginning science curiosity and math? They already are energized 

with technology by 2 years old; they can use the iPad. So what do 

you see as what the administration can do to hold that interest? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Two-and three-year-olds are sometimes 

ahead of us, quite frankly—— 

Ms. WILSON of Florida. Yes. 

Secretary DUNCAN [continuing]. And we have to start early, so it 

is a great point. 

And again, this is a—I just want to—people to understand, this 

is a $75 billion proposal. This is—eclipses anything else we have 

done. This is a really, really big deal. We think it is an absolute 

game-changer. 

And part of those resources can be used to better compensate 

teachers who will work in this space. Part of it can be to make sure 

they have the training and the professional development to work 

in these areas. 

We have to upgrade—you know, again, to raise quality, the only 

way to do that is to raise the quality in the training of folks who 

59 

actually participate in these programs, so there is a huge emphasis 

there. Happy to follow up. 

But if this is just sort of—you know, mediocre programming, that 

doesn’t change kids’ lives. It has to be about high quality, and the 

adults teaching those children every single day, their skills, their 

capacity, their ability to continue to learn and adjust as the world 

changes is hugely, hugely important to making sure we hit that 

quality benchmark. 

Ms. WILSON of Florida. Okay. According to the Committee for 

Education Funding, the Republican budget—the Ryan budget— 

would cut Head Start by an additional $900 million on top of the 

$401 million in cuts from the sequester. What impact do you think 

this would have on our efforts to ensure all children have the skills 

they need to succeed in school? 

Secretary DUNCAN. So I appreciate the question. And again, the 

facts are today—today—less than 3 in 10 young people have access 

to high-quality pre-K. Less than 3 in 10 4-year-olds. To me that is 

crazy. 

So if we were to cut—and my numbers are the cut to Head Start 

would be about $1.4 billion—there would be, you know, thousands, 

tens of thousands fewer children would have the chance to go. And 

what we are already seeing right now due to sequester, right now 

you see Head Start programs ending early this year because they 

are running out of money due to sequester. And so a week or 2 

weeks are being knocked off the end of these schedules. 

Children need longer days, longer weeks, longer years, not less 

time. So again, why we do these things that are not in our nation’s 

interest, I just—it is mind-boggling to me. It is just so disappointing. 

Ms. WILSON of Florida. What do you think the administration 

can do to fill that gap, to make sure—do we plan to do any marketing or outreach to people to—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. I am traveling the country talking to everyone—and again, outside of Washington, frankly, there is a huge 

amount of interest. Republican and Democratic governors are investing very—you know, Michigan, you know, Nevada, Mississippi, 

Alabama—I can go right down the list of Republican Governors 

who are putting huge resources behind this. 

So I think we can build an interesting coalition of bipartisan 

Governors; of CEOs who understand the return on investment— 

that is a language they get; of parents and Head Start communities; of the faith-based community; of military generals who like 

this; of states attorneys and police chiefs who know the reductions 

in crime and support this. So I think we can build a really interesting coalition. I was in Michigan recently with Governor Snyder, 

a Republican governor, who was very supportive—went to Ypsilanti, which is one of the, you know, sort of birthplaces of this 

work. 

So for all the dysfunction here in Washington, in the real world 

there is a real chance, I think, to try and move this thing, and I 

am going to spend a huge amount of my time and energy traveling 

the country trying to build that coalition. 

Ms. WILSON of Florida. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

60 

Mr. Guthrie? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Hey, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming here today. And I was 

on the committee my first 2 years here, left, and just came back, 

and part of the stuff I enjoyed was how we worked together and 

tried to work together, and your honesty in these meetings and 

moving forward. 

The one thing, I was ranking member on Higher Ed at the time, 

so I got involved in the gainful employment part of—that was being 

discussed, and one thing that was bipartisan—I think it was kind 

of the—well, what was bipartisan was an agreement that we don’t 

want kids graduating from school with too much debt, and whether 

they are at a for-profit school or whatever. I think the frustrating 

part was how that process went forward. I was in some meetings 

that was bipartisan, and some of the more frustrating people were 

actually not of my party in the meeting with members of your organization, or the Department, and I just want to talk about the— 

you had an I.G. report about that. 

And then just last week, as you know, there was a report in the 

Wall Street Journal that a member of the Department is being investigated for leaking information around the Program Integrity. 

And then your own I.G. I think was asked by some—to come in and 

had some issues with the negotiated rulemaking process and I 

know they gave recommendations. 

Can you kind of go through those—how this, maybe, particular 

individual affects where you are going forward with this? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Doesn’t affect it whatsoever. As you know, 

the I.G. is taking a thorough look there. We have a great relationship with the I.G. and I will, you know, obviously suspend, you 

know, judgment or opinion until that report comes back from the 

I.G. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. So you don’t have any recommendations as your— 

there are no recommendations yet from the I.G. to implement from 

this report? 

Secretary DUNCAN. No. That is an ongoing investigation. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay, so moving forward with this—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay. Well, thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you. 

First I just have to make a comment on the IDEA issue. I go over 

and over this. You know and I know, and most people know, that 

this was a judicial mandate back in the 1970s that communities 

educate all children fairly on that and that the communities, states 

went apoplectic, the federal government stepped in with IDEA, 

which states could voluntarily accept or not on that basis. 

We authorized a certain amount of money per child’s additional 

education needed on that but we never appropriated that full 

amount. But during the Gingrich years, when it was one of the 10 

points, the Republicans on that—Ron Kind and I in this committee 

put forward an amendment to fully fund it and not a single one of 

61 

our Republican friends voted for it on that basis, so I am really 

glad to hear—— 

Mr. MILLER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes, I will. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I think there were 320 members of Congress 

that signed a petition to the Committee to fully authorize it. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And so I am really glad to hear Mr. Kline and others here saying that they are behind more money for IDEA. I just 

contrast that with the fact that the Republican budget, as you mentioned, cuts it by over $2 billion. So it is—we will put the rhetoric 

and the reality on a plane here. 

We also hear people talking about not wanting to give the burden on our children for a deficit, but they apparently don’t have the 

same concern about loading up student debt on them going forward. You know, given the fact that the Congressional Budget Office projects interest rate savings for students and parents between 

2013 and 2018 to be over $30 billion of savings under the administration’s proposal and a loss of at least $1 billion under the Republican proposal that passed in this committee recently, can I assume 

that you don’t favor that Republican proposal, you do favor the Administration’s plan? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Obviously I favor the Administration’s proposal. What I am interested in, ideally, is a long-term fix. Again, 

I just want us to take on tough issues, take them on, take them 

on for the long haul, and then frankly, move to all the other issues. 

There is so much, and I don’t want to just keep coming back year 

after year on the same stuff. 

So that is my strong, strong personal preference. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So I would hope that we would think about keeping 

that 3.4 percent rate for the subsidized Stafford Loans, and in the 

context of the Higher Education reauthorization bill, look at that 

long-range proposal. That sound about right? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I would love to figure out a long-term fix 

sooner than later. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes. All right. 

Tell me a little bit about the Administration’s feelings on the income-based repayment plan and its importance in this process. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. Income-based repayment, I think, is an 

extraordinarily important opportunity. It is a terrible name; we 

need to come up with a better name. People don’t understand it 

well enough and we have got to market it better. 

But the chance to have—the short answer, to have people’s— 

their repayments indexed to their income, so if you are making 

more money, a higher-paying job you pay more, if you are making 

less you pay less. That makes absolute sense. And the big bang for 

me that after 10 years of public service—being a teacher, other 

things—all that debt is forgiven, it is a remarkable opportunity. 

So I think it is a great chance. We need to do a better job in 

terms of marketing, getting the word, out, naming. There are more 

young people out there who would take advantage who haven’t yet, 

but I am thrilled that we were able to get that done. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Let me also ask you a question—any number of 

millions of students that have graduated are out there carrying 

around a tremendous burden of debt on student loans at some realVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:25 Apr 29, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\113TH\FC\113-18\80891.TXT DICK
62 

ly high interest rates. What are the administration’s thoughts on 

getting some relief for that population? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. So happy to have, you know, conversation on any of these areas, whether it is folks coming out of school 

now, whether it is prospective students, or whether it is students 

who are, you know, 25, 30, 35 who are already out. 

Again, let’s work. Let’s work in a bipartisan way. The fact that that debt surpasses $1 trillion, there is no upside there, and the 

more we think about these things, again, comprehensively in a bipartisan way, welcome that conversation. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, our economists tell us that we could put $17 

billion back in the economy, which would be a tremendous boost on 

that, and help all these families out on that, and I hope that we 

will look on that direction. 

Secretary DUNCAN. You worry about people trying to buy a home, 

other things like that—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. To buy a home, try to buy a car, you know, try to 

start a life. We always joke, but it is not really that funny, most 

families, try to get them out of their parents’ house, you know, and 

move forward on that. So—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is real. That is real. 

Mr. TIERNEY. We have a bill in the House here; Senators Reid 

and Durbin have one in the Senate that addresses that and a longterm fix, and we will look forward to working with you on that. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Dr. DesJarlais? 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Secretary. 

I continue to be concerned about the runaway cost of the Pell 

Grant program. Just last week we received the figures from the 

CBO demonstrating that we are looking at another $5 billion funding gap for fiscal year 2015, and we must stop infusing the onetime mandatory funds into this program. 

A minute ago you talked about the fact that we now have 9 million participants in the Pell Grant program. That is up from 5 million just 6 years ago. The cost 6 years ago was about $12 billion; 

now the cost is $42 billion. So yes, we have not quite doubled the 

number of participants, but we have tripled the cost. 

What reforms do you have available or what ideas do you have 

to help lower this cost? And I will just mention, Dr. Roe, I know, 

before I got here asked you a question and I don’t think you got 

to answer about community college students who are dropping out 

after receiving Pell Grant money. What can we do to bring the cost 

down rather than just keep infusing more money? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. I am going to be really clear. I don’t 

think the goal should be to bring the cost down. I think this is the 

best investment we can make, and you are sitting next to a colleague who talked about Pell Grants enabling him to go to college—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I am another one. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So the real question should be, how do we 

make it more efficient, not to bring down the cost down? I would 

like to invest more to make higher education more affordable. And 

63 

so where there are thoughtful ways that we can make it more efficient to make sure the program isn’t being abused somehow or that 

people aren’t taking the money and doing other things, let’s have 

that conversation. Let’s think about that. 

But I would like to see more—to be really clear, I would like to 

see more young people have access to Pell Grants, not less. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Well, I think being more efficient and infusing more money is not necessarily mutually exclusive. I agree 

that we need to be more efficient. That is my whole point. 

How do we be more efficient? Because right now the answer is 

just to throw more money at it. Again, we have doubled the number of students but we have tripled the cost. 

We can’t sustain that path or everyone is going to lose out on 

this. He won’t have it; I won’t have it; our kids won’t have it. 

Secretary DUNCAN. No, I understand. So I have talked a lot 

about a proposal to have a Race to the Top for higher education. 

So at the end of the day what we have to do is we have to find 

ways to get states to invest. Forty states have cut their investment 

to higher education, Republican and Democrat. That is not good for 

the country. 

We have to get universities to become more efficient—often use 

technology in different ways to get better results—and encourage 

universities to build cultures not just around access but around 

completion. And we think if we could provide some incentives—not 

sticks but carrots—get states and universities to behave differently, 

that might help on the runaway cost of higher ed, might bring 

down the cost for young people and make—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Well, I would agree, there is no incentive for 

universities and colleges right now to be more efficient because we 

just continue to throw more money at them. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, it is actually not true. Again, 40 states 

have cut funding to higher education, so universities are out there 

hurting. And for me it is not about pointing fingers, laying blame; 

it is about shared responsibility. 

What is the appropriate federal role? What is the role of states? 

What is the role of universities? We need to not blame each other 

and sort of come together and see if we behave in a more productive way. That is what we are trying to—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I will look forward to working with you. And 

again, I also, like my colleague, Mr. Rokita, appreciate your willingness to reach out. I think you are the only Secretary that came 

to my office and sat down and met with me and I think that we 

all appreciate that very much. So I do look forward to working on 

these issues with you—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Put that on my time sheet for—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Yes. Yes, we will add that—— 

[Laughter.] 

It was a good hour, at least, wasn’t it? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Billable hour. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. But with that, let me yield the balance of my 

time to Mr. Rokita. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

How much time do we have left, Mr. Chairman, in this—— 

64 

Chairman KLINE. One minute and 24 seconds. 

Mr. ROKITA. Perfect. Thank you very much. 

I would like to pick up the conversation where we left off, Secretary. And we have enough time now. And I apologize. I was 

rushed in asking the question; maybe you were rushed in hearing 

it, but let me set it up again. 

In your proposed budget request, as I understand it, you are saying that you are going to limit funding to states that have adopted, 

quote—‘‘college and career ready standards that are common to a 

significant number of states.’’ So is there any set of standards other 

than Common Core that fit that quote? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, absolutely. To be clear, in everything—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Which ones? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Just to be really clear, in everything we have 

done, including the waiver package, our goal is not common, our 

goal is high standards—college and career ready. And we have provided waivers to states like Virginia and states like Minnesota that 

are not a part of the Common Core—— 

Mr. ROKITA. It is not really a waiver question. This is funding 

to states—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. In everything we do, let me just be really 

clear, obviously we—— 

Mr. ROKITA. The Assessment Grant program, excuse me. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So which, just to be really clear—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Are the Assessment Grant program—and the recent 

proposal in the budget was about the Assessment Grant program, 

to limit those funds to states that have adopted college and career 

ready standards? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. Yes. So again, that is not common; it is 

high standards. In everything we have done—I am trying to be 

very, very clear—the goal is not common; the goal is high. And so 

we would not want to provide, you know—— 

Mr. ROKITA. But from a practical standpoint, is there anything 

but Common Core? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. Yes. Virginia, Minnesota are two examples. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. My time is expired. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Yarmuth? 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. And I would like to echo some of the 

comments. I don’t know another person in government who shows 

as much passion for the people he serves as you do, and I appreciate that greatly. 

Scattered throughout the hearing have been kind of discussions 

of how some non-necessarily educational factors affect education, 

and the Affordable Care Act has already been raised once today. 

So I want to ask you how important—and if there is any way to 

quantify, and there probably isn’t—how important the expansion of 

Medicaid services, Medicaid eligibility under ACA and the availability of expanded coverage is going to be to educational achievement. 

65 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. I just think, again, there is a series of 

foundational things that, if we are serious about students begin 

academics and—academically successful they have to be in place. 

So students’ physical needs need to be met, their health care 

needs. They need to be safe. Their dental needs need to be met. If 

they can’t see the blackboard they need eyeglasses. They need to 

be safe to and from school. 

And so there is physical, there is social, and emotional needs. To 

me, I would say those are foundational. 

When we meet them, then let’s talk about A.P. calculus and 

physics and, you know, going to college and those kinds of things. 

But where children have aching cavities, where they can’t see the 

blackboard, where they have health issues—diabetes, asthma—that 

aren’t being addressed, it is pretty difficult to concentrate in class. 

Mr. YARMUTH. And there is no question that those failing to do 

that severely impedes academic achievement and ultimately, longterm success, is there? 

Secretary DUNCAN. No question. And I have worked in communities all my life where children didn’t have those kinds of opportunities and the consequences—the loss of social potential, loss of 

human potential was pretty staggering. That is why I do what I 

do. 

Mr. YARMUTH. A related figure—issue, we talked about STEM 

education, and that seems to be a national goal to entice people 

into those areas. How much difficulty is it to entice people into 

STEM and to generate enthusiasm for them when at the other end 

the country is cutting funding for research so that the jobs that 

those people might fill don’t seem particularly appealing? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. No, that presents a real challenge, and 

not everyone agrees with me on this, but I think in areas like math 

and science, particularly in disadvantaged communities, be it inner 

city urban, or rural, or remote, or Native American reservations, I 

argue that we should pay math and science teachers more money. 

We have to find ways to compete with the private sector and to 

bring them in, again, particularly to help those kids that don’t have 

those opportunities traditionally. 

We haven’t talked a lot today about technology. I think technology can also help to be a real equalizer here and game-changer. 

But this is where the world is going, and when our students don’t 

have access to teachers who are comfortable and confident with the 

content in second and third and fourth grade, again, we limit—we 

put a cap on what they can accomplish. 

Mr. YARMUTH. I was going to get to technology. I was a sponsor 

back in the 110th Congress of Digital Promise and very supportive 

of that effort. 

I was in a middle school not too long ago in a very, very economically challenged area of my district and asked the principal if she 

could estimate how—what percentage of her students had access to 

the Internet at home. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. She said 10 percent. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Is there anything that we can do on the federal 

level or on any level to try and correct that situation? 

66 

Secretary DUNCAN. We have to, and I just appreciate your interest and leadership so much. And technology can either be this 

great equalizer of opportunity or, frankly, it can create a greater 

divide. You know, we know a lot about the digital divide. 

So I think the upside is so high and the downside is so low we 

have to take this on, but how we increase access, how we make 

sure, again, in rural areas where, you know, it is a tough issue 

sometimes, Native American reservations—how do we make sure 

children who traditionally have the least have a chance to play on 

a level playing field is hugely important. 

I think we should all challenge ourselves across, you know, the 

federal government, across agencies. We work very hard with the 

FCC. You know, we need to find ways to make sure that children 

who should be able to learn anything anytime anywhere 24/7 have 

those chances. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Got a few seconds left. Just a quick question: 

What does the President’s budget do in relation to literacy programs, and I know you are trying to reshape them? Could you address that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. I don’t have the exact number in front 

of me but there is a significant investment there. And again, I— 

our hope is that where so many states are raising standards with 

a focus on being able to, you know, talk and express your ideas 

around complex issues—express yourself verbally and in writing— 

we hope that we can, over time, significantly improve the literacy 

rates in this country. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Polis? 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

First I do want to, in response to some of what Mr. Rokita was 

asking about, I want to acknowledge that many of us here, certainly myself included, feel whatever time you spent on the waiver 

process is time well spent. We appreciate that in the failure of this 

Congress to reauthorize, you used the process that was contemplated in No Child Left Behind rather than enforce criteria that 

education experts on the left and right agree is flawed. So thank 

you for whatever time was well spent. We appreciate it. 

I also want to compliment you for your focus in your opening remarks on early childhood education. Seldom do we see as good an 

investment in our future. 

Beyond the human factor, simply looking at the numbers, you 

cited the seven-to-one figure savings that have been demonstrated 

in lower special education costs, lower grade repetition rates, lower 

delinquency. The seven-to-one savings don’t even take into account, 

if you will, the revenue side, meaning that investment in early 

childhood education leading to people having higher-income careers 

and paying greater taxes back to our country above and beyond the 

seven-to-one ratio. 

The question I have for you today is about charter schools. The 

President’s proposal includes an increase from $255 million to $295 

million in the Title V charter school program, the federal government’s program to support financing and growth of quality charter 

67 

schools across the country. The budget also expands the grants for 

the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools—already supported more than 335 high-quality expansions. 

I want to thank you, first of all, for being a champion for expanding educational choice, both in charters as well as in district 

schools across the country. 

However, as you know, the supply of innovative, quality charter 

schools has not caught up with demand. Over 600,000 students remain on charter school waiting lists, unable to attend the school of 

their choice, forced to attend a school that the parents perceive is 

inferior and frequently, according to objective criteria, is inferior. 

That is why I will soon reintroduce the All Students Achieving 

through Reform Act, the All-STAR Act, which will help enable and 

encourage new charter school startups, in addition to supporting 

the replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools. And 

of course, not all charter schools perform well, which is why my bill 

also includes stronger language around authorizing practices, including closing failing charters and more accountability for school 

performance. 

I want to ask you today, what about the federal charter school 

program do you believe has been the most effective in spurring the 

growth of high-quality charter schools and how would you propose 

incentivizing states to promote the growth of high-quality charter 

schools? 

Secretary DUNCAN. So first, I just want to thank you personally 

for your leadership on a whole host of education issues, and you 

think about this with a level of thoughtfulness and nuance and 

complexity that we desperately need, so I just appreciate the ongoing partnership and everything you bring to the table as we discuss 

these things. 

So I met with a number of high-performing charter groups— 

CMOs—a month ago maybe, and it was uplifting. They have been 

able to dramatically expand the number of kids they are serving— 

exponential growth. 

Still a real need. A waiting list that you talked about, but in all 

candor they said they would not have been able to have the expansion they have had and the reach they have had in the time that 

they have—in the short amount of time was it not for our support, 

so I felt really good about that. 

Like you, there is nothing, to me, magic about charters. Good 

charters are part of the solution; bad charters are part of the problem. 

We talk about failing schools—5,000 around the country. About 

200 of them are charter schools, and we have challenged them to, 

as you have, to close down and do some other things. 

So I think the question you can push me and my team on is, how 

do we continue to replicate faster high-quality? And to be really 

clear, for me that has got to be charter and district. And I think 

charters have actually been more nimble, more entrepreneurial 

than districts in replicating success. 

And I was recently at a—— 

Mr. POLIS. With my limited time, if you could also address how 

we can further incentivize states and districts that have not been 

friendly to charters to encourage charters? 

68 

Secretary DUNCAN. So, I need to think about how we do a better 

job there I don’t—I would give us probably a relatively low grade 

there, and putting the right carrots out there to have folks do that. 

There are some private foundations that are getting districts and 

charters, and for me, again, it is just totally the wrong fight. 

We have one common enemy and that is academic failure. And 

whatever we can do to attack that together and replicate success, 

we need to do that. 

Just quickly, I want to also encourage the districts to replicate 

their high-performing schools, and we have not seen enough creativity there. I want to challenge myself and my team to figure out 

how we incentivize that better. 

Mr. POLIS. And when you look at accountability and looking at 

school turnarounds and would you look at charter schools and district schools the same way and encourage states and districts to do 

the same? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. Again, for me, no 7-year-old 

knows whether they go to a charter or a district or a magnet or 

a gifted. Does my teacher care about me? Am I learning? Am I 

safe? Is my principal helping me? We just need more schools that 

look like that—more public schools that look like that. 

Mr. POLIS. Thank you for your work. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Courtney? 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, for the record, Ms. Foxx asked the question who said, 

‘‘Lies, damned lies, and statistics’’? As any schoolchild in Connecticut knows, it was Mark Twain and he wrote it when he lived 

in Hartford, Connecticut. If only I could get Steven Spielberg to 

correct the mistake he made in the Connecticut delegation on the 

13th Amendment in his movie, but that is another hearing. 

First of all, I want to thank you for your visits to Connecticut 

in the wake of Newtown. I know you are coming on Friday, but 

someday we are going to get you across the Connecticut River to 

Eastern Connecticut. But again, it means a lot to the people of 

our—my state. 

And your testimony, you know, on school safety, again, was eloquent in terms of the fact that, you know, when we talk about all 

these issues, if kids don’t feel safe in schools the CDC numbers on 

mental illness with young children that came out a few—a couple 

days ago, I mean, this has got to be a focus. And again, Mr. Kline, 

to his credit, held a hearing on this topic and hopefully we can 

move that issue forward. 

But I wanted to just spend a minute—I was out of the room for 

a second because I was actually talking to the Head Start director 

in Norwich, Connecticut, who last Monday had a staff meeting announcing six layoffs of teachers driven by sequester. This is 60 families that are going to lose home-based Head Start services. They 

are going to go into—they have 520 kids all together in the program and they are going to start going into classroom slots next 

if we don’t turn the poison off here. 

And, you know, again, looking at the budget that came out of the 

majority, which is below sequester levels, again, you know, all the 

69 

talk this morning about early childhood and the benefit, you know, 

the reality out there right now is we are going backwards and we 

have got to address this issue of sequester. And I am sure you are 

getting these calls and this sort of anecdotal input but it is going 

to pick up speed, and I am—frankly, I am looking to you to help 

sort of use your platform to warn people about the damage that we 

are doing right now. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So push me. I mean, in the clips literally almost every day there are two or three or four articles in local communities around the country where the cuts are happening now. 

And so whatever I can do to raise the alarm and to talk about 

the reality of not just what is going to happen but what is happening right now, if I am not doing enough, push me. I am trying 

to go out there everywhere I can to talk about it and to shine a 

spotlight on it. 

And again, I hate to—you know, I think people here in Washington don’t begin to understand the consequences of their actions. 

If they spent more time in the real world and out of here—how 

does anyone feel good about that? Is that why you guys came to 

Washington was to take away opportunities for poor kids to have 

a chance to get off to a good start in life? Is that what motivated 

you to enter public service? I don’t believe it was. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Well again, 3-and 4-year-olds didn’t cause the 

structural deficit that we are in right now and they shouldn’t bear 

the burden. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Native American kids, the children of military families, families who are overseas, you know, literally giving 

their lives for us, and then we are going to give them a worse education and take away their counselors and social workers, which is 

happening right now? Families who deserve—you know, giving everything for us and we are going to deprive them? I don’t get our 

values. I don’t understand. 

Mr. COURTNEY. And so in any case, you know, this is something 

I really think, you know, resonates with the public when they see 

that kind of damage that is being done. I was at a chamber of commerce meeting last week and kind of shared that outcome, and the 

room—a groan went up in the room. 

So, you know, hopefully we can—again, sequester was not about 

having sequester go into effect; it was about forcing people to sit 

down and compromise. And Phil Gramm from Texas, who is the 

granddaddy of sequester, actually gave a speech in Washington, 

quote-unquote, where that is what he said was the purpose of it. 

Lastly, and I know I have just got a few—Mr. Tierney asked 

about, you know, extending the 3.4 percent rate and, you know I 

would just say as someone who has been pushing that is that, you 

know, we need a Higher Ed reauthorization bill. We need to have 

a comprehensive, long-term solution, which I think everybody 

agrees with. We are not getting there in 40 days, which is really 

July 1st and the ticking clock. 

And again, I think the President’s proposal, using marketbased—to a point, I think, has something that people can work 

with. There are a lot of proposals on the other side. That is a good 

thing. That didn’t exist a year ago—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Right. Right. 

70 

Mr. COURTNEY [continuing]. When we were doing this issue. 

But frankly, we have got to make sure that kids who are making 

the decision now where to go to school have some confidence and 

horizon about what decisions they are making. 

Secretary DUNCAN. First of all on sequester, if there are things 

that I can do better to articulate the reality, please push me and 

my team to do that. That is part of our job and if we are not doing 

that effectively enough we want to hear that. 

Again, on this one, I know it is 40 days, but this one has some 

intellectual complexity but it is not that that hard. And again, I 

just with that—I think the expectations have gotten so low for Congress to get anything done. 

I just wish we could take an issue or two issues and just figure 

it out. And again, we will all compromise; we will all—you know, 

no one will get exactly what they want. That is how this process 

is set up. 

But I would just love to get it done and I would love to get it 

done for the long haul and again, move on to all these other really 

hard issues—dropout rates, ESEA reauthorization, Higher Ed reauthorization. You know, there are so many other things we need 

to be spending time on; I don’t want to keep coming back year after 

year on this. 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman yields back. 

Before we say goodbye and thank you to the Secretary I want to 

yield to Mr. Miller for any closing remarks he might have. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for your time. I agree with 

my colleagues here that the time you have spent on waivers, I 

think, is better spent than trying to get a bipartisan resolution out 

of this Congress, unfortunately, on ESEA. 

But I think members ought to understand that, you know, in the 

case of Common Core standards and assessments, this was a creation of the Governors; this wasn’t a creation of the federal government. In fact, a number of people were surprised when the Governors came forward after many years of working and trying to 

think, how are they a worldwide competitive entity. To attract companies or economic activity they needed a better school system with 

better standards and better performance. 

And, you know, it is an important—you have allowed districts 

that really want to go to the future to go, not be held back by Congress’ bickering back and forth. As I have said in my opening statement, I am concerned that they take everybody with them, they 

don’t leave some people behind here, and that it—the hallmark of 

this law is the equity and the treatment and the opportunity for 

these students. Whether they succeed or not is somewhat, you 

know—we can’t guarantee that, but we certainly can provide the 

opportunity to a first-class education and I think the waivers—and 

along with the common core. 

I mean, I am quite surprised at the response of my state, how 

positive it is—California has been reluctant on a lot of this—how 

positive they are now and the, you know, the Governor is seeking 

appropriations to help them bring this about. The response of 

71 

teachers to training sessions and preparation sessions has just 

been dramatic across the state. 

So that is all very, very encouraging. But I just—the equity portion of it is very, very important. 

And I hope that we will be able to work out a long-term bipartisan support for student loan activity. We have got a very serious 

problem on our hands. I think there are new constructs that can 

be put together where, as you say, it is a shared responsibility. 

If the states continue to walk away from public support for public 

institutions we can’t keep putting money into the top and they are 

taking it out the bottom, and that is sort of what they have been 

doing here. 

I know people are concerned about the growth in Pell Grant, but 

let’s understand, there are a lot of people who never in their lives 

believed they would be eligible for a Pell Grant, but when they lost 

they job they lost their income and they had to go back to school. 

They found that to be very helpful to get a certificate, to get a 

training, to get an upgrade in their skills so that they would be 

ready as the recovery started to happen here. So they are not there 

by choice; they are there by circumstance, and that turned out to 

be a very expensive thing for the program, but obviously, some 

underpinnings for those families. 

So I just—I want to thank you for these projects that you have 

undertaken. Again, you heard it from my colleagues—you know, 

there was a group of people who have been saying that college isn’t 

worth it. Oh, yes it is. Oh, yes it is. By every measure it is worth 

it. 

There is now a group of people saying early childhood education 

really isn’t worth it. Oh, yes it is by almost every measure. 

And it is incredibly important. We know the difference between 

families in vocabulary acquisition. We know what—that—the barriers to that child, their first encounter with the formal education 

system, whether it is the Head Start system or state-run program 

or kindergarten. 

There is a big difference in terms of acquisition and reading 

skills and the rest of that—in terms of colors and numbers. And 

these sound so basic, and yet so many children come to school without the—without those components. 

And, you know, I think we have gotten better at partnering up 

with parents in the involvement, in that education. Certainly in my 

area of the state it seems to have gone better. We realize we have 

got to transfer some of this. 

And some very exciting things are being done in some school district, engaging parents in that early childhood education experience, in that kindergarten experience, and bringing them through 

and helping the child transition. 

But again, if we are not going to build a first-class receptacle for 

the students that we are spending the money on—the children we 

are spending the money on in early childhood education and development, if we are going to dump them into a substandard system 

it is not going to work. And so, you know, we have to do a lot of 

things at one time here to get this system up and running. 

And so I really just want to encourage the administration to continue to push on this. It is so important to the success of these 

72 

young children in terms of their participation in the fullness of 

American society and fullness of the American economy and to help 

us hold on to a democracy in a very diverse country. We need their 

participation—their full, informed participation in American society. 

So thank you very much for spending this time with the committee. 

Chairman KLINE. I, too, want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for 

being with us today. 

A couple of things: It has been an extraordinary bipartisan support here in the Congress for a long time for Pell Grants. We are 

concerned about how much money is going in them and is it being 

spent not only wisely but is it being abused? 

And we certainly know there is anecdotal evidence that it is 

being abused. A student goes in, gets a Pell Grant, buys a car, 

never goes to school. 

So we would like to work with you and we would ask the Department to really look at that program to make sure that we are, in 

fact, helping not only kids but, as the Ranking Member said, sometimes it is people coming back. They may be 58. I forgot who used 

that number here, but that is still young to me, I know, but people 

are going to come back; they need access to those Pell Grants. We 

just want to make sure it is not being abused in a large scale, 

which sometimes we are getting reports that indicate that that 

might be the case. 

On student loans, you and I have talked about this again and 

again, we heard it talked about here, we had Republicans and 

Democrats trying to get to the solution which I think you and the 

President have asked for, and that is a long-term solution where 

we remove the interest rates to a place where the rates are determined by the market, and I hope you will continue to work with 

us because there is still work to be done here as we try to move 

this through. July 1st is coming and we are not done yet, but I 

would like to be able to continue to work with you to try to get that 

long-term solution. 

And then finally, Mr. Salmon raised the point about what is 

called ‘‘incentive compensation for affiliated third party entities.’’ 

Now, I mean, probably nobody outside this room or maybe only 

three people know exactly what that is, but actually you and I have 

talked about this a number of times. This is an issue that came 

about because of departmental action and it can be fixed by departmental action. 

We were looking on a legislative solution here and we were close 

and thought we had it, but as so often happens around here, we 

missed by a little bit; but it doesn’t mean we are going to give up. 

It is something that needs to be fixed. You can fix it and I hope 

you will look at it again. 

And again, I want to thank you for coming here today. As always, it is a pleasure to have you. Very excellent testimony, complete answers to our questions. 

And then again, I know that you are watching very closely what 

is happening in Oklahoma and those schools and that you share 

our concerns and prayers. 

73 

So, there being no further business, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 


80891-14.eps
74 


80891-15.eps
75 


80891-16.eps
76 


80891-17.eps
77 


80891-18.eps
78 


80891-19.eps
79 


80891-20.eps
80 


80891-21.eps
81 


80891-22.eps
82 

[Secretary Duncan’s response to questions submitted for the 

record follows:] 


80891-28.eps
83 


80891-29.eps
84 


80891-30.eps
85 


80891-31.eps
86 


80891-32.eps
87 


80891-33.eps
88 


80891-34.eps
89 


80891-35.eps
90 


80891-36.eps
91 


80891-37.eps
92 


80891-38.eps
93 


80891-39.eps
94 


80891-40.eps
95 


80891-41.eps
96 


80891-42.eps
97 


80891-43.eps
98 


80891-44.eps
99 


80891-45.eps
100 


80891-46.eps
101 


80891-47.eps
102 


80891-48.eps
103 


80891-49.eps
104 


80891-50.eps
105 


80891-51.eps
106 


80891-52.eps
107 


80891-53.eps
108 


80891-54.eps
109 


80891-55.eps
110 


80891-27.eps
111 


80891-56.eps
112 

[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


80891-57.eps