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

55–098 PDF 2010

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

Serial No. 111–23 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/budget/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina, Chairman 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut, 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, 

Ranking Minority Member 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

MARIO DIAZ–BALART, Florida 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

THOMAS S. KAHN, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AUSTIN SMYTHE, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, February 25, 2010 .......................................... 1 

Statement of: 

Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr., Chairman, House Committee on the Budget ..... 1 

Hon. Jeb Hensarling, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .............................................................................................................. 2 

Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education .................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Responses to questions for the record ..................................................... 51 

Questions for the record: 

Hon. Allen Boyd, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida . 51 

Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts ........................................................................................... 51 

Hon. James R. Langevin, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Rhode Island ............................................................................................. 52 

Hon. Paul Ryan, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget .... 54 

Hon. Connie Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................................................................... 56 

Hon. Robert B. Aderholt, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Alabama ..................................................................................................... 58 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Spratt [chairman of the 

committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Spratt, Schwartz, Doggett, Boyd, 

Etheridge, McCollum, Yarmuth, DeLauro, Scott, Larsen, Moore, 

Connolly, Schrader, Hensarling, Garrett, Diaz-Balart, Jordan, 

Lummis, and Latta. 

Chairman SPRATT. Let me call the hearing to order and welcome 

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan back to the Budget Committee. 

Mr. Secretary, last year you arrived in Washington with the new 

administration, and you hit the ground running. The Department 

of Education received a huge amount of funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act used to bolster State education efforts and college affordability. 

We were pleased to hear from you last March when you testified 

about the President’s budget, and we look forward today to hearing 

more about this year’s budget, as well as how the Recovery Act 

funds are working throughout the country and making a difference. 

We have seen that President Obama’s 2011 budget continues to 

focus on what works in Federal education policy: what works to ensure that American children graduate from high school ready for 

a career and ready for college, and what works in terms of what 

they can afford to pay to go to college, if that is what they want. 

The administration’s budget proposes to increase Federal aid to 

education funding by $3.5 billion, primarily for a variety of new elementary and secondary education initiatives that focus on innovative strategies to improve teaching and learning. The budget proposes several new competitive grants and also proposes to consolidate a number of existing programs in line with the administration’s reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, which we understand you will send to Congress 

sometime this year. 

The President’s education budget also contains higher education 

reform proposals similar to those in his last budget, many of which 

are reflected in the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a 

bill that the House passed last fall. 
2 

Even though we passed that bill and even though we have 

passed other things that you will be presenting today, I think you 

will be fielding questions from many of us about exactly how these 

particular programs will play out because we still have questions 

and concerns about, for example, the consolidation of numerous 

grant programs into one particular block grant. All of those who 

have the least popular, the least compelling interest stakes in the 

education budget are calling us to say, ‘‘If this happens, we will get 

wiped out.’’ And we are hearing from those who administer the 

Perkins program, who are saying to us, ‘‘Why fix it if it ain’t 

broke?’’ We would like to discuss that with you later today after 

you have delivered your testimony. 

As I was saying, we may agree or not agree on every proposal 

or provision, but I believe everyone in this room shares the same 

goals of ensuring that students graduate from high school with the 

skills they need to go on to college or enter the workforce and that 

college, if they choose, is accessible and affordable for all. 

I look forward to hearing from you today about the administration’s proposals to improve teaching and learning. And I am 

pleased that we have the opportunity to ask you questions about 

those broad subject areas. 

But, first, before turning to you and your statement, let me turn 

to Mr. Hensarling, who is substituting for Mr. Ryan this morning, 

the committee’s ranking member, for any statement Mr. Hensarling may make. And then we will hear from Secretary Duncan, 

who is our only witness today. 

Mr. Hensarling? 

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see you again. And, frankly, there are a number of initiatives that I believe under your leadership have been started that certainly are meritorious. I applaud 

your attempts to try to consolidate certain programs to try to make 

them more efficient. I am interested in learning more about some 

of your initiatives to ensure that we focus on the outcomes of education and not simply on the inputs of education. 

Having said all of that, I am somewhat fearful that all your efforts may be to no avail unless this President and this Congress 

do something about the spending crisis and immediately do something about the lack of jobs. 

Recently I was in my district. I have the honor of representing 

the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. Visited one of my community colleges, Trinity Valley Community College in Athens, 

Texas. Spoke to the president. I was interested to find out that enrollment is up mainly because a lot of kids can’t find work. 

It is a reminder that the number-one job ought to be jobs. People 

still can’t find jobs. And so, most Americans are still concerned and 

they are still asking the question, ‘‘Where are the jobs?’’ 

And so, here we are, a year later, a year after the stimulus program, where unemployment was not supposed to exceed 8 percent, 

where theoretically we were told by the President 3.5 million jobs 

would be either created or saved, and instead we are still mired in 

almost double-digit unemployment, the highest in a generation. 

With one exception, we have lost jobs each and every month. 
3 

And my guess is most people who go to college eventually expect 

to have a job. And we are not seeing the policies out of this administration or this Congress that are doing anything for this generation, much less the next generation, of students to ultimately have 

jobs. 

And one of the major factors that is inhibiting job creation—and 

Chairman Bernanke yesterday, under testimony in the Financial 

Services Committee, said this—that people are concerned about, 

how is this debt, how is this deficit going to be paid for? I don’t 

have his exact quote in front of me, but he said not only is it critical for the long-term fiscal health and survival of our republic, but 

that it would have a beneficial impact on job creation to have Congress and the President lay out a plan to deal with this debt and 

this deficit. 

Do we have the debt slide, please? 

And so this was testimony by the chairman of the Federal Reserve. I mean, we can’t and we shouldn’t keep this secret from the 

American people. This is, indeed, a spending crisis that is taking 

place. We have had our own CBO director testify, quote, ‘‘In sum, 

the outlook for the Federal budget is bleak.’’ Quote, ‘‘U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved 

by minor tinkering.’’ 

People in our economy—small businesses, entrepreneurs, investors—are not creating jobs because they know that, without spending discipline, without a plan from the Congress and the President, 

this is going to have a very unhappy ending, with either massive 

tax increases that absolutely crush job creation, monetization of the 

debt, hyper inflation to where, as a society, we will longingly and 

nostalgically upon the Carter era. And because of that, they are not 

starting jobs, they are not creating new jobs. 

There is a famous quote from our former Comptroller General 

Walker, who talks about how the rising cost of government entitlements are, quote, ‘‘a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.’’ Which 

then begs the question, then why is the President creating four 

new mandatory education programs in his budget and the expansion of two existing ones? 

The President continues to talk about, you know, ‘‘I have inherited a mess.’’ Well, you know, as far as that goes, he is right, he 

did inherit a mess. We can question who he inherited it from, since 

the previous 2 years a Democratic Congress was in control, and he 

was part of that Congress. But a more salient question is, is he 

making it worse? 

His own OMB director, Dr. Orszag, has admitted that the budget 

that they have proposed is unsustainable, that you cannot have a 

deficit-to-GDP ratio exceeding 3 percent, that that is unsustainable. Yet, every year, they present an unsustainable budget. 

You know, at some point, you have to ask, how does this mountain of debt on future generations not only impact job creation, or, 

more accurately, the lack of it today, but how is it going to impact 

educational opportunities in the future? That is the crisis that we 

have to be speaking about. 

I mean, the President, from fiscal year 2010 levels, is proposing to add $9.275 trillion to the debt held by the public—$9.27 trillion. 
4 

Now, I am a graduate of Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. Today, the average tuition is $20,531. We have 45,000 

students. I tried to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation. And with 

the debt that the President is proposing, we could fund every student at Texas A&M for 9,851 years. 

Clearly, clearly, this mountain of debt is going to come out of the 

educational opportunities of the next generation. If we don’t deal 

with that chart right there, with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, a 

lot of this policy is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the fiscal 

Titanic. 

And so I am interested to find out what you are doing today, but 

I am more interested in finding out, as a representative of this administration, what is this administration going to do to stem this 

tide of red ink? 

And I must admit, I know the President is sincere when he says 

he wants to do something about it, but he hasn’t. There is no plan. 

By his own admission, by the admission of his Secretary of Treasury, by the admission of his director of Office of Management and 

Budget, they have not put forth a plan, ultimately, that takes care 

of this. 

What have we been presented? We have been presented with a, 

quote/unquote, ‘‘nondefense discretionary freeze.’’ Well, one of the 

reasons they achieve that freeze is because they take some educational discretionary programs and turn them into mandatory. I 

mean, that is the kind of sleight of hand that the American people 

have been outraged about. 

And even using the President’s own math—can we have that 

chart on the discretionary freeze? 

One, he delays the freeze for a year, he turns on the freeze for 

3 years, and then he turns it off. And if I recall right, in doing the 

math, ultimately what the President is proposing is that spending 

increase over the next 10 years, 49.01 percent as opposed to 49.27. 

With all due respect to the administration, that achieves next to 

nothing. 

And I know that the President has articulated a commitment to 

PAYGO. But then why do we have these new mandatory programs? 

What is offsetting the new mandatory programs if the President is 

committed to PAYGO? I don’t understand it. 

So, again, Mr. Secretary, I am interested in the work that you 

are doing, some of which I have come to admire. But, at the end 

of the day, unless the administration is ready to deal with that sea 

of red ink, you are condemning future generations to a future without educational opportunities. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SPRATT. The gentleman yields back. 

Before proceeding, let me ask unanimous consent that any Members who care to submit an opening statement may do so at this 

point in the record. 

In addition, let me say to the witness, Secretary Duncan, that we 

have received your full statement and will make it part of the 

record so that you can summarize it as you see fit. But you are the 

only witness today, and so we also would also invite you to be thorough and complete in your presentation. 
5 

We are glad to have you. We look forward to your testimony, and 

we appreciate you coming. 

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS 

P. SKELLY, DIRECTOR OF THE BUDGET SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for the 

opportunity to speak with you today, and thanks for your leadership. Thanks for your extraordinary commitment to education. 

Over the past year, the Obama administration has worked closely with Congress and stakeholders across America to shape an education agenda built on a few core concepts. 

First of all, we want high State standards that truly prepare our 

children for college and careers in a competitive global economy. As 

you know, 48 States, 48 Governors, and 48 State school chief officers are all working together now towards that goal, not because 

of a Federal mandate, but because of their shared belief that high 

expectations lead to high student achievement. 

Second, we want to reward excellence, to encourage State and 

local educators to challenge themselves and hold themselves accountable. To compete in the global economy, we must be willing 

to compete with our own ideas and initiatives, funding what works, 

challenging conventional wisdom, and moving outside of our comfort zones. As the Race to the Top program shows, States are already rising to the challenge. 

Finally, we want to narrowly define the Federal role, to give local 

educators maximum flexibility where it makes the most sense and 

give parents and taxpayers maximum accountability where that is 

most needed. We need to strike the right balance between flexibility and accountability, offering support but not prescriptions. 

These three concepts—high standards; rewarding excellence; and 

a smarter, targeted Federal role in driving education reform—define our agenda. 

However, all of our work has been framed by the unique challenges school systems face due to our economic circumstances. A 

year ago, a report was released by the University of Washington 

indicating that 600,000 education jobs around the country were at 

risk due to State and local budget shortfalls resulting from the recession. Thanks to the leadership, courage, and foresight of Congress and the President, the Recovery Act rescued the American 

educational system from a near catastrophe. 

Your commitment of nearly $100 billion helped protect approximately 400,000 jobs at the State and local level, three quarters of 

which were in education. Today, because of you, hundreds of thousands of teachers are teaching, millions of children are learning, 

and tens of thousands of school personnel are working in schools 

and classrooms in every State in America. 

I am deeply concerned, however, that the crisis we avoided last 

year will arrive this year. I spoke with many Governors over this 

past weekend from both parties, and they are very concerned about 

pending education cuts. I hope we can help to alleviate those concerns. 
6 

I would now like to talk about our proposed 2011 education budget. 

As you know, while most Federal spending is frozen, President 

Obama is proposing a historic increase in education funding. He 

understands that education is the key to our economic security, 

and, even in these challenging times, he remains deeply committed 

to this issue. The President is requesting a 7.5 percent increase in 

discretionary spending, from $46.2 billion to $49.7 billion. 

A share of our budget depends upon passage of the Student Aid 

and Fiscal Responsibility Act, SAFRA, which shifts billions in bank 

subsidies to early learning and to higher education. It has passed 

the House and awaits consideration by the Senate. 

It supports our cradle-to-career agenda, which includes a $9.3 

billion commitment to early learning over the next decade to boost 

the quality of pre-K programs. We will also continue supporting the 

IDEA Preschool and Infants and Families Grants. The administration has also made early learning a priority in several competitive 

grant programs. And we are working closely with the Department 

of Health and Human Services to coordinate with Head Start and 

other programs serving preschool children. 

Moving to elementary and high school, our budget and our reauthorization proposal will be focused on six core areas of reform. We 

begin with students. ‘‘College- and Career-Ready Students’’ is our 

new proposed name for the Title I formula grant program, which 

we will continue to strongly support. The Title I program will also 

receive substantial Recovery Act dollars next year. 

We also propose increasing funding for school turnarounds from 

$546 million to $900 million so we can continue to help the students who are the furthest behind and increase our Nation’s focus 

on the bottom 5 percent of America’s schools. 

Second, because students need a well-rounded education—this is 

something I heard in State after State as I traveled the country 

this past year—we have proposed a $100 million increase for learning programs beyond the tested subjects like reading, writing, 

math, and science—such as technology, the arts, languages, history, physical education, and other subjects. All told, we will invest 

$1 billion next year to promote a well-rounded education. 

Third, student supports are needed to ensure the proper learning 

environment. Our budget proposes a $245 million increase over 

2010, for a total of $1.8 billion, to improve school climate, student 

health, and school safety. This includes continued support for the 

21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. We also want 

to work with Congress to refine this program so it lifts student outcomes and incorporates enrichment activities through community 

partnerships. 

We are also proposing a major investment in a new program 

modeled on the Harlem Children’s Zone. It is called Promise Neighborhoods, and it seeks to transform whole communities, with 

schools as neighborhood anchors. It provides wraparound social 

services from birth through college to students and families at risk. 

The fourth area of reform we are calling ‘‘diverse learners.’’ This 

includes students with disabilities, who will benefit from a requested $250 million boost to the IDEA formula grant program. 
7 

Like Title I, IDEA will also continue to receive substantial Recovery Act dollars this upcoming school year. 

Other diverse learning populations include English language 

learners, which will get a $50 million boost under our proposal. 

And we are maintaining dedicated funding for migrant students, 

homeless students, and Native American students. 

The fifth area of reform is called ‘‘teachers and leaders.’’ No 

one—no one—is more essential to educational success than the person in front of the class and the person who is running the school 

building. This proposed budget provides $3.9 billion, a $350 million 

increase, to elevate the teaching profession and get effective teachers and leaders into the schools that need them the most. 

We are also requesting a large investment in teacher and principal leadership programs so States and districts can recruit and 

train the very best people possible that they can find. One of the 

things I think we have historically dramatically underinvested in 

is principal leadership. Leadership matters tremendously in education, as it does in every other field, and we are asking for a fivefold increase in funding for principals. 

We will also further support nontraditional pathways into teaching so people from all walks of life can bring their experience and 

knowledge into the classroom. And our budget invests in programs 

to reward educators for raising achievement and working in hardto-staff schools and subjects. We encourage performance pay that 

rewards entire schools for progress—not just teachers, but all 

adults, from cafeteria workers to school clerks. However, under our 

regulations, States, districts, and schools will have the flexibility to 

design compensation programs that work best for them. 

And we are interested not so much in absolute test scores but in 

growth and gain: How much are students improving each year? 

And what are we doing to dramatically reduce dropout rates that 

continue to plague us around the country? 

The final area of reform falls under the category of innovation. 

We are proposing almost $2.5 billion to increase high quality charter and magnet schools and to continue the Race to the Top and 

the Investing in Innovation programs. 

With so many children at risk of failure, America cannot accept 

the status quo. More than one in four students drops out of high 

school. Many of those who do actually graduate and go on to college 

need remedial education; they are actually not prepared for collegelevel work. And too many of them drop out because of that lack of 

preparation. 

We must constantly embrace new approaches to learning and expand proven models of success. We must hold everyone accountable 

for results, and we must aim higher. 

I know there have been some concerns about the administration’s 

embrace of competitive funding, so let me address this issue headon. Major formula programs like Title I and IDEA are absolutely 

untouched. They will remain formula-driven as long as we are 

here. Programs serving special populations such as English language learners, migrants, homeless, and rural students are also 

untouched. 

But our theory of action is clear: States and school districts must 

prepare young people for an increasingly competitive world. We 
8 

can’t afford to keep doing things the same way. We must get better, 

faster; and competition will help make that happen. That is why, 

if ESEA is reauthorized, we are prepared to ask for up to $1 billion 

more to reward high-performing high-poverty schools and to fund 

other key strategies like more after-school programming. 

Now, I also understand there are concerns that small rural districts cannot compete with large urban districts for grants, so this 

is what we will do: first of all, we will continue funding the Rural 

Education Achievement Program, also known as REAP. It has not 

been consolidated with any other programs or funding streams. 

Secondly, we will look at competitive priorities for rural districts 

where it makes sense and is needed, and we welcome that discussion with you. Finally, we are also identifying foundations and nonprofit organizations to partner with rural districts and increase 

their investment there. 

I have traveled to many rural areas in the past year and seen 

firsthand both the challenges they face as well as their tremendous 

capacity and willingness to address them. I am confident that our 

department can support rural school districts as they work to improve and compete. 

Now let me move to higher education. As you know, much of our 

higher-education agenda depends on passage of SAFRA, which 

shifts billions of dollars away from bank subsidies and into direct 

loans and other investments, including community colleges, which, 

Congressman, you mentioned earlier. The community colleges system is a lifeline to bring a bright future for so many low-income 

and working-class individuals. Dollar for dollar, it is one of the best 

bargains in education, and we want to make it available to every 

single student who qualifies. 

All told, our proposed budget will invest $156 billion in loans and 

grants to help young people and adults pay for college. That money 

will directly help some 15 million college students, which is three 

out of every five college students in the country. 

Pell Grants will increase by $160 next year and will rise annually by the rate of inflation plus a point to keep up with rising tuition. Our budget also includes more money for colleges serving 

large minority populations, including the HBCUs. 

I want to assure you that the Department of Education is fully 

prepared to switch to direct lending. In fact, many banks have 

dropped out of this business due to the recession, so we have already assumed much of the lending workload. And more than 2,300 

colleges and universities have also shifted, with little or no disruption. 

I also want to emphasize that the private sector will retain a 

major role in the student lending business, because we will use 

only private loan-servicing companies. So this legislation is a winwin for everyone: for taxpayers, for students, and the private-sector 

jobs associated with servicing those loans. 

I thank the House for its leadership on SAFRA, and I promise 

to work very closely with the Senate to get the bill passed. 

One more important part of our agenda involves educating those 

adults with basic or below-basic literacy skills. They are increasingly out of step with the new economy. This is an enormous economic and social challenge, and we want to work with you and 
9 

with the Department of Labor to expand investments in adult education and to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act to lift all 

of America’s workers into the new economy. 

Finally, I want to speak to the issue of efficiency. American taxpayers rightfully expect us to stretch every single dollar that we 

have been given. To that end, we conducted a line-by-line review 

of our budget and eliminated six programs that duplicated others 

or have not demonstrated their effectiveness. That alone saved us 

about $123 million. 

We saved another $217 million by eliminating 571 earmarks. We 

also took 38 separate programs and consolidated them into 11 

funding streams to cut red tape for States and for school districts. 

So we present to you a budget that is smarter and more focused 

and reflects a rigorous review of every single program. It puts 

America on a path toward educational excellence. It also seeks to 

strike the balance between more flexibility for States and local 

school districts and more accountability to meet our obligation to 

parents and taxpayers. 

The budget clearly signals our intent to move forward with reauthorization of ESEA. We are working closely with a bipartisan 

group of Members of Congress to build upon the strengths of this 

important law while fixing some of its flaws. 

As the President has said so many times, countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow. By one estimate, closing the achievement gap with better performing nations would increase gross domestic product by $2.3 trillion annually. 

But it is not just about economics. It is about our national commitment to equality of opportunity. Education is the civil-rights 

issue of our generation. No other work is more challenging or more 

urgent, and also no other work is more promising. 

So I thank you so much for your commitment, your leadership, 

and your hard work on behalf of our children. I look forward to answering your questions now. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Arne Duncan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Chairman Spratt, Ranking Member Ryan and Members of the Committee: Thank 

you for this opportunity to come before this Committee and talk about improving 

education in America. I want to begin by thanking all of you for your commitment 

to our children’s education. 

It was just over a year ago that Congress and President Obama worked together 

to complete the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). 

This legislation will deliver nearly $100 billion to Recovery Act recipients, including 

States and school districts, to help address budget shortfalls in the midst of the 

most severe financial crisis and economic recession since the Great Depression. To 

date, the Department has awarded more than $69 billion. For the quarter ending 

December 31, 2009, recipients reported that assistance from the Department of Education funded approximately 400,000 jobs overall, including more than 300,000 education jobs, such as principals, teachers, librarians and counselors. These numbers 

are consistent with the data submitted in October, during the first round of reporting, and this consistency reflects the steady and significant impact of the Recovery 

Act. Although State and local education budgets remain strained, schools systems 

throughout the country would be facing much more severe situations were it not for 

the Recovery Act. The Recovery Act has also helped families and students pay for 

college by increasing federal student aid. 

I believe, however, that the Recovery Act did much more than just provide shortterm financial assistance to States and school districts. Indeed, I think the Recovery 

Act will be seen as a watershed for American education because it also laid the 
10 

groundwork for needed reforms that will help improve our education system and ensure America’s prosperity for decades to come. Thanks to the Recovery Act, all 

States now are working to strengthen their standards and assessments; improve 

teacher and leader effectiveness; improve data systems and increase the use of data 

to improve instruction; and turn around low-performing schools. 

In addition, the Recovery Act helped to jumpstart a new era of innovation and reform, including through the $4 billion Race to the Top program and the $650 million Investing in Innovation Fund. States already have demonstrated their interest 

in the reforms called for by the Recovery Act and Race to the Top. Just in preparation to apply for Race to the Top grants, States have made essential changes, such 

as allowing data systems to link the achievement of individual students to their 

teachers and enabling the growth or expansion of high-quality charter schools. 

States also are demonstrating the progress they have made toward implementing 

the reforms called for in the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund in their applications 

for Phase II of that funding. We must continue to invest in innovation and scale 

up what works to make dramatic improvements in education. The President’s fiscal 

year 2011 budget (‘‘budget request’’) requests $1.35 billion for Race to the Top 

awards, both for States and for a new school district-level competition. The 2011 

budget request also includes $500 million for the Investing in Innovation (i3) program. 

The House also has passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act 

(SAFRA), which would make much-needed reforms to Federal postsecondary student 

aid programs that would enable us to make key investments in education by redirecting the tens of billions of dollars that otherwise would be spent on unnecessary subsidies to lenders over the next decade. These investments include expanding 

student aid though a more generous Pell Grant program and low-cost student loans, 

preparing students and workers for 21st Century jobs to increase our social wellbeing and economic prosperity, including through President Obama’s American 

Graduation Initiative, and helping more low-income children enter school with the 

skills they need to succeed through the President’s Early Learning Challenge Fund. 

SAFRA also includes important investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority-serving institutions. Our 2011 budget request strongly supports SAFRA, and we are working to win Senate approval for it as soon as possible. 

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

As you know, earlier this month President Obama released his fiscal year 2011 

budget request. The centerpiece of the 2011 budget request for the Department of 

Education is the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The President is asking for a discretionary increase of $3.5 billion for fiscal year 2011, of which $3 billion is dedicated to ESEA, the largest-ever 

requested increase for ESEA. Moreover, if together, we complete an ESEA reauthorization that is consistent with the President’s plan, the Administration will submit 

a budget amendment for up to an additional $1 billion for ESEA programs. But, our 

budget and reauthorization are not simply about more resources—they also are 

about using resources more effectively. We would greatly appreciate your support 

for this historic budget. 

As part of developing the 2011 budget request and performance plan, the Department of Education has identified a limited number of high-priority performance 

goals that will be a particular focus over the next two years. These goals, which will 

help measure the success of the Department’s cradle-to-career education strategy, 

reflect the importance of teaching and learning at all levels in the education system. 

The Department’s goals include supporting reform of struggling schools, improvements in the quality of teaching and learning, implementation of comprehensive 

statewide data systems, and simplifying student aid. These goals and key initiatives 

and other performance information are included in the President’s Fiscal Year 2011 

Budget materials and are on www.ed.gov. 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST AND ESEA REAUTHORIZATION

Our 2011 budget request incorporates an outline of our thoughts about ESEA reauthorization. We have thought a great deal about the appropriate Federal role in 

elementary and secondary education, and want to move from a simple focus on 

rules, compliance, and labeling of insufficient achievement, toward a focus on flexibility for States and local educational agencies (LEAs) that demonstrate how they 

will use program funds to achieve results, and on positive incentives and rewards 

for success. That is why, for example, our 2011 budget request includes $1.85 billion 

in new funding for the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation (i3) programs. 

In addition, our reauthorization proposal for Title I, Part A of ESEA would reward 
11 

schools or LEAs that are making significant progress in improving student outcomes 

and closing achievement gaps. Our budget and reauthorization proposals also propose to increase the role of competition in awarding ESEA funds to support a greater emphasis on programs that are achieving successful results. 

We believe that our goals of providing greater incentives and rewards for success, 

increasing the role of competition in Federal education programs, supporting collegeand career-readiness, turning around low-performing schools, and putting effective 

teachers in every classroom and effective leaders in every school require a restructuring of ESEA program authorities. For this reason, our budget and reauthorization proposals would consolidate 38 existing authorities into 11 new programs that 

give States, LEAs, and communities more choices in carrying out activities that 

focus on local needs, support promising practices, and improve outcomes for students, while maintaining critical focus on the most disadvantaged students, including dedicated programs for students who face unique challenges, such as English 

language learners and homeless, neglected and delinquent and migrant students. 

COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READINESS

Another key priority in our proposals builds on the Recovery Act’s emphasis on 

stronger standards and high quality assessments aligned with those standards. We 

believe that a reauthorized Title I program, which our budget request would fund 

at $14.5 billion, should focus on graduating every student college- and career-ready. 

States would adopt standards that build toward college- and career-readiness, and 

implement high-quality assessments that are aligned with and capable of measuring 

individual student growth toward these standards. Our budget request would provide $450 million (a 10 percent increase) for a reauthorized Assessing Achievement 

program (currently State Assessments) to support implementation of these new assessments. 

States would measure school and LEA performance on the basis of progress in 

getting all students, including groups of students who are members of minority 

groups, low-income, English learners, and students with disabilities, on track to 

college- and career-readiness, as well as closing achievement gaps and improving 

graduation rates for high schools. States would use this information to differentiate 

schools and LEAs and provide appropriate rewards and supports, including recognition and rewards for those showing progress and required interventions in the lowest-performing schools and LEAs. To help turn around the nation’s lowest-performing schools, our budget would build on the $3 billion in school improvement 

grants provided in the Recovery Act by including $900 million for a School Turnaround Grants program (currently School Improvement Grants). This and other 

parts of our budget demonstrate the principle that it is not enough to identify which 

schools need help—we must encourage and support state and local efforts to provide 

that help. 

EFFECTIVE TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADERS

We also believe that if we want to improve student outcomes, especially in highpoverty schools, nothing is more important than ensuring that there are effective 

teachers in every classroom and effective leaders in every school. Longstanding 

achievement gaps closely track the inequities in classrooms and schools attended by 

poor and minority students, and fragmented ESEA programs have failed to make 

significant progress to close this gap. Our reauthorization proposal will ask States 

and LEAs to set clear standards for effective teaching and to design evaluation systems that fairly and rigorously differentiate between teachers on the basis of effectiveness and that provide them with targeted supports to enable them to improve. 

We also will propose to restructure the many teacher and teacher-related authorities in the current ESEA to more effectively recruit, prepare, support, reward, and 

retain effective teachers and school leaders. Key budget proposals in this area include $950 million for a Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund, which would support 

bold incentives and compensation plans designed to get our best teachers and leaders into our most challenging schools, and $405 million for a Teacher and Leader 

Pathways program that would encourage and help to strengthen a variety of pathways, including alternative routes, to teaching and school leadership careers. 

We also are asking for $1 billion for an Effective Teaching and Learning for a 

Complete Education authority that would make competitive awards focused on highneed districts to improve instruction in the areas of literacy, science, technology, engineering, mathematics, the arts, foreign languages, civics and government, history, 

geography, economics and financial literacy, and other subjects. We propose these 

programs in addition to a $2.5 billion Effective Teachers and Leaders formula grant 

program to States and LEAs, to promote and enhance the teaching profession. 
12 

In addition, throughout our budget, we have included incentives for States and 

LEAs to use technology to improve effectiveness, efficiency, access, supports, and engagement across the curriculum. In combination with the other reforms supported 

by the budget, these efforts will pave the way to the future of teaching and learning. 

IMPROVING STEM OUTCOMES

One area that receives special attention in both our 2011 budget request and our 

reauthorization plan is improving instruction and student outcomes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The world our youth will inherit increasingly will be influenced by science and technology, and it is our obligation to 

prepare them for that world. 

The 2011 request includes several activities that support this agenda and connect 

with President Obama’s ‘‘Educate to Innovate’’ campaign, which is aimed at fostering public-private partnerships in support of STEM. Our goal is to move American students from the middle of the pack to the top of the world in STEM achievement over the next decade, by focusing on (1) enhancing the ability of teachers to 

deliver rigorous STEM content, and providing the supports they need to deliver that 

instruction; (2) increasing STEM literacy so that all students can master challenging content and think critically in STEM fields, and participate fully as citizens 

in an America changed by technology in ways we cannot envision; and (3) expanding 

STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups, including 

women and girls and individuals with disabilities. Specifically, we are asking for $300 million to improve the teaching and learning 

of STEM subjects through the Effective Teaching and Learning: STEM program; 

$150 million for STEM projects under the $500 million request for the i3 program; 

and $25 million for a STEM initiative in the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to identify and validate more effective approaches for attracting 

and retaining, engaging and effectively teaching undergraduates in STEM fields. 

And, I have directed the Department to work closely with other federal agencies, 

including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Institutes of Health to 

align our efforts toward our common goal of supporting students. 

COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTIONS

We also recognize that schools, parents, and students will benefit from investments in other areas that can help to improve student outcomes. Toward that end, 

we are proposing to expand the new Promise Neighborhoods program by including 

$210 million to fund school reform and comprehensive social services for children 

in distressed communities from birth through college and career. A restructured 

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program would provide $410 million to—for 

the first time—systematically measure school climates, which we know can affect 

student learning. This will help direct funding to schools that show the greatest 

need for resources to increase students’ safety and well-being by reducing violence, 

harassment and bullying, promote student physical and mental health, and prevent 

student drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. 

COLLEGE ACCESS AND COMPLETION

The Administration has made college- and career-readiness for all students the 

goal of its ESEA reauthorization proposal, because most students will need at least 

some postsecondary education to compete for jobs in the 21st Century global economy. For this reason, we are proposing a College Pathways and Accelerated Learning program that would increase high school graduation rates and preparation for 

college by providing students in high-poverty schools with opportunities to take advanced coursework that puts them on a path toward college. This new program 

would help expand access to accelerated learning opportunities such as Advanced 

Placement and International Baccalaureate courses, dual-enrollment programs that 

allow students to take college-level courses and earn college credit while in high 

school, and ‘‘early college high schools’’ that allow students to earn a high school 

degree and an Associate’s degree or two years of college credit simultaneously. 

Just as essential to preparing students for college is ensuring that students and 

families have the financial support they need to pay for college. As I noted earlier, 

the Administration supports passage of SAFRA, which would make key changes in 

student financial aid and higher education programs that are consistent with President Obama’s goal of restoring America’s status as first in the world in the percentage of college graduates by 2020. In combination with SAFRA, the 2011 request 

would make available more than $156 billion in new grants, loans, and work-study 

assistance—an increase of $58 billion or 60 percent over the amount available in 
13 

2008—to help almost 15 million students and their families pay for college. And another achievement of the Recovery Act, the new American Opportunity Tax Credit, 

will provide an estimated $12 billion in tax relief for 2009 filers. The budget proposes to make this refundable tax credit permanent, which will give families up to 

$10,000 to help pay for four years of college. 

The 2011 budget request would bring the maximum Pell grant to $5,710, nearly 

a $1,000 increase since the President took office. In that time, the number of students receiving grants has grown from six million to nearly nine million, and the 

total amount of aid available has nearly doubled. In addition, the budget request 

would make funding for the Pell Grant program mandatory rather than discretionary, to eliminate annual uncertainty about Pell Grant funding and end the practice of ‘‘backfilling’’ billions of dollars in Pell Grant funding shortfalls. 

No one should go broke because of student loan debt. That is why our budget also 

would help borrowers struggling to repay student loans by reducing the minimum 

payment to 10 percent of their discretionary income, and providing for all of their 

debt to be forgiven after 20 years—10 years if they choose a career in public service. 

These changes will help more than one million borrowers next year. 

IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR ADULT LEARNERS

The 2011 budget request includes funding for a variety of programs that support 

adult learners, including career and technical education, and adult basic and literacy education. These programs provide essential support for State and local activities that help millions of Americans develop the knowledge and skills they need to 

reach their potential in a global economy. For example, our request would provide 

$1.3 billion for Career and Technical Education (CTE) State Grants, to support continued improvement and to increase the capacity of programs to prepare high school 

students to meet state college and career-ready standards. One of our greatest challenges is to help the 90 million adults who would enhance their career prospects 

by increasing their basic literacy skills. For this reason, we also are asking for 

$612.3 million for Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants, an increase of 

$30 million over the comparable 2010 level, to help adults without a high school diploma or the equivalent to obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for postsecondary education, employment, and self-sufficiency. 

IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

The budget also includes several requests and new initiatives to enhance opportunities for students and other persons with disabilities. For example, the budget request includes a $250 million increase for grants to States under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act, to help ensure that students with disabilities receive the education and related services they need to prepare them to lead productive, independent lives. The $3.6 billion request for Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research would consolidate nine programs under the Rehabilitation Act into 

three, to reduce duplication and improve the provision of rehabilitation and independent living services for individuals with disabilities. The request includes a $6 

million increase over the 2010 level for a new Grants for Independent Living program (which consolidates the Independent Living State Grants and Centers for 

Independent Living) and would provide additional funding for States with significant unmet needs. It also includes $25 million for a new program that would expand 

supported employment opportunities for youth with significant disabilities as they 

transition from school to the workforce, through competitive grants to States to develop innovative methods of providing extended services. 

The Budget provides $112 million for the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research to support a broad portfolio of research and development, capacity-building, and knowledge translation activities. And the request includes $60 

million, $30 million under Adult Education and $30 million under Vocational Rehabilitation, for the Workforce Innovation Fund, a new initiative in partnership with 

the Department of Labor. The proposed Partnership for Workforce Innovation, 

which encompasses $321 million of funding in the Departments of Education and 

Labor, would award competitive grants to encourage innovation and identify effective strategies for improving the delivery of services and outcomes for beneficiaries 

under programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act. This investment will 

create strong incentives for change that, if scaled up, could improve cross-program 

delivery of services and outcomes for beneficiaries of programs under the Workforce 

Investment Act. 
14 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we have made extraordinary progress in meeting the needs of our 

schools and communities in the midst of financial crisis and recession, making longneeded reforms in our Federal postsecondary student aid programs, and reawakening the spirit of innovation in our education system from early learning through 

college. The next step to cement and build on this progress is to complete a fundamental restructuring of ESEA, and we believe strongly that our 2011 budget request 

is essential to that effort. I look forward to working with the Committee toward that 

goal and have every confidence that with your continuing leadership and strong support from President Obama and the American people, we will accomplish this important task. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much, sir. 

One of the key features of the bill this year, coupled with other 

legislation we are passing, is that we will be moving the student 

loan program from indirectly made guaranteed loans to direct loans 

from the Department of Education. 

Could you take just a second or two to explain the policy here 

and also the savings that will be generated over a 5- or 10-year period of time? 

Secretary DUNCAN. The estimates in terms of savings are as high as $87 billion over the next decade. It is a staggering amount of 

money. This is simply by removing subsidies to banks and putting 

those savings into education. And, again, this will fund two thirds 

of our education agenda: the higher-education piece and the early 

childhood piece. 

Let me take a moment to talk about both. I think there is no better investment we can make than in early childhood education. If 

we are serious about closing the achievement gap in this country, 

we have to make sure that children enter kindergarten ready to 

learn and ready to read. 

And so these resources, through an Early Learning Challenge 

Fund, would enable us to do two things: dramatically expand access to early childhood programs and, secondly, dramatically improve quality. If this is glorified babysitting it is not going to 

change students’ lives, but these are high quality programs. If students can enter kindergarten ready to learn, they can do very, very 

well. 

The second piece is a huge one on the higher-education side. And 

the chance to put billions of dollars into increased Pell Grants, Perkins loans, tuition tax credits I think is just absolutely critical at 

a time when going to college has never been for important, has 

never been more expensive, and our Nation’s families have never 

been under more financial duress. 

There are no good jobs out there for high school dropouts, as all 

of you know. There are almost no good jobs out there for someone 

who just has a high school diploma. Some form of higher education—4-year universities, 2-year community colleges, trade, technical, vocational training—has to be the goal for every single student who graduates from high school. 

And so the chance to make this much more affordable at a time 

when America’s families have never been under more financial duress is a huge step in the right direction. 

You may have seen last week a recent survey that came out that 

demonstrated that so many American families feel disconnected 

from higher education. They feel they can’t afford it; they feel it is 
15 

for rich people. And that’s a real challenge when we know getting 

that higher education and training is just so critically important for 

strengthening our economy. 

And so we want to invest huge amounts of money to make college more accessible and affordable. We want to make sure more 

students aren’t just going to college, but graduating. 

In terms of the shift to direct lending, over the past 3 years, before we did anything, we saw a movement from a thousand colleges 

and universities using direct lending to 2,300. That migration is already happening, and we are absolutely prepared and ready to 

work as more universities come in. 

Finally, it is very important for me to say that the private sector 

will do all of the servicing of these loans. This is not our core competency. We don’t think we are good at it. The private, free marketplace will play. So companies that do a great job of servicing the 

loans and keeping default rates low will get more and more business; those that don’t do a good job will lose business. It is great 

for taxpayers, it is great for students. And, again, that is the great 

place for the private sector to play. 

So, at multiple levels, we think this movement is hugely important. And, again, I want to thank all of the leadership here for giving us an opportunity, and we are going to work hard with the 

leadership of the Senate to pass this bill. 

Chairman SPRATT. In particular with respect to the Perkins loan 

program, do you have any information available to indicate what 

the likely savings will be from the changes you are proposing? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, it enables us to increase our investment 

from $1 billion dollars to $6 billion. So it is a dramatic increase in 

resources for students that are working hard and want to have a 

chance to stay in school. 

Chairman SPRATT. Well, as I understand that, you are going to 

use some of the savings to expand the program to the colleges that 

don’t now have it? 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is exactly right, make it accessible to 

everybody. 

Chairman SPRATT. Is the Perkins program working, the principle 

of it—college administration, college loan review? Is this not a concept with a human touch to it and a human face to it that is a feature you would like to have in your higher-education student loan 

program? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think it is working. I think the Perkins loan 

program is working. We think the Pell Grant program is working. 

We just want to make sure more students have access. And, again, 

there is just so much need out there, so we can put tens of billions 

of dollars to make college more accessible and affordable. 

The other thing which I should have touched on is on the back 

end of this. When students graduate from college, we have worked 

very hard to reduce the amount that they have to pay back in 

terms of loans. And so, if this bill passes—it is called income-based 

repayment, IBR—that number would go down to 10 percent of your 

salary. So it would mean significantly reductions in loan repayments. And after 10 years of public service work—becoming a 

teacher; if you graduate from law school and want to set up a legal 

clinic in a disadvantaged community, or a medical clinic some-
16 

place—after 10 years, those loans would be erased. And so it really 

removes the financial impediments. There are many great people 

who want to go in the public sector, want to contribute, but because they had $60,000, $80,000, $100,000 in loans, they simply 

couldn’t afford to do that work. 

And so we are trying to make it more accessible and affordable 

at the front end. And in the back end removing those golden handcuffs and getting talent into the public sector, we think would be 

a huge step in the right direction. 

Chairman SPRATT. Just a couple more questions about the Perkins program. You indicated that if a college was doing well, they 

could get more business; if they weren’t doing well, they would lose 

business. Nobody can argue with that. But how do they get more 

business particularly on the collection side and the loan administration side? 

Secretary DUNCAN. What we want to look at is, what are folks 

doing to graduate students? And, you know, what are we doing not 

just to get students in the front end but out the back end, as well? 

And so this is not just about college access; it is about completion 

and attainment. And we want to shine a spotlight there. 

We also want to reward those places that are helping to contain 

costs. One of the real challenges we are facing is runaway, escalating higher-education costs. And when those costs are contained, 

we want to reward that, as well. 

Chairman SPRATT. Just a couple of final questions. 

I am sure Members here, like me, are receiving lots of mail from 

people who are supporters of the arts in education. And they are 

very much concerned that, as you consolidate different programs 

into one big block grant, the arts will be squeezed off the back 

burner and won’t receive the emphasis and attention and funding 

they have enjoyed over the last several years. 

Is that a concern? And how do we protect against it? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. I will tell you, it has been a fascinating year of learning for me as I travel, again, to about 37 

States, in rural, urban, and suburban districts and really try to 

talk to hundreds and hundreds of teachers and parents and students. 

I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that maybe the most common refrain I heard was a real concern that, under No Child Left Behind, 

historically we have had a narrowing of the curriculum and that, 

sort of, what gets tested gets taught, leading to a loss of the arts, 

a loss of history, a loss of social studies. 

And so one of the biggest things that we want to emphasize is, 

yes, those basics of reading and math are hugely important, but we 

think every child deserves a well-rounded education. And so that 

is absolutely the arts, it is absolutely history, it is absolutely social 

studies, it is absolutely physical education. 

And so what we have actually done is we have created a pot of 

money, what we are calling ‘‘The Well-Rounded Education,’’ a billion-dollar pot. It is a $100 million increase, a 10 percent increase, 

to support all those things. We want to do everything we can to 

make sure that all of our students—I want to be clear on this— 

particularly children at the elementary grades—we can’t wait until 

high school to expose students to the arts. We need our young stu-
17 

dents, you know, to start to develop their passions and develop 

their interests. 

And so, while I understand the concern, the fact is that there is 

a billion-dollar pot, and that represents a $100 million increase, to 

support a well-rounded education. 

Chairman SPRATT. There is also concern that Work-Study moneys are either not being increased or allowed to be eroded away due 

to inflation. And a number of the colleges that I represent in South 

Carolina are seeing their allotments for Work-Study dwindle. This 

is what they look upon as a middle-income program. It is not like 

Pell Grants for lower income students, but it is a middle-income 

program for deserving students who are willing to work if they 

have the opportunity and also if it is complementary to their education. 

What is happening to Work-Study? Because I am hearing from 

the college presidents and tech school presidents and community 

college people that Work-Study is taking a hit and they are feeling 

the consequences. 

Mr. SKELLY. Work-Study is continuing in the budget, Mr. Chairman. And the Recovery Act included a separate appropriation of 

$200 million for Work-Study. We think that money is still going to 

be there through the next academic year. 

Chairman SPRATT. Okay. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Like Title I, like IDEA, there is pretty significant carryover in those programs, and Work-Study is similar to 

those. 

Chairman SPRATT. So there will be no cuts in Work-Study this 

year? 

Mr. SKELLY. Compared to the budget for 2010, the 2011 budget 

is the same. So there wouldn’t be any cuts. 

Chairman SPRATT. How much do you anticipate getting this year 

and next as part of what remains available under the Recovery 

Act? 

Secretary DUNCAN. On Title I and IDEA, we anticipate about 

half that money—about $22 billion total. We anticipate about half 

that money, about $11 billion, being available for fall 2010, this upcoming school year. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hensarling? 

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I believe I heard you say in your testimony that 

most government spending is frozen. Did I hear you correctly? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Domestic spending, yes. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Domestic spending. Okay. There were, if I have 

my figures correct, $3.59 trillion total outlays in 2010. The President is requesting $3.834 trillion in his latest budget request, 

which, back of the envelope, is about a 6.8 percentage request with 

roughly 60 percent mandatory, 40 percent discretionary. I am still 

finding it a little difficult to believe that most government spending 

is frozen—most discretionary spending is frozen. 

In addition, and if we look at the total government, isn’t it true 

that 86 percent of Federal spending is exempt from the President’s 

freeze? 

Secretary DUNCAN. What is your question on our budget. 
18 

Mr. HENSARLING. My question is, is it not true—if you don’t 

know the answer, you can say that. The question is, is it not true 

that 86 percent of the President’s budget request, that the freeze 

does not apply to? 

Mr. SKELLY. The freeze does not apply to mandatory programs 

nor to Department of Defense or homeland security programs. 

Mr. HENSARLING. So is the answer yes, no, you don’t know? 

Mr. SKELLY. That looks about right. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, you have asked for a number of funding increases 

in your testimony for certain programs, a number of which I am 

familiar with, a number of which I know do very good work. But 

my question—I don’t believe I heard you ask for any funding decreases in your testimony. 

Can we have that debt chart again, please? 

My question is, Mr. Secretary, how do you propose paying for 

this? Should we try to continue to borrow from the Chinese, who, 

up until recently, were the largest holder of our debt? But we know 

that, at least publicly, they are beginning to divest of their holdings. We have been lectured by the Chinese on our spendthrift 

ways. 

Now, all of a sudden, we wake up and the Japanese are the largest holder of our foreign debt. And yet we look at Japan, and we 

see that they have attempted eight stimulus programs over 10 

years; for all intents and purposes, have had flat GDP for almost 

15 years; and their own demographic fiscal time bomb is even 

greater than ours. 

So if we are not going to borrow from the Chinese, if we are not 

going to borrow from the Japanese, just exactly how are we going 

to pay for all this? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We didn’t just ask for increases, sir; we actually made some pretty tough cuts. As I talked about earlier, we did 

program eliminations that resulted in $123 million in savings. 

When we eliminated earmarks—and that is tough and controversial; not everyone supports that—that eliminated $217 million. 

Mr. HENSARLING. But, Mr. Secretary, a combination of the mandatory and the discretionary that you are requesting, are you not, 

on net, asking for a budget increase? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Okay. Thank you. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And the vast majority of the money for early 

childhood and higher ed, that is simply stopping subsidizing banks 

and investing in education. It is not going back to taxpayers for 

money. 

Mr. HENSARLING. So the question still remains. Net, you are asking for a funding increase. You know that the President has submitted a budget that will double the national debt in 5 years from 

fiscal year 2008 when he was elected to office, triples it in 10. 

The question remains, how do you pay for it? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me explain my thoughts on this. 

I think we have to educate our way to a better economy. I think 

it is the only way we get there. We have a dropout rate that is 27 

percent in this country. We have 1.2 million young people every 
19 

year leaving our schools and going to the streets. That is morally 

unacceptable, and it is economically unsustainable. 

The only way we get a strong economy in this country is we have 

to out-educate other countries. And so I would argue this is the 

best investment system we can make. I expect you to hold me and 

my Department accountable for results, just as we are holding 

States and districts, we want to hold them accountable for results. 

But we have to get there. 

The dropout rate, the huge achievement gap is hundreds of trillions of dollars in money that we are leaving on the table. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Secretary, I am not prepared to debate the 

proposition, because my guess is I agree with much of what you 

say. I mean, anything that I have achieved in life has a lot to do 

with, number one, being blessed to be born an American citizen; 

number two, being born into a great family; but, number three, the 

educational opportunities I had, first at a public school education 

system in College Station, Texas, and later at Texas A&M University. I believe in educational opportunity. What I fear is that chart 

there is going to take away educational opportunity. 

And so the question remains, where is the plan from this administration to deal with this mountain of debt? I believe, indeed, that 

part of economic growth is going to be increased educational opportunities. But you are still not answering the question, how are you 

going to pay for it? Where is the entitlement reform plan of this 

administration? Why aren’t they proposing flat discretionary 

spending in other areas? Again, what we don’t see is any payment 

of this. 

Now, in your testimony, you said many families can’t afford college education today. That is correct. I meet these families every 

day in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. But to pay for the 

mountain of red ink, the sea of red ink that this administration is 

proposing, today taxes would have to be raised 60 percent on these 

very same families that can’t afford college education today. Interest alone on the national debt under the President’s proposal by 

2020 is going to be roughly $7,000 per family, $840 billion. 

So if they can’t afford college education today, how are they going 

to afford it tomorrow? It seems like, as you increase the Department of Education budget, you are going to significantly decrease 

the family education budget. It is just decimated. 

So, again, I don’t debate that these are good programs, although, 

you know, I would debate some, and particularly whether we have 

sufficient local control. But, again, I ask the question, how are you 

going to pay for it? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think this is an absolute investment. I 

think this is an investment that our country desperately needs. 

Through better education, we will create jobs, we will reduce unemployment, we will bring companies into our districts, into our 

States, into the country. And this is the only way we are going to 

strengthen our economy, long term. Education is the answer. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Hensarling, he has answered your question about five times. Let’s move on to another subject area. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully say 

the question was unanswered five times, but I will respect your 

leadership. 
20 

Chairman SPRATT. What he is saying is we believe education, of 

all things in the budget, will pay for itself, given the dividends it 

yields in the out-years of the person who is the beneficiary of it. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Well, I understand your point of view, Mr. 

Chairman. I still don’t think it answers the question. 

I will go ahead. I will end with two more questions here, and 

then I will yield back the time. 

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, I know that you are 

well acquainted with it—9,000 applications, provided scholarships 

to more than 3,000 children. The mayor favors it; the school chancellor favors it. Independent studies show that parents are very, 

very satisfied. It has resulted in an increase in test scores. 

And so I hear all of these different budget requests to increase 

funding for all these education programs, yet the President’s budget, as I read it, phases out this very successful education program. 

Recently, George Parker, the head of the Washington, D.C. 

teachers’ union, was quoted in opposing the scholarship by saying, 

quote, ‘‘Parents are voting with their feet. As kids continue leaving 

the system, we will lose teachers. Our very survival depends on 

having kids in D.C. schools so we will have teachers to represent.’’ 

So it kind of begs the question, every other education program— 

most other education programs in your budget seem to be getting 

an increase. One that is working, one that is very popular seems 

to be zeroed out. And is it about saving teachers’ unions, or is it 

about saving kids? Or why is this being zeroed out? 

Secretary DUNCAN. A couple thoughts on that. 

First of all, as you know, Congressman, we fought hard to keep 

the kids currently in the program in those schools and make sure 

they weren’t moved in the middle of their education career. We 

didn’t want that to be disrupted. 

Going forward, a couple thoughts. The data was actually pretty 

mixed on it. If you look at the studies—I am not sure if I will get 

it right—reading and math, over 3 years, in one the results are basically flat, wasn’t much movement. The other one, over 3 years, 

there is about a 3-month gain in increase. So it is about a month 

a year of improvement. That is not fantastic results, quite frankly. 

A good tutoring program will get you a month’s benefit for a year’s 

progress there. So the numbers weren’t wildly positive. 

Secondly, the big thing—and this is a really important one—I 

think, as a local government or a Federal Government, we need to 

be more ambitious. I don’t want to save two children from a failing 

school and leave the other 498 to drown. I think we need to be 

looking to save every single child. And if, you know, the local community—— 

Mr. HENSARLING. But the converse of that, Mr. Secretary, is you 

are letting them all drown. 

Secretary DUNCAN. No. Could I please finish? 

Mr. HENSARLING. Please. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me explain why I am not. So if local philanthropy—you know, foundations, individuals—want to help give 

students scholarships, I absolutely welcome that and respect that. 

What we want to do—and I don’t think the public has quite understood this—is we want to turn around chronically failing 

schools. We have $3.5 billion in school improvement grants, not to 
21 

pull one or two children out of a failing school, but to help that entire school and to do it with a real sense of urgency. I think we 

need to be much more ambitious than helping a handful and leaving the rest to drown. 

The District of Columbia, in school improvement grants, the District will receive approximately $11 million to fundamentally turn 

around low-performing schools. The District is making significant 

progress, has a long way to go. And we want to invest in wholeschool change, turnaround, doing the right thing for the entire community, not just for a handful of students. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Hensarling. 

Mrs. Schwartz? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Okay, thank you. Whenever I am called ‘‘Mrs. 

Schwartz,’’ I always think that is my mother-in-law. But anyway—— 

Chairman SPRATT. Is that good or bad? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I like my mother-in-law. It is okay. 

But thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I really appreciate your testimony and the broad attention that you bring to, well, how important education is. 

I did want to say that I very much appreciate your understanding and the administration’s understanding of the importance 

of investing in education. Certainly, we heard from the other side 

that, while they kind of like education, they are not sure the investment should be made this year. And that is unfortunate, because, in a lot of ways, there has been bipartisan support for investments in education. In fact, I think under the previous administration, George Bush, at least for the first couple years, really 

paid some attention to improving the accountability and performance of our lowest-performing schools in particular. And we have 

some changes we have made in those efforts, but, in fact, there was 

agreement on that, because if we don’t invest in education, we are 

not going to be—we won’t have the workforce of the future, we 

won’t be able to compete internationally. So I think we have to be 

very clear about where we started and where we are trying to take 

the budget over all. 

I do want to say that, while the criticism from the other side that 

you have not made enough cuts in education is kind of what the 

inherent question was there, the fact is I actually very much appreciate that, while there is a cap—it is called a freeze, but a cap essentially—on nondefense discretionary spending, that the administration, instead of just saying we are doing across-the-board cuts 

in everything, really did the harder thing, which is to focus on 

what works, let’s build on what works, and let’s eliminate programs that are not working, and, third, let’s consolidate programs 

that can be consolidated so they are more effective and more efficient. 

That was a smart way to do it. It is harder because there is always somebody who likes some of those programs. But it is clear 

that is what you have done. So you have made real investments, 

and I appreciate that. 

And you mention, as well—and I want to just reiterate that the 

dollars in the Recovery Act that went for jobs, I believe at the State 
22 

and local level, really resulted in 400,000 jobs at the State and 

local level; three quarters of those were in education. And, in my 

district, in both the city of Philadelphia and the suburbs, we simply 

would not have been able—those local school districts would not 

have been able to maintain the level and quality of teaching and 

investment there. 

So you really talked very eloquently about the investment in 

basic education; pre-K, which I care deeply about; and the ability 

to go on to access college. 

The one piece that you didn’t mention and I wanted you to talk 

about, if you would, is the interest in and importance of educating 

our young people to be prepared in science and technology, in engineering and in mathematics. That is an area that we know is a 

growth industry. When we are talking about growing jobs, we know 

that we need to prepare our young people for the jobs of the future, 

and that does take attention to, particularly, science, engineering, 

technology. And in my area, where we have a great deal of life 

sciences, biotech, pharma, medical education training, it is really 

very important. We do some of that, obviously, we do it very well 

at the post-secondary level. But we really need to prepare young 

people starting early in doing that. 

I understand that there is greater investment in STEM programs. Could you speak to how important that is and how you are 

going to make sure that there is investment, specifically in basic 

education, towards these kinds of programs that are going to lead 

to the leaders and workers of the future in not just health care but 

energy alternatives, energy efficiency, the places we can grow this 

economy, which, of course, is very important to us, not only creating jobs but really building that GDP, change that chart for 100 

years that was on the board? 

Secretary DUNCAN. The STEM fields are ones that we think we 

have to invest in. We think we have a long way to go as a country. 

We see a huge opportunity here, Again, as you said, if students can 

excel here—and I keep going back—at the earliest age and really 

if we can spark their interest and imagination, they are going to 

be productive citizens, they are going to do a great job. They are 

the next generation of engineers and entrepreneurs and inventors 

who are going to have the breakthroughs. 

So when I talked about this billion-dollar pot for well-rounded 

education, $300 million of that is set aside for STEM education. We 

are making STEM a competitive priority in the Race to the Top 

grants. We are emphasizing STEM in the Invest in Innovation 

fund, ‘‘i3.’’ So, both through its own money and through all these 

other competitive pots, we are trying to put a huge push there. 

The other thing I would tell you that we want to be more creative on going forward is, how do we get more scientists, more engineers, more mathematicians to teach in K-12? How do we think 

about alternative certification? And I think that we want to be 

more creative there. It is hard to instill a love in something to a 

child in something you don’t fully understand yourself. So how do 

we make sure that we have more AP physics and more AP chemistry at the high school level? 

So we want to invest very significantly here, and I want us to 

be much more creative going forward about thinking how we get 
23 

maybe mid-career changers. Maybe due to the tough economy, unfortunately maybe engineers are getting laid off. They might do a 

great job in a classroom. And so I am challenging ourselves to push 

the envelope there in how we get that great talent into communities where you don’t have enough physics or biology or chemistry 

teachers. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you. Much more to talk about, but my 

time is up. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Garrett? 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary. I appreciate you being here today. 

Also, I appreciate what I see as sincere efforts, both before and 

now, as far as trying to provide us with educational reform. 

Many have complimented this administration on their goals of 

the Race to the Top program, and I agree with a lot of the initiatives or the goals that are trying to get there. But I do want to exercise a few words of caution, though. 

As you are, I am sure, aware, you are not the first Secretary to 

come before this committee to say that we have a whole lofty list 

of goals that you would like to achieve in our current public school 

system, which has, as you would agree, serious problems. You are 

not the first to set out an ambitious agenda. 

I have been here for 7 years now, and over the time when we 

were reauthorizing NCLB I went back and looked over the record 

just to see, decades before, going all the way back to 1983, there 

was a report I am sure you are familiar with, it is called ‘‘A Nation 

at Risk,’’ that said that Americans had fallen dangerously behind 

the rest of the world in education. But new studies today say essentially the same thing, 20-some-odd years later, regardless of administration. 

Despite that, though, the percentage of GDP—money- we spend; 

we spend more money on education now than at any time in our 

Nation’s history. In particular, we have increased the Federal 

share of money in education to an unprecedented degree. The total 

Department of Education spending has increased from $38 billion 

in 2000 to $68 billion in 2008, an increase of 43 percent, adjusted 

for inflation. And with this increased spending has come a massive 

list of new Federal regulations. 

Therefore, it appears to me that one thing that hasn’t been tried 

is to dramatically increase the degree of State and local control. To 

that end, I have drafted and put in a bill. It is called the LEARN 

Act, Local Education Authority Returns Now. And, very simply, it 

simply says this: that if a State legislature so decides, they could 

opt out entirely of the Federal education programs—NCLB or 

whatever we are going to call it—all the Federal education programs and also allow the money essentially to remain in the pockets of that State. 

Now, I know in your previous life, you were leading—a number 

of the same reforms that you are talking about right now you were 

championing as chancellor of the public school systems back in 

your home State. 

And I always like to ask folks when they come here, when they 

had a good track record before they came here, do you honestly 
24 

think that you are smarter now that you are here than when you 

were back running your own school systems? 

And, if not, would you support an idea to allow those other great 

smart people who just haven’t made it up here to Washington yet 

to be able to decide for themselves that they can run the school systems without all of our help? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Pretty provocative question. I will tell you 

that what I have learned. I don’t know if I am smarter. I will tell 

you that before I came here, I didn’t think Washington had all the 

answers, and now that I am here, I know Washington doesn’t have 

all the answers. The great answers are always going to come from 

local educators, great teachers, great principals, great superintendents, who are making a difference. 

I will tell you, Congressman, the opportunity I think we have, 

and I don’t think I am overly naive or idealistic on this, the opportunity that we have been given, is unprecedented resources to invest, not in our ideas, not in Washington’s ideas, but in great work 

at the local level. 

Mr. GARRETT. But if we allow those resources to stay back in 

those States, can’t they come up with those great ideas and do it 

themselves? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me finish. The whole point, the whole 

premise behind Race to the Top, the whole premise about Investing 

in Innovation Fund (i3), is to say the good ideas are always going 

to be at the local level. For all the huge challenges we talked about, 

the dropout rate, I am very optimistic. Let me tell you why. We 

have never as a country had more high-performing schools in disadvantaged communities; we have never had more world class 

schools. 

Mr. GARRETT. But the Race to the Top still sets certain parameters, restrictions and so on. Why can’t we just let those folks make 

those decisions by themselves? You mentioned in your remarks you 

want schools to be a neighborhood anchor. Why can’t we just let 

those people in the neighborhood do it by themselves? Why do we 

have to be the ones telling them? Should we have run for school 

board instead of running for Congress? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We don’t have to tell them. All we tell them 

in Race to the Top, a couple things matter. You need to be transparent around data. 

Mr. GARRETT. You have to what? 

Secretary DUNCAN. You have to be transparent around data. You 

need to have high standards. You need to invest in teachers and 

put the best teachers and best principals in communities that are 

underserved. 

Mr. GARRETT. Do the people back in your local school boards not 

have those desires? Can’t they do that? Do we have to tell them 

that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I don’t think we have to tell them that. I will 

tell you that there have been very few incentives anywhere locally 

to get the hardest working, the most committed teachers and principals to the communities that need the most help. 

Mr. GARRETT. Do you know who the greatest incentives are? The 

moms and dads of the kids, because they care more about their 

kids than anyone in this room and anyone in the bureaucracy that 
25 

is over there. They are the greatest incentives that we have to 

make sure that these school boards are the best. Can’t we rely on 

those parents to do the job, or do we have to do it for them? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, let me just say this. We don’t have to 

do it for them. And I absolutely agree, every parent, every parent, 

wants the best option. 

What I will tell you, unfortunately, sir, is in far too many communities, those hardworking parents don’t have a good school to 

send their child to, not through their lack of will and not through 

their lack of commitment. They don’t have a good option for their 

child. We have 2,000 high schools, sir, in this country that produce 

half the Nation’s dropouts, half. Those 2,000 high schools produce 

75 percent of the dropouts from the minority community. Our African American, Latino, our young boys and girls. Those parents care 

desperately, but nothing has changed for them. How do we empower those parents to give their child a chance to be successful? 

Mr. GARRETT. I would accept then—I agree with you, there are 

those problems. If you could supply this committee when you are 

done—if not the parents, then it must be the local school boards 

that are doing the job. If you could supply the names of those 

school board members that are failing on their responsibilities to 

this committee from your State, then we would know exactly who 

is failing down on the job, because if not the parents—you and I 

agree with that—then it must be the school board members. Let us 

know who those people are because we would want to provide accountability for them to. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And let me just take it one step further. To 

me, honestly, it is not about just pointing fingers and laying blame. 

This is where all of us have to step up. We need political leaders 

to step up. We need parents to be more vocal. We need the business community to engage. We need the philanthropic sector to be 

there. We have to rally local communities. We have to rally the 

country behind this. 

As I will tell you, sir, in some places, maybe the local school 

boards are dysfunctional; other places, they might be working very, 

very hard and have very difficult constraints and inequitable resources. 

So it is a complicated—I don’t ever want to just point—this is a 

very complicated complex issue. The opportunity we have and what 

we are trying to do is to get folks to talk, get folks to move outside 

their comfort zones and move outside of their silos and work together. 

So school boards are a piece of it. Parents, teachers, ultimately 

students themselves, have to take their own education very seriously, but everyone has to come together behind this. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. And if I may, Mr. Garrett certainly should be 

well aware of all this. New Jersey has gone through years and 

years of lawsuits over just the kinds of issues that have been raised 

here, about how you get State and local communities to really step 

up across the State, not just in particular areas. I am sure he has 

lots of data already in his office on what has gone on in New Jersey 

for many, many years. 
26 

Mr. GARRETT. And New Jersey has raised the standards before 

the Federal Government stepped in, and I was involved in that. 

But we did it before the Federal Government had to step in, so 

thank you. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Doggett. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you Mr. Secretary. 

My concerns are the same two on which I sought answers last 

year and one new one. I will state the three and then ask you if 

you would to respond separately to each one. 

The first is the way that the administration permitted 

State bureaucracies to obstruct Federal resources from making a 

real difference in our local public school districts. In Texas, as you 

are well aware, the largest potential source of Recovery Act public 

education funding, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, has been 

really outstanding in protecting one job; the job of the Governor of 

the State of Texas. 

But as my Austin schools and many others are preparing to lay 

off employees, they are not one penny better off than if we never 

provided the $3.25 billion in stabilization moneys to the State of 

Texas. Through a shell game, these moneys were used to divert 

funds that could have gone to invest in students and in teachers; 

they never made it there. 

And this wasn’t just spare change. If you look at what you are 

requesting in this budget for Race to the Top moneys, and of 

course, this is the same Governor who will not apply for any Race 

to the Top moneys for the State of Texas, the amount that was diverted last year in Texas is about two and a half times as much 

money in one State as you propose in Race to the Top for the entire 

country. 

I have real doubts as to whether this budget will make any more 

difference in the lives of my school children than the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund did. 

And my first question is, can you assure me that any future Federal education assistance done later this year in the name of job 

creation, will not simply repeat the costly mistakes of last year and 

will instead send these new Federal funds directly to local school 

districts instead of through in different State bureaucracies? 

The second concern that I asked you about last year is early education. The President’s eloquence about the importance of early 

learning and your comments about it today and its importance are 

not reflected in the budget for the Education Department. While 

the budget has increases for child care, which is necessary, but in 

many States entrusting our youngest students to someone whose 

preparation consists of a GED, a criminal background check and a 

few hours of training; Head Start, there is no money for pre-K, 

which I think is critical to the early learning system and which you 

have affirmed is. There is no recognition of the importance of 

incentivizing public schools to apply their own resources to expand 

the quality and availability of pre-K. Public schools just seem to be 

absent from the conversation. 

I don’t believe there is any place in the country where there has 

been a successful pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds that has 

been built without the schools playing a leading role. And indeed, 
27 

New Jersey, we were just talking about, and Oklahoma are great 

examples. But so far, the administration has not really brought 

public schools into the Federal policy discussion. 

Last year you told me, don’t worry about it; we have proposed 

the Early Learning Challenge Fund. But that uncertain legislation 

has no incentives, no requirements for public schools to be a part 

of building a State’s early learning system and improving its quality. You also referred me to the Title I Recovery funds guidance, 

but that permissive language has in the past year produced little 

change. And the Department refused to support the 15 percent requirement in the Recovery Act proposed by the Senate for quality 

early childhood education. 

The budget, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and 

the Challenge Fund need to recognize and support public schools 

as a critical part of our early learning system. My question is, what 

incentives will you provide to encourage schools to invest in more 

Title I funds in pre-K? What are you going to do to make sure that 

pre-K is every bit as important to our public education system as 

third grade and eighth grade? I support SAFRA, but whether the 

Senate can do any better job on it than it has on healthcare, I am 

not confident that passing it will answer that question. 

Third, and this is the only new question I have for you, concerns 

Teach for America. The administration has proposed no dedicated 

funding for Teach for America for the coming year, and you have 

left it to compete for funding under a newly proposed and not-yetauthorized program. When Teach for America could double its size, 

you allow Teach for America not really to grow in 2011 or 2012. 

In fact, they would have to reduce the number of people in their 

incoming corps. 

How do you propose to bridge the funding gap so that Teach for 

America, which I think is an outstanding program, can continue to 

grow and place effective students in our schools where they are 

needed the most in the upcoming school year? 

Thank you. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Three great questions. Let me start on the 

first one. 

As we go forward with a proposed Race to the Top III, which is 

$1.35 billion, we specifically requested that districts be able to 

apply directly. And as we talked about the Investing in Innovation 

Fund, districts can apply directly, so I share—— 

Mr. DOGGETT. That is a good idea. As you know, our Governor 

may be trying to restrict that also. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I understand. But we are trying to make sure 

that folks who want to innovate have access to those sources. 

In terms of the—— 

Mr. DOGGETT. The jobs bill. 

Secretary DUNCAN [continuing]. Jobs bill, again, I am very, very 

concerned about this upcoming school year. Again, we saved conservatively, quite frankly, Congressman, conservatively, 300,000— 

325,000 jobs this past year. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Not in Texas. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Right. I understand. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And I am concerned about that State. Are you 

going to be sure in these jobs bills that we are not just sending the 
28 

money to the State when you talk about more flexibility for the 

State and it never gets to the school district? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I absolutely share that concern and hear you. 

My concern now is there isn’t anything in there for teachers 

today, and so that is a challenge. And again, if we see massive layoffs of teachers and counselors and librarians this upcoming school 

year, and I think the public doesn’t understand, superintendents 

are in a position now that they are setting their budgets now for 

the fall. So March/April is when pink slips start to go out. And so 

I am very concerned about that. 

I am absolutely convinced we have literally staved off an education catastrophe this past school year, and I am worried about 

this upcoming school year. So I share your concern. I am working 

on that, but right now, we have got to figure out how we help to 

move this. 

On early learning, again, as you said, the House has provided 

real leadership. We are hoping the Senate will follow suit. I am 

confident they will. Just to be clear, that will provide $9.3 billion 

for early childhood education. 

Mr. DOGGETT. But no specific incentives for the States to use 

their resources through the school system, you have declined to do 

that in this legislation under Title I just as you didn’t support a 

15 percent requirement in the Recovery Act, correct? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. So let me finish. On the $9.3 billion, 

that is close to $1 billion a year that we want to invest directly in 

quality early childhood programs. I think for us to continue to do 

a series of directives and mandates is not sort of the direction we 

want to go. Is early childhood education probably the best investment we can make? Absolutely. In school districts, where we are 

seeing real progress in closing of the gaps and raising the bar for 

everybody, we are seeing them invest in early childhood education. 

You mentioned Oklahoma. Their system is phenomenal. 

Mr. DOGGETT. That was in fact the State effort. There has really 

been no change in the Federal commitment since last year. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Right. Again, with your colleagues in the 

Senate, we would like to invest $9.3 billion there. 

Finally, on Teach for America, and again, they are great, great 

programs, but to be clear, we made some tough calls. And what we 

did is we simply eliminated all earmarks, and we increased the 

chance for competition. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Teach for America is an earmark? 

Secretary DUNCAN. It was a set-aside. It was a set-aside, yes. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And so you don’t support Teach for America in 

your budget at all, do you? 

Secretary DUNCAN. What we did for them, just like we did for everything else, is we increased the total amount of money available 

there, and Teach for America has every opportunity to compete and 

get frankly significantly more money, whether it is through that or 

whether it is through the Investing in Innovation Fund, than they 

had before. 

Mr. DOGGETT. The practical effect this year is it will have to cut 

the size of its corps, isn’t it? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I don’t know the answer to that question. 

That is a fair question. 
29 

Mr. DOGGETT. It is an uncertainty that is really unfortunate in 

this budget. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mrs. Lummis. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank Mr. Jordan for allowing me to jump between my competing hearings this morning. 

Mr. Duncan, thank you so much for being here, and thank you 

for coming to Wyoming in September. You met, of course, with students and parents and teachers in Glenrock, Wyoming, and then 

with our community college presidents in Casper. And I was really 

delighted that you would take time on your listening and learning 

tour to really have a very productive dialogue. And you did it without self-importance, it just really went over well in Wyoming. Very 

much appreciated, so thank you for that. 

But you are a local educator. You know that over 90 percent of 

the dollars for education comes from the States. And so my line of 

questioning is a little bit the same as Mr. Garrett’s, except I want 

to make some suggestions that I hope you will be receptive to for 

schools in States like we have in Wyoming where we have really 

exemplary commitments to education. 

You mentioned that there are 2,000 schools that are producing 

half the dropouts in this country. I want to talk about the schools 

that don’t. And with regard to those that really are doing an exemplary job at the local level, we could really use some flexibility with 

regard to Federal funds. There are important Federal dollars being 

sent to the States, but the strings that are attached to those dollars 

frustrate our local educators in ways that are disproportional to the 

relatively small portion of Federal funds that we receive. So I know 

you will be getting a letter from the State superintendent of public 

instruction in the next few days. The Wyoming Department of Education has suggested that in reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Congress should consider using a block grant 

model similar to the provisions of the current Ed-Flex Program. 

As I understand it, Ed-Flex is a process available to States in 

which they can waive certain Federal program requirements to 

make their use of Federal dollars more effective. So, one, I would 

ask is, if you would support that approach for certain schools, the 

exemplary schools, in reauthorizing No Child Left Behind? 

Further, what about a pilot project or a State-based demonstration project in a State that has kind of an exemplary performance 

and financial commitment standard to education, like Wyoming or 

other mountain States that are really well-positioned to make a 

transition to see if it contributes to more efficient use of Federal 

dollars? And it would be easy to monitor in a State like Wyoming 

that has fewer students than a lot of urban school districts. 

And if not any of those ideas, how does the administration plan 

to facilitate flexibility and innovation at the State and local level? 

So those are certain questions with regard to flexibility. 

Then I am going to ask a fourth question and then just let you 

carry on. My next question is about the Federal Family Education 

Loan Program. Now, as you know, that bill that takes over student 

loans is hung up in the Senate, and there is only one 4-year university in the entire State of Wyoming, the University of Wyoming. It 

is one of those schools that is caught in the crossfire because that 
30 

bill sitting over there, they know it is coming, so they assume it 

is going to pass. So the programs we do have are ramping down, 

not issuing new loans, and yet the program in the Senate hasn’t 

passed. Are you aware that this is occurring, and do you have a 

plan to prevent a disruption of vital loan services for students if 

there is continuing legislative ambiguity? 

And once again, thanks for being here. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I really, really got a lot out of that visit. It 

was very, very interesting for me. 

Let me start on the last question first. If you can give me the 

name of that university or any universities you are concerned with, 

I am happy to have my staff reach out directly. And our staff is 

doing training around the country. And again, before we did anything, before any legislation, we have seen this huge increase in 

schools going to direct lending. Community colleges, 4-year universities—we will work very hard to help in any way we can. And the 

earlier we start to work on putting in place what we need to do 

for that transition, the better off we will be. 

So if you would give me the names of those universities, my staff 

will literally reach out to them today and sit down and walk them 

through what direct lending is like. And again, we have gone from 

1,000 universities participating in direct lending to 2,300 over the 

past 3 years, before the new legislation even got here. And the vast 

majority have done this. You know, you haven’t heard a peep. Very 

easy transition. So we will work—we will do training. We will do 

whatever it takes to help folks think this thing through. 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thank you. 

Secretary DUNCAN. The larger issue is a huge one, and I actually 

agree with a lot of what you said that, you know, how do we provide flexibility? How do we make things less bureaucratic, less red 

tape? 

I would tell you, when we talk about going from 38 programs to 

11, we are trying to make it easier for folks to apply to us and not 

apply to 50 different pots of money but have it much more consolidated. We did that. We think it is the right thing to do from our 

standpoint, spend less on administration, but to make it much easier to interact with us. 

Having lived on the other side of Federal Government for a long 

time, I lived those challenges. I know that. And so we want to to 

try and do less things. The things that we think are important, we 

want to do impeccably well, and so we are trying to narrow the 

focus and, again, make it much less bureaucratic, much less red 

tape, much easier and simpler for folks to interact with us. 

Two more points. In terms of innovation and great local ideas, 

that is what Race to the Top is all about. That is what the Investing in Innovation Fund is all about. We just want to put lots of 

money behind States and districts that can demonstrate—we are 

interested in two things: raising the bar for all children and closing 

the achievement gap. 

And where folks have innovative ideas and want to pilot something to push the envelope, there has never been this kind of opportunity. And I just repeat, the good ideas are never going to come 

from us; they are going to come from great educators at the local 

level. The extraordinary opportunity we have, and I think folks 
31 

don’t understand what a big deal it is yet, is we can put lots of 

money to take to scale what works, to scale up those best practices 

and invest in them. 

So we are just going to keep coming back: Race to the Top; Investing in Innovation; school improvement grants; the Promise 

Neighborhoods. It is going to be opportunity after opportunity for 

folks to put their best foot forward. 

The final thing I will say, and we haven’t sort of gone into this, 

but as we think about reauthorizing ESEA, I think high-performing schools, high-performing school districts, high-performing 

States, we need to give them more flexibility. We need to reward 

them. We need to get out of their way. We need to share and learn 

those best practices. 

One of my challenges with the previous NCLB law is there seems 

to be about 50 ways to fail but very few rewards for success. And 

I think there are phenomenal schools out there. We haven’t done 

enough to learn from them, to give them the room to innovate and 

create, to reward that success. And so I want to think about that, 

not just at the school level, but the district level and the State 

level. So if you took the top 10 percent of schools in any State that 

are probably world class, how do we give them the room to move? 

If we took that top 10 percent of districts, how do we give them 

the room to move? Those top 10 percent of States, say those five 

States where, again, we are seeing rapid progress in growth and 

achievement, reductions in dropout rates, more students going to 

college. 

There is just a wealth of knowledge and information that we are 

not capturing, and frankly, we are getting in the way sometimes. 

And we want to fundamentally change that. And we are really 

challenging folks to challenge us to think about, what are those set 

of incentives for a State or a district or a school that would help 

them go that extra mile because they want to get in that category? 

Mrs. LUMMIS. Thanks so much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Etheridge. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Duncan, for being here this morning. 

Let me go a little bit different. I served as a State superintendent of schools in North Carolina for 8 years, and I have really been intensly interested in some of the questions this morning 

and testimony. I first ran for this office because people in this town 

wanted to abolish the Department of Education. Today they don’t 

use those words, but they use a different tone, and they are talking 

about the same thing. 

You know, on the farm, we call that eating your seed corn, because if you do away with foundations, you are likely not going to 

succeed. And I happen to believe that improving opportunities for 

our children in our educational system is probably the best investment we can make. And you can’t raise the bar unless you put the 

opportunity under the bar. And we get that backwards sometimes 

up here. 

Now, unbelievably, there are some of the same people who are 

talking about that again, but I am going to oppose that every step 

of the way. 
32 

But I like your budget in some aspects, including the increase in 

elementary and secondary education, things we want to do, assuming we get the legislation at higher ed, because you need to have 

the vision where you want to get to if you are going to get there, 

as well as increased funding for improving school nutrition. I think 

one of the missed opportunities—we have got to not only work 

there, but we have got to work in physical education for children 

that we pushed out because of a rigid curriculum in places we don’t 

have room for children to have physical education. And we have got 

the fattest generation we have ever had, and that is going to pay 

prices down the road. 

The restructuring, though, of Federal education programs proposals in the fiscal year 2011 budget may have some unintended 

consequences. Let me talk very specifically about the operation of 

the National Board for Professional Teacher Standards, because I 

think, if I am correct in this, we are talking about pooling things 

together and working for grants. That sounds good. 

However, the certification takes place in 50 States in isolated 

schools and rural areas and over 700 districts across this country. 

Under the new proposals, NBPTS will need to partner with States 

or districts to secure funding through separate competitive grants 

in order to receive Federal funding. And you and I know, it may 

take several years for those organizations to retool their infrastructure, some of them don’t have good grant writers, and compete for 

grant money instead of the current direct funding system. 

I was interested in your definition of earmarks, because now we 

are talking about the Department of Education, in a competitive 

grant situation, having earmarks. 

Mr. Secretary, I would be careful how you use that word, because 

I think that is assuming, when committees have hearings and hear 

from practitioners, and they don’t earmark but it goes through the 

Department for the Department to allocate, I think that is kind of 

hard to do. 

Let me encourage you to look at one area I think the Department 

needs to spend some time, some energy and resources on, and that 

is in best practices research. Every school system can’t do that, but 

the Department of Education has the resources today with all the 

technology we have, that ought to be there. 

So my question to you, with time left, how will school districts 

that don’t apply for or receive grants be able to fund teacher certification initiatives, the very thing that we really want to improve in 

the classroom? 

And I applaud you for your principal training program. I think 

that is critical. But at the same time, if we don’t have the resources 

there, that doesn’t get done either if we are doing it on a categorical grant. Because you and I know, having been there, the difference between a categorical problem and a grant problem. Grant 

programs go away real quickly when somebody changes and don’t 

like the idea. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Great questions. And obviously, the leadership you provided there was pretty extraordinary, and I learned a 

lot from what you did. The most important investment we can 

make is in teachers and leaders, teachers and principals. And so 

the pool of money, this is important, we talk about consolidations, 
33 

often folks frankly have used this before, like to put in cuts. Every 

place that we have consolidated, we have increased funding significantly. Let me just, on teachers and leaders—— 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I am not arguing that point, Mr. Secretary. That 

is not my point. 

My point is, it is going to take a while to make the transition. 

What do we do for those folks that want to be funded? Because if 

I am a teacher sitting out in X high school in rural America, wherever it may be, and I have got to put together a pool of money to 

get a grant to do it, you know what is going to happen. They aren’t 

going to do it, and we lose the initiative of what we want to get 

to. I think that is what I am trying to get to. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, I don’t have easy answers to that. Let 

me sit down and talk with you and work that through. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Please. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I am very, very cognizant of some of the 

unique challenges in rural communities. I talked about some of the 

things we want to put in place, whether it is a competitive advantage or a set-aside. We have been talking—very significant conversations—with national philanthropic communities to try and increase investments there. But we want to make sure that the good 

work that is happening has a chance to continue, so I am happy 

to further that conversation. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Secretary, I would appreciate meeting with 

someone on your staff because I think that is a critical area. If we 

are going to improve teaching, we can’t have it on an ad hoc basis. 

I think we have to have the funding level to do it. Because you 

know teachers, they don’t get paid much. They are doing it on their 

time, and if we don’t get the money to do that, I think it doesn’t 

get done. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I absolutely agree. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have said many times, Mr. Secretary, that if you think back to 

the folks that impacted your life in a positive way, for most people, 

next to your parents, it is probably a teacher or a coach you had 

along the way. Would you agree with that statement? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. JORDAN. And would you agree that next to parents, the individual probably most responsible for helping a child learn is that 

teacher in the classroom? 

Secretary DUNCAN. No question. 

Mr. JORDAN. With that in mind, I mean, I have a wife who teaches. I have a brother who coaches at our local school, the same 

school my wife and I grew up in, our kids go to. I have a sisterin-law who teaches. And what I hear from them, and frankly some 

of the same teachers I had who are now teaching our kids, is they 

don’t particularly care much for the State Department of Education, let alone the Federal Department of Education. 

They don’t think that you guys do much to—a whole lot to help 

them in their role as being that key person helping that kid learn. 

So I want to just get a few numbers out here. And I appreciate 

your passion. You have called me up to answer questions that we 
34 

had in this committee before. I appreciate that; appreciate your 

background. I know you have a genuine concern. And I assume you 

believe the folks that work for you have that same passion and concern for kids learning. 

How many employees does the Department of Education have? 

Secretary DUNCAN. About 4,000, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what is the average pay for those 4,000 folks 

if you broke it down. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think it’s just over $100,000. We are by far 

the smallest Department, Cabinet Agency, by a pretty significant 

factor, and we have one of the largest portfolios in terms of responsibility. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you anticipate that 4,000—the number we have 

is 4,198—do you anticipate that number going up, down or staying 

the same over the next year? 

Secretary DUNCAN. It went down this past year. It may go up 

slightly this next year. 

Mr. JORDAN. So you think there is going to be an increase in the 

number of employees at the Department of Education, yes or no? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Possibly. 

Mr. JORDAN. And do you know what the average teacher’s salary 

is across the country. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what is that number? Do you know that number? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Somewhere between $45 and $55,000. 

Mr. JORDAN. And so, you know, you would look at it from the 

teacher’s perspective, and this is I think real; this is—you know, 

they see the huge increase that the Department has gotten over 

the last decade, our numbers show a 43 percent increase in the Department’s budget; they see the $3.5 billion increase this year. 

They have this general kind of feeling about, as I said, not only the 

State Department of Education, but the national, the Federal Department of Education. So you got the teacher in the classroom 

that has the greatest impact on the kid making half of what the 

folks here in Washington are making who are telling the folks back 

home how to do it. That is the perception. 

And I think that is a real concern when you think about particularly the idea that the number of employees may increase, they are 

making twice as much as the teachers that are out there, and some 

of the numbers in the graphs that my colleague, Congressman 

Hensarling, put up for us all to see earlier. How do you respond 

to all that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me give you sort of the history of this 

again. 

Mr. JORDAN. Again, going back to what you said earlier. I think 

everyone in this room, everyone in the audience would agree; the 

teacher in the classroom has the biggest impact on the kid. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So our Department is down 16 percent since 

2001, down 800 employees. Our Department, in terms of managing 

grants, each employee, if you average this out, is responsible for 

about $17 million in getting money out the door. We have by far 

the smallest Cabinet Agency by a significant factor. And so I would 

argue we are lean. Our staff is working in many cases literally 
35 

staying up all night. You have not seen us drop the ball once on 

getting resources out the door. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Secretary, I gave you that earlier, again, you 

are passionate for what you are doing and the folks who work for 

you are professional. 

But here is—look at it from the perspective of the teacher and 

the fact that they don’t think they get anything that helps them 

with the kid in the classroom. That is what I hear from them. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I understand that. I will just say that I think 

our staff has managed the opportunity we have extraordinarily 

well. We have made some mistakes. We will never be perfect. You 

have not seen us miss a beat. You have not seen a scandal. Our 

guys are working 24/7. The entire reason why—let me finish. 

Mr. JORDAN. I have got 40 seconds, and I want to ask you a couple more questions. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Just quickly, the reason folks are working so 

hard is because we want to get scarce resources out to teachers and 

out to schools. So if our staff hadn’t got that ARRA money out, we 

would have seen 300,000 great teachers lose their jobs. If we don’t 

get these competitive grants out, we are not going to empower 

those teachers who take their good ideas to scale. 

Mr. JORDAN. I have got 20 seconds. Let me ask you this. Different subject, or somewhat different. What is the salary of Mr. 

Jennings, who works at the Department, Kevin Jennings? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I don’t have an exact figure. 

Mr. JORDAN. Can you give me an estimate? How many folks 

work in his Department? 

Mr. SKELLY. Approximately $160,000. 

Mr. JORDAN. How many folks work for him? 

Mr. SKELLY. Approximately 44. 

Mr. JORDAN. And what is their average pay? 

Mr. SKELLY. The average pay for the Department is $105,000. 

Mr. JORDAN. They are included in that 4,000 number, 4,198 

number? 

Secretary DUNCAN. That number includes everybody, yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And the last question, if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

Who does Mr. Jennings answer to and who hired him? Does he 

answer to you, or does he answer to the President? And did the 

President hire him, or did Secretary Duncan hire him? 

Secretary DUNCAN. He is part of our team. 

Mr. JORDAN. Who—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. We hired him. 

Mr. JORDAN. You hired him, and he answers to you. 

Secretary DUNCAN. He answers to our team. He doesn’t report directly to me, but he is part of our management team, yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPRATT. Ms. McCollum. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Part of the challenge here is 5 minutes. And so I am going to 

kind of go through with what I have. I want to give you a chance 

to respond and not interrupt you. But if you don’t get a chance to 

go through everything, please submit it to me in writing, and the 

Chairman and I will share it with the entire committee. Thank 

you. 
36 

The first thing I want to talk about is competitive grants. Part 

of the philosophy behind a public education is to give every American a chance to succeed. And a lot of schools failed in that. We had 

segregation. We have—part of the reason why No Child Left Behind came forward is that we were failing children, failing children 

as a nation, as a community. And when we fail children, we fail 

our country, our workforce and our democracy. 

So I am concerned, however, about this big shift about going to 

competitive grants, because now that means school districts are 

going to be competing against each other for limited resources. 

States and local school districts are facing massive budget cuts, 

and there is a huge crisis out there looming in public education. 

Race to the Top grant competition: Minnesota received $250,000 

from the Gates Foundation to be able to compete in even getting 

the grants filled out. In order for them to feel like they could compete effectively, they applied for Gates Foundation money, money 

that could have gone into the classroom. We have targeted needs 

and assessment values and tools which have been recognized nationally, but instead, we are out now spending money on grants. 

Now, that is the Gates Foundation; that is not even what the 

school districts put into it. 

And a lot of people back home in Minnesota think if Minnesota, 

quote-unquote, gets a Race to the Top grant, that all Minnesota 

students are going to be competing in the access to these dollars 

when in fact that is not true. It is different school districts, and it 

is one-time money, and when they might not even receive the 

grant. And I am on to the grant letter because those are the rules 

we have right now. 

But I am very concerned, Mr. Secretary, when I see more and 

more grant process going out the door about one-time money, and 

districts having now to hire grant money and scramble around 

finding dollars for grants. 

As a member of this committee, part of my job is oversight. Now, 

I didn’t vote for No Child Left Behind because I want to leave children behind—I am a former classroom teacher—because I just 

didn’t see how it was going to work. And you and I had a good discussion about that. And I realize here, again, you have inherited 

this apparatus. But I would like to know where you are with pushing for national standards so that we can compare apples to apples, 

especially now that you are going to this competitive grant process; 

you really don’t have, in my opinion, a lot to compare. 

And then the final topic I would like to touch on very briefly is 

charter schools. I am a supporter of charter schools. Minnesota has 

charter schools. We audit our charter schools. We find fraud and 

abuse in our charter schools. And now we have our charter schools, 

which are supposed to be leased property, competing for rehab 

money for our antiquated and sometimes sick public schools. So I 

touched on a lot, I apologize, but I will be silent for the few minutes you have left. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I will try to be efficient in my answers. 

To be clear, the large formulaic grants we are never going to 

touch. Those will continue to be formulaic. So Title I money always 

is going to be formula-based. IDEA money, always going to formula-based, so that is never going to change. 
37 

What we are saying is, where we have additional resources, we 

want folks working hard to put in place the reforms to get there. 

But I think folks that are concerned that, Title I, we are going to 

change something, IDEA, we are going to change something; I give 

you my word we would never consider that, never thought about 

doing that. 

Just that as we have new resources, additional resources, we 

really reward folks who are closing the achievement gap and raising the bar. To be clear, I think there has been a perception—I am 

not interested in fancy PowerPoint presentations. That is not going 

to win anybody any grant. We are interested in is folks who have 

had the courage and the commitment to get dramatically better results with children. That is all we care about. 

School improvement grants are going to go directly to States. 

Minnesota, I am just looking here, is going to get almost $29 million to turn around schools that are struggling. That is going to go 

directly to the State. And so we are trying to be creative here, trying to have a hybrid. But the large formula programs are always 

going to stay formula-based. 

On national standards, I think if they are Federal standards, if 

it is us driving this, this thing fails, it dies, because of the real and 

legitimate concern and interest in local control. What you are seeing, however, is you are seeing 48 Governors and 48 school chiefs 

work together around college and career-rated standards and raise 

the bar. You see the heads of both unions supporting this actively. 

The business community has been crying out for this. 

So this is an idea whose time has come. And the leadership is 

not being provided by me or by Washington; it is being provided 

at the local level, which I think is a very, very good step in the 

right direction. What we are going to do as these folks come up 

with college-ready standards, to your point is you want to be able 

to measure apples to apples. That means you need good assessments behind those standards. Part of Race to the Top, we are 

going to put out $350 million to develop more thoughtful, more 

comprehensive assessments—not our assessments; we are going to 

leave it to the States to work together and drive this at the local 

level. So I think we can get where you want to go, but it has to 

be driven where it is now by State school chiefs, by Governors who 

are working very hard. And that coalition, collaboration, folks understand, the past hasn’t worked. Dummied down standards due to 

political pressure hasn’t worked. Lying to children hasn’t worked. 

Seeing some of these students who actually graduate being unprepared and needing remedial classes in higher ed hasn’t worked. 

And there is a huge amount of interest in pushing this thing going 

forward. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Yarmuth. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Duncan, welcome, and thank you for your presentation. 

I had the privilege of serving on the Education and Labor Committee in the last Congress, and I want to take this opportunity to 

respond a little bit just briefly to the demagoguery. We heard from 

Mr. Hensarling, who unfortunately has chosen to take his shots 

and then leave. And I think that whole historical and projection 
38 

presentation he gave is interesting in light of the fact that the 

Bush administration passed NCLB and took great pleasure in it 

and pride in it and touted it all over the country and then proceeded to underfund it by tens of billions of dollars, in the process 

probably retarding the educational progress of half a generation of 

students throughout the country. 

So I applaud you for your concern, and I wish we got more interest from the other side in actually figuring out how this budget can 

best serve our Nation and our young people. 

Mr. Garrett mentioned that he has a LEARN Act. I also introduced a bill with a LEARN Act title, and it is probably an inferior 

acronym because it stands for Literacy Education for All Results 

for the Nation Act, but it is—while the acronym may not be better, 

I think the legislation is better. And it would essentially, as I 

would characterize it, take an analogous approach to the Race to 

the Top in making available a pool of money to fund experiments 

in the States for comprehensive literacy programs. You are consolidating a number of literacy programs into one area. Can you expand a little bit on how your plans for this consolidation would 

help develop more and effective literacy education in the country? 

Secretary DUNCAN. And obviously, those literacy skills are absolutely foundational. One of the things I found that was interesting 

when I was a superintendent was that many of the students who 

struggled on math assessments actually knew the math; they 

couldn’t read the word problems. And so it is not just about literacy; it is about driving an entirely different ability level to function well in other curricular areas. 

And so when we talked about a well rounded education, we 

talked about $300 million for STEM. There is $450 million there 

for literacy. So we are making a huge investment. And again, to 

me, it is foundational. We can instill in our children a love of learning, a love of reading at an early age and help them become lifelong learners. We have got a long way to helping them to be successful. And so a major commitment there, and that is a huge piece 

of what we are calling a well rounded education. 

Mr. YARMUTH. Is your intent to kind of fund individual initiatives through this pool of money, or to essentially maintain some 

of these programs but from a more consolidated or coordinated effort? 

Secretary DUNCAN. And again, this is a give and take here. 

There are great, great programs there that may have had a setaside, or whatever the right word is, and now we are asking them 

to compete. So what we want is programs that can demonstrate to 

make a difference in students’ lives. We want to take them through 

an entirely different level. So if you have a great literacy program 

that has been working with 1,000 students, why can’t it go to 

2,000? If Teach for America has done a great job of X number of 

students, let’s have Teach for America work for a whole other set. 

We want folks to demonstrate the difference it is making in students’ lives. So it is not just about good ideas or good intentions, 

it is really about results for students. 

And we are looking for that in the curricular areas. We are looking for that when we talk about this next generation of great teachers. We looking for that—we haven’t talked enough, again, this 
39 

idea of principal preparation and getting great principals in I think 

is huge. So in all these areas, whether it is a local collaboration or 

a national consortium or whatever it might be, where you can demonstrate to us that you are, again, raising the bar for all children, 

closing the achievement gaps, there is an unprecedented opportunity for folks to take to scale great work in all of these areas. 

Mr. YARMUTH. A quick question on the accountability piece. And 

we dealt with this when we were working on NCLB in the last 

Congress. The question of performance and compensation based on 

performance and so forth. I think a lot of people may agree with 

it. I do with the concept. But one of the things that is characteristic 

of urban school districts, which I represent in Louisville, Kentucky, 

100,000 strong—you come from that background—is a question of 

mobility. We have 50 percent of our students change schools at 

least once during the course of a school year, and a lot of teachers 

are basically teaching moving targets. How do you accommodate 

that within the context of an accountability system? 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is a great question. And Carmel Martin 

is here—where is Carmel, can you just raise your hand—who is 

doing just I think an extraordinary job helping us think through 

how we reauthorize this thing. Again, build upon strengths and improve upon weaknesses. So let me give you a couple of concepts. 

Again, this is stuff that every day we are meeting with lots and 

lots of people and trying to get this just right. First of all, I am not 

interested in absolute test scores as much as I am in growth and 

gain, how much you are improving. Let me just give you a quick 

example. If you were a fifth grade teacher, and I came to you reading at the second grade level, I came to you three grade levels behind; if after a year of you teaching me, I was one year behind, 

under the old system, you are labeled a failure because you are still 

behind. I think not only are you not a failure; I think you are a 

great teacher. I improved as a student two years of growth for a 

year’s instruction. That is what I am interested in. 

I am looking at how much are people improving. I think that levels the playing field. And every child—wealthy, poor, gifted, disadvantaged—every child should be improving every single year. 

That is what we are looking for. And so we want to focus on gain. 

We talk about incentives. I like incentives where every adult in the 

building is rewarded if you are reducing drop-out rates, if you are 

increasing graduation rates. If teachers are doing a phenomenal 

job, but so are the custodians, so are the lunch room attendants, 

so are the security guards. It is a culture of high expectations in 

that building, so really thinking about a team approach. 

On the issue of mobility, again, these things are pretty sophisticated, we are looking at growth or gain; we look at those students 

who started with you in September and finish with you in June. 

And if students are coming to you in October and leaving in February, of course you can’t be held accountable for that. So there are 

ways in sophisticated measurements of controlling for all these 

things. And so these growth models, none of them are perfect. I 

think as a country, we should keep getting more and more sophisticated. 

The good ones measure like populations against like populations, 

so measuring English language learners against English language 
40 

learners. So where a teacher has a student for a year, yes, we can 

look at them and look at them relative to other students of similar 

backgrounds. Where a teacher has a child for 2 months, of course 

you can’t hold them accountable. 

I think the larger question then is for—it is a little bit off, but 

where you have children, we have this in every urban area, children that are in two and three and four schools every single year, 

how is that child ever going to be successful academically? So to 

me it is not, what is the teacher doing, but how does the district 

identify those families that are so transient? And how do we try 

and find a way to keep them stable? Often, in those types of families, they are just struggling to make it. School is the one source 

of stability. So how do we reduce those mobility rates? And that 

was something I struggled with and didn’t always get right. 

So, again, it is not just what the teacher is doing, what the 

school is doing, what is the school system doing? If that child needs 

some additional support, if they need money for transportation, if 

they need to be tutored at home, whatever it takes, how do we reduce those levels of mobility because that is not good for any child? 

Mr. YARMUTH. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, just to emphasize the point you were making, the 

teacher that did 2 years in 1 year getting from the second to the 

fourth would be obviously an excellent teacher. Under present scoring in No Child Left Behind, where would the score be for that 

child? 

Secretary DUNCAN. That teacher would be labeled a failure, and 

that school would be labeled a failure. 

Mr. SCOTT. Because they are below grade level, although they 

did 2 years in 1 year, and that is why we need to make that 

change. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And the previous administration started to 

look more at growth models and started looking at improvement, 

and we want to take that into an entirely different level. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Just to start off, we have heard a lot about this budget deficit. 

I think one of the things in those charts that was left out was the 

fact that, when the previous administration started off, we were on 

target to paying off the entire national debt held by the public 2 

years ago, 2008, zero debt held by the public. 

With the policies that started in 2001, the budget was wrecked. 

We ended up, this administration ended up inheriting a huge, explosive debt. The way to get rid of the debt is to increase taxes or 

reduce spending. We also, unfortunately, inherited a recession 

where you could do neither. So we are stuck in a situation where 

you cannot do anything serious about the deficit, and they got to 

put up a chart and blame this administration for it. 

We will have an opportunity because the recession is going to 

end, and we have got challenges. The long-term situation is complicated by the Baby Boomers retiring, Social Security and Medicare will be factors. States now are cutting back on short-term, so 

we have a lot to do. 
41 

We have made progress on higher education, as you have indicated. You talked about, we have a need, more need for college at 

a time when States are cutting back. We also have made progress 

with Pell Grants, Work-Study, improved student loans with reducing interest rates and income-based repayment for access. 

One area that we need to focus on is the completion. Fewer students—a lot more students are going, but fewer are completing. Do 

we have your commitment to support the TRIO programs that help 

students once they get to college to actually complete college? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. And one thing we didn’t talk 

about, if the SAFRA bill passes, is a $2.5 billion Access to Completion fund. So the whole focus of those unprecedented resources is 

to drive up completion rates. 

And your point is exactly right, Congressman. Our students can’t 

just go to college; they have to graduate. If I can take one quick 

second. It is really interesting; many universities are not that dissimilar to high schools. You see students coming in of same ability 

levels and very different outcomes. Some universities do a great job 

of building a college completion culture; others sort of churn and 

burn, and those students don’t ever get out. So we want to really 

make sure colleges are building a culture around completion. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And speaking of TRIO programs, we have talked earlier about 

the Upward Bound program several years ago and the reconciliation bill. We had funding that allowed 187 Upward Bound programs who are about to lose their funding to continue, they were 

given multi-year funding that ends. And there is a little complication because the fiscal year and the academic year do not strictly 

conform. And many believe that there is a need to deal with that 

this year. I think you have calculated that you can wait next year. 

I think, technically, the 2011 to 2012 school year, some of that 

actually falls into this budget we are working on now. However you 

calculate it, do we have your commitment that the 187 programs 

will be continued and we will deal with the continued funding in 

the next year’s budget, but they should not feel jeopardized at this 

point? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. And I will reconfirm, but I am 

99.9 percent sure that they have nothing to worry about this year. 

Those 187 have been saved. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. You mentioned the dropouts and the 

achievement gap and dropout factories. Several of the dropout factories actually achieved adequate yearly progress, which is absurd 

to suggest that the half that are left in school actually achieved 

and ignore the fact that half of them dropped out. We have also— 

I think you have revisited the Achievable Dream program in my 

district that showed that we don’t have to tolerate an achievement 

gap. Can you say a word about what the budget does for the dropouts and achievement gap, especially in the funding levels in Title 

I, but what the budget does to actually do something about dropouts and achievement gap? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I hope our entire budget reflects our absolute 

commitment to fundamentally reducing dropout rates and increasing the number of high school graduates who are college- and career-ready. So everything we are doing from early childhood edu-
42 

cation to K-12 reform, student supports, investing in creativity, all 

of those things are with a goal, the simple goal of raising the bar 

for all children and closing the achievement gap. So there are multiple, multiple programs. But the big picture strategy is that, as a 

country, we can’t sustain a 27 percent dropout rate. Every single 

source of funding is towards that end. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how is the Title I funding? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Title I funding continues to be very, very significant. Again, we are going to maintain that as formula-based. 

About half that money from the Recovery Act is going to be available in the fall 2010, so there are very real resources there. And 

we are absolutely, as I said repeatedly, that is absolutely going to 

remain on a formula basis. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Schrader. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I appreciate what you are doing, Mr. Duncan. Big 

supporter of your initiative. You are going to take a lot of heavy 

hits along the way, and I hope you stand like a rock in the middle 

of the raging river and stand your course here. 

Competition in the grant stream I think is a great thing, I think 

it is a great thing, and let’s get results. 

A couple of quick questions if I may. One is you talk about the 

Title I money and IDEA money staying in place. Will there be an 

adjustment for inflation going forward for those budgets, is that anticipated? 

Secretary DUNCAN. The IDEA is going up about $250 million, 

and with the Recovery Act, there is about an additional $11 billion 

between the two for this next year. 

Mr. SCHRADER. And then as you have heard, there are some concerns about the rural areas being able to compete. Is there any consideration in setting aside a pot of money for rural, and somehow, 

and I don’t know how to do this, but help the rural communities 

write grants? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. Jim Shelton, who is in charge of 

our Investing in Innovation Fund, is spending a ton of time on this. 

I would be happy to have him follow up. 

So we are thinking about a couple of different ways to try and 

address this. One is a competitive advantage for our rural districts. 

Secondly is potentially a set-aside. Third is whether it is technical 

assistance. And then, fourth is we are working with national foundations to increase their investments in rural communities. 

And I obviously came from an urban environment, and I have 

tried to spend a disproportionate amount of my time this past year 

in rural communities, so I can really start to understand those 

issues better. So it has been a huge part of my ongoing education. 

And there are real challenges there, but I think a huge opportunity. And the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of districts are not urban. And so if we are serious about scaling up what 

works and taking to scale best practices, we have to play, we have 

to invest in rural communities. 

And so I give you my absolute commitment we are doing everything we can to give rural areas a chance to be successful here. 
43 

And if you also want to talk through some of the details, Jim 

Shelton on my staff is helping us really think this thing through. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you. With the ARRA money, there was a 

concern that in the school improvement fund concept that there 

were four set models you had to adhere to. Is that still going to be 

the case, or is there going to be a little more flexibility for other 

ways for schools to improve their situation? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We are going to be a little bit tough-minded 

there. And what we are saying, this is the bottom 5 percent of 

schools in the country. So we are saying to the 95 percent, show 

us results, you get your maximum flexibility. 

But I will tell you, Congressman, my biggest concern is that, in 

far too many of these communities, these schools have struggled, 

not just for a year or 2 years or 5 years, but for decades. And I 

think when we fail to educate despite our best intentions, despite 

our hard work, we perpetuate poverty, and we perpetuate social 

failure. 

And so we are saying the one thing that we are not going to be 

okay with is the status quo. We are saying we need pretty fundamental and dramatic change. We are putting unprecedented resources behind this, $3.5 billion. Every State will have access to 

the money. 

Great teachers, we heard it repeatedly, great teachers, great 

principals make a difference in students’ lives. How do we systematically get the best teachers and principals, the hardest working, 

most committed, to historically underserved communities, be that 

rural or inner-city urban? 

I have argued, and I sometimes get booed by students when I 

talk about this, I think we need more time; longer days, longer 

weeks, longer years. We have got to work harder. And I think our 

students are smart, capable, committed, can do anything. But if 

students in India and China are going to school more days than us, 

we are putting our children at a competitive disadvantage. I don’t 

need another study to tell me about summer reading loss for disadvantaged students. Our children get to a certain point in June, 

and they come back in September further behind than when they 

left. How is that good for the child? And so we want folks to think 

very differently, again, on those schools that simply—you know, 

with the of best intentions and hard work—students, children, are 

not getting what they need to be competitive in today’s global economy. 

Mr. SCHRADER. I am fine with that, Mr. Secretary. As long as 

you get good results, you would be open to other models that would 

get us where you want to be, it would seem. 

The last question is regarding the misguided highly qualified 

teacher rule. I hope you are going to look at that and make some 

modifications there. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, short answer. 

And I would say one of the many good lessons I have gotten from 

the rural communities where you have a teacher who is teaching 

math and reading and social studies and science, it is a little bit 

hard to be on paper highly qualified. I am much less interested in 

paper credentials. I am much more interested in what we call highly effective. So you can have all the degrees in the world, but if 
44 

your students aren’t learning, I don’t think you are effective. You 

could have relatively fewer degrees, but if your children, again, are 

making that 2 years of growth for a year’s instruction, you are a 

phenomenal teacher. And so I am much more interested in looking 

at effectiveness. 

It is complicated. It gets very intricate how you measure that, 

and we want to get more sophisticated. But moving from what I 

call highly qualified on paper to highly effective based upon student achievement is directionally exactly where we want to go. 

Mr. SCHRADER. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SPRATT. Ms. Moore. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you Secretary Duncan for appearing. 

I just wanted to clarify something that you said to Mr. Schrader. 

Is it your testimony that Title I is not flat funded? It is my impression that it is flat funded. 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is flat in the budget, but it has an additional carry-over from ARRA of $5 billion, so there is an additional 

$5 billion for this upcoming school year, fall 2010. 

Ms. MOORE. You mentioned in your testimony that the Access 

and Completion fund, when Mr. Scott was talking about the TRIO 

program, is that, access and completion dollars, are they available 

for the TRIO program? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Ms. MOORE. So how does the TRIO program access those funds? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, they don’t exist yet. That is part of the 

SAFRA bill that you guys have passed and the Senate has to pass 

it. But once that money becomes available, TRIO and other programs can absolutely compete for those dollars. 

Ms. MOORE. Compete for the dollars. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. 

Ms. MOORE. As opposed to the regular funding stream. 

Secretary DUNCAN. They would keep the regular funding stream. 

This is additional, this is new money. This is additional resources 

that don’t exist today. 

Ms. MOORE. Okay. I really wanted to talk with you about the 

core values that helped you establish this budget. The third one 

you said was that you wanted to narrow the role of the Federal 

Government and sort of devolve some sort of decision-making and 

responsibilities to the State. 

And I want to associate myself with the testimony of Betty 

McCollum, who laid out very clearly that the States have had a tremendous challenge in terms of creating equality of educational opportunity, historically. 

We talked, for example, about Title I, which is flat-funded. And 

this has been a real basic sort of a program in dollars so that 

schools could exist. We talk about the grant programs that are now 

going to be more competitive. And, of course, the definition of charter schools will absolutely prohibit the public from chartering their 

own schools, is reminiscent of those schools that sprung up, these 

private academies, publicly funded academies after Brown v. Board 

of Education. 

So I was stunned to hear—how does that fit in with your notion 

that education is the civil rights issue of our time, when these are 
45 

all programs that were developed, the Federal Government became 

more involved, in order to ensure civil rights of students? And, you 

know, you are talking about devolving this stuff back to the States. 

Secretary DUNCAN. What we are talking about is trying to make 

sure that every child has a chance to get a great education. 

And—— 

Ms. MOORE. How does every child have a great chance for an 

education when there are winners and losers in this? I mean, you 

could be in Chicago and be in a charter school that has won one 

of the Race to the Top grants that the Gates Foundation has funded or you could be in the gang school, a gang-infested school in Chicago and be a loser in a school that is flat-funded for Title I. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, and this is important to understand, 

that our commitment to historically disadvantaged children, to poor 

children, has never been higher. So it is not just Title I money that 

those children in those gang-infested communities have access to. 

The school improvement grants are going to go to those historically 

underserved communities, $3.5 billion—— 

Ms. MOORE. Are those grants or competitive grants? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Money goes to the State. I will tell you, Wisconsin—— 

Ms. MOORE. To the State. It is not going to go, necessarily, to 

those school districts, because States are—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. It will go from the States to the districts. And 

the number for Wisconsin is $43 million. 

Ms. MOORE. And what if the State wants to withhold that money 

from the school district, as we have seen in my State and in other 

States? And I think Mr. Doggett attested to that. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Right. Well, obviously—— 

Ms. MOORE. That is the very sort of problem that the Federal 

intervention during the civil rights era—and up until 2009, my favorite President was Lyndon Baines Johnson because the Federal 

Government saw education as a civil rights issue. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And we will continue to intervene there—— 

Ms. MOORE. That doesn’t seem to be the case. 

Let me ask you one question about TRIO, again following up on 

some of the things that Mr. Scott said. You know, there are consequences for flat-funding programs. There are 46,000 students 

since 2006 that aren’t going to be served because TRIO has been 

flat-funded. 

You said the core value, your second one was accountability in 

funding programs that work. TRIO works. Why didn’t you put 150 

million more dollars into TRIO? It is a program—Pell Grants, there 

are 10 percent more students who are in TRIO programs who get 

Pell Grants that graduate than those with Pell Grants alone. Pell 

Grants alone will not help you reach your goal of graduating more 

students. 

TRIO works. So why was it that you flat-funded TRIO? 

Secretary DUNCAN. There are lots of programs that work that— 

again, with a $2.5 billion Access and Completion fund, that is a 

huge opportunity for programs that are helping students complete 

high school successfully, not just go to college but graduate. It is 

a huge opportunity for them to step up. 
46 

Ms. MOORE. TRIO students graduate, and they graduate to—you 

made Pell a mandatory program. And the thing that really makes 

Pell work is when there is a nexus between it and the TRIO programs. And I am very disappointed that this administration doesn’t 

see it. 

Also, you talked about HBCUs, wanting to help them. HBCUs 

are dependent upon TRIO dollars in order to have their students 

matriculate through those universities. And so, it is not inconsequential that you flat-funded TRIO. It is going to be a direct hit 

on HBCUs. 

Secretary DUNCAN. HBCUs have received an additional $98 million in this budget. And over the next 10 years, there will be billions of dollars coming to those institutions through increased Pell 

Grants and Perkins loans. So we are going to work very, very 

hard—— 

Ms. MOORE. The Pell Grants will not help them unless they have 

the supportive services of the TRIO programs, which you flat-funded. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman SPRATT. Ms. DeLauro? 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think my colleagues have made the point, and I will reiterate 

it. The issue is—and I think, Mr. Secretary, you said this early on 

in your testimony, in your commentary—the issue is that municipalities across the Nation, and school boards, are devastated people. That is what is happening in my district. I met with all my 

mayors and selectmen in the last several weeks, and their budgets 

are being put together, so they are having to let people go. 

How do municipalities across the country plan ahead with education budgets if they cannot rely on formula funding? 

The fact is that Title I and IDEA are flat-funded, they are frozen. 

And it would appear that all increased funding, K through 12, is 

going to be through competitive grants. 

The teacher quality State grants, there is a $500 million decrease 

in that? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me just correct you. On IDEA, they are 

actually up $250 million. 

Ms. DELAURO. But that is $250 million—the American public is 

right, it is a lot of money, but it is budget dust, you know, to quote 

one of my colleagues, I mean, $250 million nationwide. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Again, just to—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Now you are going to mention ARRA to me probably. 

Secretary DUNCAN. $11 billion. 

Ms. DELAURO. I know. But I am just going to say this to you—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Half of that. It was about $22 billion together 

for IDEA and Title I. About half that is available. 

Ms. DELAURO. Without increases in Title I and IDEA in fiscal 

year 2011, this is the same time that ARRA ends, it’s over. There 

is a cliff for our States. States, schools are already deep in a hole. 

They are going to be further in a hole. They cannot sustain that. 

And all of the increases are in competitive grants. I understand 

competition, et cetera, but I think we are looking at a very precar-
47 

ious economic time, and this direction doesn’t seem to me to be the 

direction that we ought to be going in. 

And I want to ask about after-school. First of all—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me just—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Sure. Make a comment, and then I have—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. What we are trying to do here is, obviously, 

we want to drive reform. And these are very, very difficult economic times, and we are working as hard as we can. Again, I think 

we saved an extraordinary number of jobs this past year, and we 

are very, very proud of that. 

Ms. DELAURO. Amen. And so are the States, and so are the municipalities. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And I am very worried, I share your concern 

going forward on the jobs side. So that is a real concern. 

At the same time, again, we want to try and drive real reform. 

We have to continue to get better through good economic times and 

bad. 

Ms. DELAURO. Well, I would just say to you that, in so many 

other programs, what we are trying to do is to look at how we 

maintain something of a level going from ARRA to the next phase, 

because if you listen to any of the economists, the unemployment 

numbers are not going to drop very much. They may, in fact, increase some. My State is 8.9 percent unemployment. 

Teach for America, in my view—and I will just make this comment—not, in fact, an earmark. A program which has succeeded in 

increasing the rolls, an effective corps of teachers. 

Secretary DUNCAN. If I could—— 

Ms. DELAURO. Let me throw this out, and then you can go 

ahead. I have 50 seconds. 

The after-school program—21st century learning centers—I understand it is to be transitioned to a competitive grant from formula-based, as well. Is that correct? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We have what we call Successful, Safe, and 

Healthy Students, $1.8 billion, a $245 million increase. There is 

$1.1 billion for after-school extended day. And, as you know, I am 

a big fan of after-school programming. An additional billion dollars 

that the President has talked about if we pass ESEA—a piece of 

that we want to go to increased after-school funding on top of that. 

If I could just—on the Teach for America, obviously, I am a big 

fan of them. What they had was a noncompetitive grant, and we 

expect them to be part of—you know, apply for i3, apply for these 

different opportunities. And—— 

Ms. DELAURO. But that belies—and just a comment. If you have 

something that works—you may have a whole lot of things that 

don’t work. So you want to deal in a competitive way so that you 

get performance. But if you have very good programs that are performing, high standards, et cetera, why do we want to put those 

in jeopardy? I don’t understand. 

Secretary DUNCAN. We don’t though. And if I could just say, 

what they have is an opportunity to go to an entirely different 

scale. And there are many good programs out there that are making a real difference. And through this they have a chance to help 

many more students than they are currently helping today. 

Ms. DELAURO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 
48 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Duncan, I don’t know what excited people more this 

weekend when I was home—it wasn’t me—but whether they were 

more excited about taking subsidies, taxpayer-funded subsidies out 

of the pockets of banks, or if they were more excited that we are 

going to take that money and put it into the pockets of moms and 

dads and kids who can’t afford the higher cost of education. In 

other words, at least where I come from, folks are very excited 

about moving forward on student loan reform. 

And if you can outline for me just very quickly—because I talked 

Pell Grants, some other things—can you talk about, just quickly, 

what are the top five areas that these dollars are going to go to? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I appreciate people’s huge interest. There is 

a staggering opportunity here. It is like a once-in-a-generation opportunity, again, not going back to taxpayers, just putting a huge 

amount of resources into students. 

Let me, sort of, walk through this. As much as $87 billion in resources. Close to $10 billion we would put into early childhood education; huge chance to get dramatically better there. Tens of billions of dollars into Pell Grants; huge play there. 

We didn’t talk enough today about community colleges. $10 billion to strengthen community colleges. And as individuals go back 

to retrain and retool in health care jobs and green jobs, green energy jobs, tech jobs, we think community colleges have been this 

underutilized gem along the education continuum. So a massive investment there. 

Very significant investment in what we talked about, incomebased repayment, reducing those loan payments on the back end 

and, after 10 years of public service, erasing them. And then the 

College Access and Completion Fund is a very significant investment. The final one is about $2.5 billion into HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions. 

So those would be major categories of investment. 

Mr. LARSEN. That is good to understand better. Obviously, the 

Pell Grants is something a lot of us focus on. It is the number-one 

source of Federal financial aid, so it is easier to focus on. 

So, specifically on community and technical colleges, it is $10 billion. Anything that you can break down within that category? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. Again, as you guys know, community 

colleges—there has never been so much interest. Most are seeing 

double-digit increases in students wanting to come back to retrain 

and retool. 

We, as a Federal Government, I don’t think we have invested 

enough in community colleges. And we think building their infrastructure, making sure they can be nimble and, at the local level, 

creating those courses that lead to real jobs in that local community, online courses—there is a huge play that we can make to 

strengthen these institutions that have unprecedented interest but 

often don’t have quite the capacity yet to serve well all those students who want to come back. 

And so we want to make a major play here. And I think as individuals go back and get back on their feet, the country is going to 
49 

get back on its feet. And I think community colleges can play a 

huge role there. 

Mr. LARSEN. On that point, any thought about how that investment connects with WIA reauthorization? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We have had great, great conversations with 

the Department of Labor, and we didn’t talk enough about that. 

We didn’t talk enough about the food piece with the Department 

of Agriculture. But we can’t do any of this work in a silo. 

And so, as we think about WIA reauthorization, as we think 

about the Child Nutrition Act, we are working very, very closely 

with our counterparts in Labor, in the Department of Agriculture, 

and in other areas to make sure we are thinking collectively, holistically, about how best to maximize all of our work. So that is a 

hugely important play. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Just a note here. Harvard Business Review did an article last 

summer, talked about global competitiveness in the world. And it 

is really, you know—this is HBR, it is focused on, if you are business leader, here is what you need to be thinking about. 

But in terms of government and business, we need to be thinking 

about reversing the slide in funding in basic and applied science, 

focusing resources on solving the big ideas, the big challenges; in 

business, making capabilities the main pillar of a strategy for developing the skills that you need to be flexible; reinvigorating basic 

and applied research within business. 

And it just seems that all of these are really based on developing 

capabilities and skills and flexibility for people. And that means developing people, and that means giving people the opportunity to 

do the things that we are talking about, getting to higher ed, 

whether it is community or technical college or 4-year. 

And it is something that, because we are focused on the ‘‘now’’ 

because of the job picture. But if we don’t set that foundation for 

future economic growth, as well, we are going to lose an opportunity. 

Secretary DUNCAN. The President has drawn a line in the sand. 

He said by 2020 we have to again lead the world in percent of college graduates. I think many folks think we still do. And, in fact, 

we used to lead the world 21⁄2 decades ago. We have flat-lined, and 

other countries have passed us by. And I think we are really paying the price for that today. 

And so every move, every strategy put in place is towards that 

end. We have to dramatically increase the percent of graduates 

from 4-year institutions, 2-year community colleges, trade, technical, vocational training. That has to be the goal for every single 

young person in this country. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks. 

And, Mr. Chairman, if I just might say, I have had an opportunity to play basketball with the Secretary. And if he is bringing 

the vision on the court, his patience on offense, and his tenacity on 

defense to the Department of Education the same that he brings 

to the basketball court, I think we will be all right. 

Chairman SPRATT. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Jordan has one additional 

question, if you could indulge us. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. 
50 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I just want to be clear. Earlier I asked you—4,198 employees the 

Department has; you said that number may go up this year. But 

I just want to be clear. Isn’t it true in your request—oh, you also 

said that, over the last decade, that number of employees has come 

down. But as I look at the book, your budget book, you are requesting an additional—isn’t it true that you are requesting an additional 404 employees, which would, in fact, take the number of employees at the Department back to a higher level than you were at 

the start of the decade? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think your numbers going forward are 

right. My numbers going back to 2001, it has been a reduction of 

800. And so our numbers would still be below that from 2001. 

Mr. JORDAN. In the book right here, it says, ‘‘2001, 4,566 employees.’’ Based on your request for fiscal year 2011, you want 4,603 

employees. 4,603 is actually more than 4,566. 

Mr. SKELLY. And the big increase in 2011 is for the loan 

servicers. If we take—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I am not—I don’t know where it is at. You know, 

you can say it is wherever you want. 

Mr. SKELLY. It is important to have people to make sure we do 

a good job on collecting. 

Mr. JORDAN. But put it in context. Again, Mr. Secretary, my 

point was, put it in context. The average salary at the Department 

of Education is $100,000, twice what the average salary of teachers 

is across this country. And you are asking, at a time when there 

is red ink everywhere, you are asking for 404 additional employees 

at the Department of Education that most teachers don’t think 

benefits them one single bit in the classroom. 

Mr. SKELLY. The taxpayers would benefit because we would get 

additional funds back through the student loan program. That is 

the reason we have the big increase in staff, is largely because of 

student loans. If we are saving $87 billion, it is worth spending a 

couple hundred thousand. 

Chairman SPRATT. That is the context. You are saving, by those 

additional employees—— 

Mr. SKELLY. That is right. 

Chairman SPRATT [continuing]. $86 billion for 404 incremental 

employees. 

Mr. SKELLY. It is a small investment with a big return. 

Mr. JORDAN. I think people would disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SPRATT. I will stipulate that. 

Anything further? 

Mr. JORDAN. No. Thank you for your time. 

Chairman SPRATT. Okay. 

Mr. Secretary, I have a letter for you, if you don’t mind, about 

the Perkins loan program. And if you could designate somebody in 

your department as a contact with us, I would very much appreciate it. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. 

Chairman SPRATT. We would just like to go over some details 

with you. 
51 

Secretary DUNCAN. Sounds great. I will have Bob Shireman from 

my staff reach out to you directly. 

Chairman SPRATT. Today you get an A for proficiency and an A 

for patience, too. Thank you for your diligence, your forthright answers. We look forward to working with you on this budget. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thanks for the thoughtful questions, and 

thanks for your collective leadership. It means a lot to me. Thanks 

for having me this morning. 

Chairman SPRATT. Thank you. We are glad to have you there. 

[Question submitted by Mr. Boyd and Secretary Duncan’s response follows:] 

TRANSITION TO 100 PERCENT DIRECT LOANS

Mr. BOYD: You and other senior Department officials have said that because private and non-profit lenders would be allowed to compete for loan servicing work 

under a 100 percent Direct Lending regime, you don’t expect much job loss to result 

from your plan to eliminate their role as originators of Federal student loans. I see 

it differently. The private sector is already servicing Federal student loans, so even 

assuming that more loans will be made in the future, your proposal directly threatens the jobs of those delivering the many services associated with originating the 

loans. In fact, I have reports from Sallie Mae this week that they will have to lay 

off at least 700 people—many in my district—because of the pending transition. 

Given the importance of undertaking this kind of job-threatening change, what 

kind of studies has the Department undertaken to show exactly how many jobs will 

be lost by this proposal? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Department, using a competitive process, has awarded 

contracts to four loan servicers—one of which is Sallie Mae—to assist the Department in servicing Direct Loans. Based on their performance, each servicer has the 

opportunity to increase the number of loans they are initially allocated to service. 

Additionally, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act provides $25 million in 

both fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to loan servicers as financial assistance to retain 

existing jobs. 

[Questions submitted by Mr. McGovern and Secretary Duncan’s 

responses follow:] 

ARTS EDUCATION

Mr. MCGOVERN: One of the programs I care deeply about is VSA Arts. VSA Arts, 

founded in 1978 by Jean Kennedy Smith, sister to President John F. Kennedy, has 

been a highly successful program in bringing arts to school children with special 

needs. We all learn differently and having arts supplement learning has proven to 

be a highly effective method of teaching. While the President’s FY 2011 budget proposal provides a generous overall increase in funding for the Department of Education, it combines funding for Arts in Education, where VSA receives its funding, 

with seven other small categorical programs into a State-based competitive block 

grant entitled ‘‘Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education.’’ 

Currently, VSA is the strongest, systematic funding stream to get arts to children 

with special needs, with affiliates in all 50 States. Working with State and local 

school districts, VSA is able to leverage $12 in private funds for every $1 of Federal 

funds. Without VSA, there is no way to get arts programs to children with special 

needs. All of these vital services, and the expansion of these services through funding leveraged by State and local agencies, could be lost if funds specifically targeted 

for VSA are eliminated. 

Is it correct that as the budget is currently written that the direct grant to VSA 

and to the Kennedy Center education programs would be eliminated if the President’s FY 2011 proposal to consolidate these programs is adopted; and can you explain the reasoning behind consolidation? 

Secretary DUNCAN: Under the fiscal year 2011 budget request, direct grants to 

VSA Arts and the Kennedy Center would be consolidated under the proposed Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education program. The Administration believes that the creation of a broader program would not only help to 

strengthen instruction and increase student achievement across the content areas 

but also provide States and districts with the financial resources and flexibility to 
52 

identify how to best meet the needs of their students, including those with disabilities and English learners. 

Under this new program, non-profit organizations, such as VSA Arts and the Kennedy Center, working in partnership with one or more high-need LEAs would be 

eligible to apply for competitive grants to support the development and expansion 

of new, promising instructional practices to improving teaching and learning in a 

range of subjects, including the arts. These grants could support such activities as 

providing high-quality professional development, developing high-quality assessments, developing and implementing instructional materials aligned with State 

standards, and using technology in innovative ways, as well as efforts, in the arts 

and in other areas, to ensure that individuals with disabilities have a full opportunity to succeed academically. 

READY TO LEARN TELEVISION

Mr. MCGOVERN: Mr. Secretary, I am concerned that the Administration’s budget 

eliminated dedicated funding, through consolidation, for a program that has shown 

vast successes in both national and local approaches to education and literacy, 

Ready To Learn. 

Ready To Learn provides funding that assists in the scientific-research that goes 

into programming on public television that has been proven to assist children in literacy and vocabulary. Aired on public television stations across the country, these 

programs, including the Emmy award-winning series Between the Lions, co-produced by my Massachusetts station WGBH, are widely-accessible and available. Additionally, Ready To Learn has provided funding for literacy outreach that directly 

benefits the under-served populations in these communities. Through reading camps 

and other initiatives, public television stations like WGBH have shown a capability 

for measurable success in childhood literacy. It disturbs me to think that this program, which is widely supported by Members of Congress, could cease to exist due 

to the consolidations proposed in the Administration’s budget. 

I would appreciate it if you and your Department would carefully look at this program and its success before taking further action on eliminating its direct Federal 

funding. 

Secretary DUNCAN: Under the Administration’s proposed consolidation of the 

Ready to Learn Television program, public telecommunications entities—such as the 

Public Broadcasting Service, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and others 

(including ‘‘affiliate’’ public television stations such as WGBH)—would be encouraged to compete for national activities funding in the Effective Teaching and Learning programs to continue many of the activities currently authorized under the 

Ready to Learn program, such as producing and developing high quality, digital 

educational content for children. 

[Questions submitted by Mr. Langevin and Secretary Duncan’s 

responses follow:] 

MENTAL HEALTH

Mr. LANGEVIN: I am very pleased to see an overall boost in our education budget. 

If we want a strong economy and the best workforce for the 21st Century, we need 

to make these much needed investments in our students. I also agree that reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is essential to these goals. 

However, I do have concerns regarding the Administration’s plan to consolidate 38 

existing K-12 programs into 11 new programs. For years, I have led a successful 

effort to increase funding for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Program, which provides grants on a competitive basis to school districts to hire school 

counseling professionals or build up existing programs. For the 2007-08 school year 

alone, this program provided support services in 97 school districts in 22 States. 

Each time the amount for this program increases, it still does not meet the demand 

in applications. 

If this program is consolidated into the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students 

Program, how will the funding be allocated? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration remains committed to addressing student 

mental health issues and believes that school-based counseling programs offer great 

promise for improving prevention, diagnosis, and access to treatment for children 

and adolescents with mental health problems. Under the proposed Successful, Safe, 

and Healthy Students program, State educational agencies as well as Title I-eligible 

local educational agencies, by themselves or in partnership with one or more community-based organizations or local governmental entities, would apply for competitive grants from the Department. The Administration believes that a broader, more 
53 

flexible approach, through which States and districts could address student mental 

health and related needs, including for school counselors, comprehensively (rather 

than through more narrowly targeted programs) will be more successful in building 

capacity and enabling States and districts to meet the educational needs of their 

students and improve student outcomes. 

TEACH FOR AMERICA

Mr. LANGEVIN: Another program affected by the consolidation of funding streams 

is the successful Teach for America program. According to the President’s Budget 

proposal, this program would be eligible to compete for funding under the Teacher 

and Leader Pathways Program. Teach for America’s planning process includes hiring and allocating recruiters, selectors, teacher support and national staff and building the extensive infrastructure to support the corps. Teach for America needs sustained, reliable funding to grow to scale. The timing of the proposed grant competition would not allow Teach for America to grow in 2011 or 2012, and they would 

be forced to reduce the size of the incoming corps. How do you propose to bridge 

this funding gap so that Teach for America can continue to grow and place effective 

teachers in the schools where they are most needed during this upcoming school 

year? 

Secretary DUNCAN: I appreciate the role that programs such as Teach for America 

play in helping districts recruit high-quality candidates to teach in high-need 

schools. Our budget request would consolidate several smaller, often overlapping, 

program authorities in order to leverage these funds to help States and districts create and expand high-quality pathways into the teaching profession, including alternative routes to certification such as Teach for America. Our request for Teacher 

and Leader Pathways would more than double our funding for teacher preparation 

to $235 million in fiscal year 2011, with an additional $170 million provided for the 

development of school leaders. Since 2001, the Department has awarded more than 

$45 million in grants to Teach for America, and we will soon award an additional 

$18 million in fiscal year 2010 funds to support the recruitment, selection, training, 

and placement of exceptional recent college graduates who commit to teach in highneed schools for 2 years. In addition to expanded funding for teacher preparation 

through the competitive Teacher and Leader Pathways program, Teach for America, 

in partnership with States and districts, is eligible to apply for other competitive 

grant programs such as Investing in Innovation and Race to the Top. 

TRANSITION TO 100 PERCENT DIRECT LENDING AND CONTINUED FUNDING SOURCE FOR

COLLEGE PREPARATION PROGRAMS

Mr. LANGEVIN: Last year, I was proud to support the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which will help our students afford the price of college 

and prepare them for successful careers. Like SAFRA, the Administration’s budget 

calls for the elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). 

In my home State, the Rhode Island Student Loan Authority (RISLA), which is a 

not-for-profit FFELP provider, has run a successful one-on-one college access program called the College Planning Center of Rhode Island (CPC). In the past six 

months, the CPC has helped over 4,100 students, a 25 percent increase over the 

prior year. The CPC helps Rhode Island students prepare their financial aid forms, 

helps high school students search and apply for college, provides free SAT test preparation class work in high need public school districts, and is working with several 

community based groups that work with youth and unemployed individuals to help 

them access a college education. The CPC also helped develop and supports the 

Latino College Access Coalition whose mission is to increase the number of Hispanics and Latinos who apply to and attend college. The CPC has also taken the 

lead on financial literacy efforts for high school and college students in Rhode Island 

by counseling over 12,000 students. Knowing that RISLA’s funding stream will 

change with the elimination of FFELP, how does the Administration’s budget address funding for programs like the College Planning Center? 

Secretary DUNCAN: Under SAFRA, Congress provided $150 million for College Access Challenge Grants, up from $66 million in 2009. The purpose of the College Access Challenge Grant Program (CACGP) is to foster partnerships among Federal, 

State, and local governments and philanthropic organizations through matching 

challenge grants that are aimed at increasing the number of low-income students 

who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. Under this program, States will have discretion in how these funds are used and Rhode Island 

could continue to support CPC through this program. 
54 

[Questions submitted by Mr. Ryan and Secretary Duncan’s responses follow:] 

PELL GRANTS

Mr. RYAN: The President’s budget spends $307 billion over 10 years to reclassify 

Pell Grants as an entitlement; an additional $118 billion to raise the maximum 

grant amount; and another $69 billion to build in an automatic increase in the maximum award to 1 percent above inflation. If adopted, Pell Grants would become a 

nearly half-trillion-dollar entitlement, $494 billion. 

What is the basis for the 1-percent-above-inflation figure; and why higher than 

inflation? 

Secretary DUNCAN: Since 1990 the purchasing power of the maximum Pell Grant 

has decreased from 44 percent of the cost of attendance at a 4-year public university 

to 35 percent in the current academic year. With the cost of attendance continually 

rising and the maximum Pell Grant often left stagnating for years at a time, Pell 

Grants do not go as far as they used to toward paying for college. To build the educated workforce needed for the twenty-first century, citizens of all economic strata 

need to have the option of pursuing higher education. The President proposes increasing the annual maximum Pell Grant by 1 percent over the Consumer Price 

Index (CPI). The final Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act increased the maximum grant only by the CPI through academic year 2017-2018. This is a good start 

on rebuilding the buying power of Pell Grants. 

PROPOSAL TO MAKE PELL GRANT FUNDING MANDATORY

Mr. RYAN: What is the rationale for requesting enormous increases to Pell Grants 

and converting them to an entitlement, while flat-lining other apparent Administration priorities such as Title I and IDEA funding and leaving them in the discretionary category? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Federal Pell Grant program already acts as an entitlement program by guaranteeing students the grant amount for which they are eligible. The Department does not—nor does it have the authority to—reduce awards if 

the appropriation does not include enough funding. This results in back-filling funding shortfalls. Converting the program to mandatory is an acknowledgement of its 

true nature and a resolution to decades-long funding issues. 

Mr. RYAN: How are the Pell Grant increases paid for so that they will not increase 

deficits and debt? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The FY 2011 Budget includes proposals which will produce 

billions of dollars in savings through reform of the student loan programs. Many of 

these are included in the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. The Office of 

Management and Budget has assured us increased costs related to the Pell Grant 

proposal are fully offset in the Administration’s budget submission. 

Mr. RYAN: Without transferring Pell Grants into the mandatory category, would 

the President be able to do all of his proposed Pell Grant increases and still maintain his non-security discretionary spending ‘‘freeze?’’ 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act includes a mandatory appropriation of $13 billion to ensure adequate Pell Grant funding and to 

support the FY 2011 Budget proposal. The President remains committed to the nonsecurity discretionary spending freeze. 

PROJECTED SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSAL TO TRANSITION TO 100 PERCENT

DIRECT LENDING

Mr. RYAN: The President’s Budget estimates $43.29 billion in savings over 10 

years from transitioning from the Family Federal Education Loan Program (FFELP) 

to Direct Loans by July 1, 2010. However, the savings estimate you use publicly is 

$87 billion over 10 years. 

If transitioning exclusively to Direct Loans saves $87 billion, why doesn’t the 

President’s Budget use that number, and what accounts for the difference in the 

savings estimates between the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office for the same student loan policy change? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The total savings described in the FY 2011 President’s Budget 

proposal is $45.56 billion. This is $2.3 billion more than mentioned in the question, 

and the result of including projected FY 2010 savings. CBO has their own methodology and calculates their own baseline to determine savings estimates. Differences 

can occur between projections among agencies due to various interest rate scenarios, 
55 

including interest rates paid by lenders or the borrowing interest rate from Treasury; or can even be a result of the timing of the estimate’s release, which can create 

differences particularly related to subsidy or interest rate updates. 

SAFRA (H.R. 3221)—USE OF THE CREDIT REFORM BASIS FOR ESTIMATING SAVINGS FROM

DIRECT LENDING

Mr. RYAN: When scoring the savings from a complete transition to Direct Loans 

in SAFRA, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, CBO uses the 1990 Credit 

Reform Act, which calls for using a net present value calculation based on Treasury’s discount rate. This law does not permit CBO to take into account market 

risk—the risk that the value of the loan will decrease due to changes in market factors. In this economic environment especially, it is critical to adjust for market risk 

to more accurately reflect how much a loan program will generate. That is why Congress has required that CBO apply it when estimating the cost of recent government 

loan programs such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Do you think we 

should apply the calculation that provides Congress with the most realistic savings 

estimate, and is applying market risk to the transition from FFELP to Direct Loans 

something the Administration has looked into? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration believes using the current credit reform 

process as a cost estimation basis produces a reasonable savings estimate. The Administration and CBO consider current and projected economic conditions when estimating future events such as loan defaults and recovery, loan cancellations, and 

lender subsidies. Even the most conservative estimate performed by CBO shows a 

savings to the Federal Government of $40 billion when switching to 100 percent Direct Loans. The Administration has confidence in both its estimate and methodology. 

Mr. RYAN: Do you believe that spending $80 billion in the SAFRA bill is wise 

when the CBO Director has warned that $33 billion of the $87 billion in projected 

savings might not occur? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration believes this is a cost-effective measure 

which can achieve two important goals at once—eliminating unnecessary subsidies 

to private lenders, and reinvesting dollars where they can be put to better use by 

supplementing and strengthening our Pell Grant and school improvement programs. 

OTHER FUNDING ISSUES: GRADUATION PROMISE GRANTS AND COLLEGE ACCESS AND

COMPLETION FUND

Mr. RYAN: Two education programs in the President’s budget are created in the 

mandatory category and then expire before the 10 year window ends: 1) the new 

Graduation Promise Grants, which abruptly ends after 5 years; and 2) the new College Access and Completion Fund that ends after 6 years. 

Why not request discretionary funding for these new pilot programs where the 

Administration and Congress can review their funding annually? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration supported mandatory funding for Graduation Promise Grants and a new College Access and Completion Fund (CACF) because of the significant savings expected to be realized from the President’s proposal 

to switch from the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) system to 100 percent 

Direct Lending. 

The Administration had hoped to be able to invest $3.5 billion over 5 years to the 

College Access and Completion Fund to develop, implement, and evaluate new approaches to improving college success and completion, particularly for students from 

disadvantaged backgrounds, and another $1.2 billion to the Graduation Promise 

Grants program to strengthen high schools. 

The Administration supported both of these investments as part of a broader 

strategy to meet the President’s goal of leading the world in the proportion of college 

graduates by 2020. We are pleased that most of the savings that were ultimately 

realized as a result of the enactment of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility 

Act and the shift to Direct Lending have been allocated to programs that will enhance opportunities for disadvantaged students in higher education such as $35 billion over 10 years for Pell Grants. 

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF MANDATORY PROGRAMS

Mr. RYAN: By proposing them as mandatory programs, won’t they be largely immune from congressional oversight? 

Secretary DUNCAN: Although it is certainly true that, as mandatory programs, the 

CACF and Graduation Promise Grants would not be subject to the review achieved 
56 

through the disposition of an annual budget request, the Department does provide 

the Congress with the same kind of information on program results for mandatory 

programs as it does for discretionary programs by including impact data and performance information in its Budget Justifications. Moreover, Congress has and uses 

other mechanisms such as hearings and external reviews by entities like the Government Accountability Office to exercise oversight over mandatory programs. The 

Congress also has the ability to address any problems through the enactment of additional legislation. 

Mr. RYAN: Do you intend to terminate these programs at the scheduled time? 

Secretary DUNCAN: Unfortunately, Congress has not funded either of these programs. 

[Questions submitted by Mr. Mack and Secretary Duncan’s responses follow:] 

IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES EVALUATION FINDINGS

Mr. MACK: In January 2009, the Department of Education released the Second 

Evaluation of the Improving Literacy through School Libraries Program, which indicated that students attending schools participating in this program are performing 

higher on State reading tests than students in schools that do not take part in the 

program. Additionally, the evaluation stated that in schools that participated in the 

program in 2003-04, the percentage of students who met or exceeded the proficiency 

requirements on State reading assessments increased by an extra 2.7 percentage 

points over the increase observed among non-participating schools during the same 

time period. 

Why has the Administration chosen to ignore its own evaluations and consolidate 

Improving Literacy through School Libraries with other literacy programs instead 

of increasing your investments in this effective program? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration takes the findings of each evaluation seriously. The evaluation report you mention also stated that some or all of the score 

increase may be associated with other school reform efforts. Consequently, the report concluded that no definitive statement could be made about the effect of participation in the program on reading assessment scores. 

The Administration is proposing to consolidate the Improving Literacy through 

School Libraries and other programs so that States and local educational agencies 

can make more effective use of Federal literacy funding. Federal programs aimed 

at increasing literacy achievement have historically taken a fragmented approach, 

and the Administration believes State and local efforts will be more coherent and 

more likely to drive dramatic improvements in student achievement if they have a 

comprehensive pre-K-12 focus. Efforts to improve school libraries such as increasing 

library collections, opening facilities for longer hours, or providing professional development for school librarians could be part of these comprehensive plans. 

I should also note that the budget would increase the Federal investment in literacy programs, from $413.3 million in fiscal year 2010 to $450 million in 2011. 

ROLE OF SCHOOL LIBRARIES IN WORLD-CLASS EDUCATION

Mr. MACK: In President Obama’s State of the Union address he mentioned that 

a world-class education is the best anti-poverty program. What role do you see 

school libraries playing in a world-class education, and what is the Administration 

doing to promote school libraries? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration values the presence of libraries in schools 

and recognizes their strategic role in making information available to all students, 

training students and teachers about how to obtain and make use of information, 

and increasing access for low-income students to technology and information. The 

President’s FY 2011 budget proposes that a new Effective Teaching and Learning: 

Literacy program provide a means for States and districts to develop and implement 

comprehensive literacy efforts, including efforts that improve school libraries and library services. The budget would increase funding for literacy efforts from $413.3 

million in FY 2010 to $450 million in FY 2011. 

The proposed program would provide competitive State literacy grants to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) in order to support State and local efforts aimed at implementing and supporting a comprehensive literacy strategy that provides highquality literacy instruction and support to students from pre-kindergarten through 

grade 12. Improvement of school libraries and library services could be a component 

of the grant activities carried out in the States. 
57 

SUPPORT FOR THE INFORMATION AGE

Mr. MACK: In the President’s FY 2010 budget outline, he stated ‘‘To give our children a fair shot to thrive in a global information-age economy, we will equip thousands of schools, community colleges and universities with 21st century classrooms, 

labs and libraries.’’ What has the Administration done to back up that statement 

that was made a year ago? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration recognizes the importance of an advanced 

learning environment for every student. Instructional materials, equipment, and 

technology are central to meeting that need. The President’s FY 2011 budget request for the Department of Education includes nearly half a billion dollars for the 

improvement of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. The majority of this funding would flow through the proposed Effective 

Teaching and Learning: STEM program, under which State educational agencies 

and local educational agencies could use program funds for efforts aimed at improving STEM instruction. In addition, the proposed Investing in Innovation program 

would have a cross-cutting and cross-curricular emphasis on educational technology. 

Other programs included in the budget would also fund the purchase of 21st century 

instructional materials and equipment. 

In the case of community colleges and other institutions of higher education, the 

Administration has sought increased funding for institutions with large percentages 

of minority and disadvantaged students. In both the FY 2010 and FY 2011 budgets, 

the President has sought increased funding for programs authorized under titles III 

and V of the HEA, including historically black colleges and universities, tribal colleges and universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions, 

Hispanic-serving institutions, Native American-serving nontribal institutions, Asian 

American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions, and predominantly black institutions. This funding can be used to support the renovation of and 

improvement in classrooms, libraries, and laboratories, and other instructional facilities, including the integration of computer technology into instructional facilities. 

RECRUITING AND RETAINING STATE-CERTIFIED SCHOOL LIBRARIANS

Mr. MACK: The school librarian performs the instructional role of identifying materials to be used with teacher-planned instructional units or by collaborating with 

teachers in planning instructional units. Research has shown that students in 

schools with State-certified school librarians tend to achieve higher average test 

scores. How will the Administration encourage schools to recruit and retain Statecertified school librarians? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration’s budget request and Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization proposal would support States and local efforts to promote and enhance the education profession and improve the effectiveness 

of teachers, principals, and other educators (including, as appropriate, school librarians). Under the proposed Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants program, 

States and school districts could use funds to recruit, develop, reward, and retain 

school librarians who help lead school efforts to improve student outcomes. 

The proposed Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund would also help support 

States and LEAs in improving the effectiveness of the education workforce, including school librarians, by creating the conditions needed to identify, recruit, prepare, 

retain, and advance effective school leadership teams in high-need schools. 

The Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program would provide competitive 

State literacy grants to State educational agencies (SEAs), or SEAs in partnership 

with appropriate outside entities, in order to support State and local efforts aimed 

at implementing and supporting a comprehensive literacy strategy that provides 

high-quality literacy instruction and support to students. Local education agencies 

could use their grant funds to expand their library collections, open their school libraries for longer hours, or provide professional development to school librarians. 

FUNDING FOR SCHOOL LIBRARIES

Mr. MACK: In elementary schools that have a certified school librarian, students 

have significantly higher achievement scores on the fourth grade ELA test. What 

is this Administration doing to ensure that school libraries are fully funded and 

there is a school librarian in every school in American? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The proposed Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program could support the expansion of school or classroom libraries, increases in library collections, the opening of library facilities for longer hours, and the provision 

of professional development to school librarians. 
58 

PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Mr. MACK: Research studies show that reading for pleasure is one of the building 

blocks for young people to grow into healthy, productive adults. Public libraries can 

play a major role in helping children develop a habit of reading for pleasure. What 

will you do to include public libraries in your early childhood education programs? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Administration recognizes the importance of public libraries and the opportunities they provide for the provision of educational services, including for young children and their families. Under the proposed Effective Teaching and Learning: Literacy program, local grantees could partner with public libraries to further the implementation of an LEA’s comprehensive preK-12 State literacy 

plan, which could include providing services and programs targeted to preschoolaged children. 

[Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and Secretary Duncan’s 

responses follow:] 

CHARTER SCHOOLS

Mr. ADERHOLT: Not all States currently allow charter schools within their education system. It is my understanding that States which allow charter schools will 

be more competitive in qualifying for Federal education funds through the Race to 

the Top program. If a State decides to allow charter schools, would it make them 

more competitive after one year of such approval or is more time needed? 

Secretary DUNCAN: The Department is judging applications for Race to the Top 

based in part on the extent to which the State has a charter school law that does 

not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of high-performing charter 

schools, as well as the extent to which the State enables LEAs to operate innovative, 

autonomous public schools other than charter schools. States are also required to 

demonstrate whether their charter schools receive equitable funding and equitable 

access to facilities, and whether they have closed or not renewed ineffective charter 

schools; to gain maximum points against this last criterion, a State would need to 

have had a charter school law in place for enough time to have made such accountability possible. In short, we do not expect that States that have had laws in place 

for longer periods of time will be at a significant advantage as compared to States 

with newer laws, assuming that the laws are similar in nature. 

PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPENSATION

Mr. ADERHOLT: In your testimony, you stress the need for accountability in our 

education system. Do you believe that performance-based pay can play a role in creating accountability in our schools; and do you believe performance-based pay 

should be encouraged in school districts around the country? 

Secretary DUNCAN: As States and LEAs seek to increase educator effectiveness by 

aligning their approaches to recruitment and placement, preparation and certification, induction and development, and retention and advancement of effective 

teachers and leaders, compensation systems that reward teacher contribution can 

reinforce these efforts. 

For example, compensation reform can be an important tool in efforts to attract 

effective teachers and leaders and build strong instructional teams in high-need 

schools, to create robust career advancement systems for teachers and other school 

leaders, and to create more effective professional development systems. Because of 

the interconnectedness across each of these areas, it is important to think of them 

in a coherent, integrated way, with emphasis consistently placed on approaches that 

measure, support, and reward teachers and school leaders based on their effectiveness in delivering improved student outcomes and that support educators’ efforts to 

improve throughout the course of their careers. 

TEACHER AND LEADER INNOVATION FUND

The proposed Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund would build on the strengths 

of the Teacher Incentive Fund and support compensation reforms and complementary reforms of teacher and principal development and evaluation, teacher placement, and other practices. The Administration has requested $950 million for the Teacher and Leader Innovation Fund for fiscal year 2011. This program would help support States and school 

districts in improving the effectiveness of the education workforce in high-need 

schools by creating the conditions to identify, recruit, prepare, retain, and advance 

effective teachers, principals, and school leadership teams in those schools. Grantees, selected competitively, would use funds to reform teacher and school leader 
59 

compensation and career advancement systems, improve the use of evaluation results for retention and compensation decisions, and implement other innovations to 

strengthen the workforce. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ