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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–861 PDF 2004

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BUDGET PRIORITIES

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 11, 2004

Serial No. 108–18

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget

(

Available on the Internet: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/house04.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, 

Vice Chairman 

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

MARIO DIAZ–BALART, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

GINNY BROWN–WAITE, Florida 

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina, 

Ranking Minority Member 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

ROSA DELAURO, Connecticut 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

HAROLD FORD, Tennessee 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DENISE MAJETTE, Georgia 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

RICH MEADE, Chief of Staff 

THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, February 11, 2004 .......................................... 1

Statement of: 

Hon. Roderick R. Paige, Secretary, Department of Education ..................... 4

Lisa Graham Keegan, CEO, Education Leader Council ............................... 37

Prepared statement and additional submissions: 

Mr. Paige: 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 8

Responses to questions for the record ..................................................... 31

Hon. George Miller, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 35

Ms. Keegan ........................................................................................................ 39

Article submitted for the record by Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................... 46

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION BUDGET 

PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m. in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings [acting chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Hastings, Schrock, Shays, 

Diaz-Balart, Franks, Garrett, Wicker, Spratt, Moran, Kind, Baird, 

Scott, Majette, DeLauro, Baldwin, Lewis, Edwards, Thompson, 

Capps, Hooley, and Moore. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I am going to call the meeting to order. Good 

morning. Welcome to this hearing of the Budget Committee. We 

are pleased today to have the Secretary of Education, Roderick R. 

Paige, who will be on our first panel. And I might add that he is 

on a tight schedule, so we will try to work our way through this 

as quickly as possible. And I would also like to acknowledge that 

our second panel will have our colleague from northern California, 

George Miller, here along with Lisa Graham Keegan from the Education Leaders Council. So I want to welcome both of the panels. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the President’s education request. 

We will discuss not only the levels of the request, but also what 

those funds are intended to accomplish at the classroom level. So 

let us begin this discussion with a brief review of how we reached 

today’s level of Federal, and I want to emphasize that, education 

spending. 

Today, the Department of Education budget is nearly two and a 

half times as large as it was in 1996, and if you would put up that 

slide, I would appreciate that, when we took over. 

This is an annual growth rate of 12 percent sustained over 8 

years, as you can see. No other cabinet level agency has grown as 

fast as education during that time period, as you can see. 

Now, looking at the larger programs within education, let us go 

to that panel, you can see that the funding for low income, the 

Title I funds, have nearly doubled, and that is the biggest portion 

of the education budget. Education isn’t confined to just K–12. Let 

us go to the Pell grant panel. As you can see there, since 1996, 

funding for Pell grants has more than doubled. 

Now let us go to one other panel, the IDEA spending. No, it 

should be another one on IDEA. OK, well, at any rate, I will just 

simply say that since 1996 we have more than increased, and at 

least tried to authorize, the catch up that should have been done 

2

years ago for IDEA, and we are starting that process. So I just 

want to mention that. 

So there is evidence that these increases that I have talked about 

may be coming too fast even for the State budgets to absorb. In 

fact, the States collectively are sitting on a total of more than $5 

billion in unspent Federal education dollars, some of which were 

appropriated for their use more than three and a half years ago, 

before President Bush entered office. 

Perhaps we should pause and consider what sort of bang that we 

are currently getting for our Federal dollars. 

Is there a reason to believe that simply increasing Federal spending can increase student achievement? Is there a direct relationship between the number of dollars Washington spends on education for a child and the amount that the child earns and learns? 

Let us go to that next chart that you put up there. 

I wouldn’t say that is the case if you believe the numbers. Since 

the mid-1980s, reading and math scores of American school children on national tests have remained essentially flat, even as Federal spending has grown significantly. 

That is why this Congress, several years ago, instead of just 

throwing more money at the problem, we tried another tact, and 

that was to pass the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. That law 

demands results from schools in exchange for Federal dollars. It 

tries to forge a real link between education spending and classroom 

achievement, and it focuses resources more sharply on underperforming schools. 

Many, on both sides of the aisle, believe that the accountability 

standard in this law represents the greatest step forward in a generation in terms of Federal contribution to K–12 education. A larger stride even than the funding increases that we have seen in recent years. 

Why is this? 

No matter how much we raise education spending on the Federal 

level, the Federal level of support will always be a junior partner 

in this enterprise. Of the half trillion dollars that will be spent on 

K–12 education in the United States this year, less than 10 percent 

of that total will come from Federal spending; the remainder will 

overwhelmingly be funded by State and local tax revenue. And that 

is the way it should be. That is the way it has always been and 

that is the way that we intend that it should always be. 

So the best chance for those of us in Washington, DC, to have 

an impact is to tell schools that if they leave children behind, they 

will be subject to sanctions. And we must reassure parents that we 

are committed to providing their children with educational opportunity no matter where they live or where they attend schools. 

So with that, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your being here. I will 

turn to Mr. Spratt for his opening comments. 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to 

thank Secretary Paige, as well as Congressman George Miller and 

Lisa Graham Keegan for coming here to discuss the President’s 

2005 budget for the Department of Education. I can think of few 

issues that are more important to our future, and I look forward 

to the testimony from each of you. 

3

Last week the President sent us a budget that increases the deficit by almost 50 percent and then vows to cut it in half over the 

next 4 years. These huge annual deficits are not just a fiscal problem, not just an economic problem; they are a moral problem, because our children and grandchildren will be forced to repay record 

amounts of debt that we are borrowing today. The administration 

calls these deficits manageable, but tell that to our children when 

the debt comes due. This is all the more reason—because of the 

debt, the burden, the legacy that we are leaving them—to make 

certain they are productive citizens who can earn their way in our 

society. 

In the face of massive deficits with no surplus in sight, the administration nevertheless calls for more tax cuts which will reduce 

revenues by $1.2 trillion and drive the budget deeper into debt. 

This makes it even more difficult to do what we all know we must 

do to improve education for all of our children. For 2005, all appropriated programs except those for defense, international affairs, 

and homeland security—all discretionary domestic programs—will 

have to fight each other. The budget pits them against each other 

for shares of a shrinking pie. The administration’s fiscal policies 

have put us in the position where any increase in education this 

year has to come at the expense of other priorities: environmental 

protection, law enforcement, medical research, scientific research, 

public health; they are all in competition with each other. And the 

picture only gets worse in 2006, when total funding for domestic 

programs is cut even deeper below the 2005 level. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity to talk about something critically important: education funding. The President’s budget increases funding for the Department of Education by 3 percent, a 

modest increase that still leaves behind lots of children and even 

college students. Every year since he came to office, Congress has 

taken the President’s budget requests, as you can see here from 

chart No. 3, has taken the budget’s request, particularly under No 

Child Left Behind, and added something to it. This chart shows, 

the white bar, the amount the President requested and, the yellow 

bar, what Congress added. And the red bar is a stark testimony to 

what we said was needed, what we all authorized when we passed, 

to much acclaim, the No Child Left Behind bill just a few years 

ago. We said this was the level of funding that would be required 

for the school districts to meet the unprecedented obligations we 

were laying on them in the name of accountability. 

Now, if we follow the President’s budget over the next 4 years, 

the truth of the matter is we are going to cut funding for the Department of Education and never again reach the 2005 level. This 

is true by our reading of the budget and the computer printout that 

comes with it for every office and every budget account in the Department of Education in 2006 and beyond. The biggest shortfall, 

ironically, occurs in the President’s signature program, his own 

program, No Child Left Behind. The President’s budget increases 

2005 funding for No Child Left Behind by $448 million. That is 1.8 

percent above the level enacted this year. This leaves that program 

$9.4 billion short of the level that Congress and the President held 

out as necessary just 2 or 3 years ago when it required the States 

to meet the new achievement standards imposed by this law. 

4

The 2005 total for NCLB leaves funding for Impact Aid frozen at 

the 2004 enacted level: teacher quality improvement grants frozen; 

after school programs frozen; comprehensive school reform eliminated; Title I plussed up a billion dollars, at least in 2005; it is unclear what happens in the out years; and other programs also cut 

or frozen in order to improve student achievement. All in all, I believe 38 different programs are going to be killed, thrown out. So 

this looks like we are increasing certain things, but in the name 

of making room for them we are decreasing other things and decreasing them substantially. 

Despite, for example, the President’s campaign to increase Pell 

grants for first year college students, this budget proposes to freeze 

the maximum Pell grant for the third straight year. In addition, it 

eliminates five higher education programs that total $175 million, 

which results in a net cut for campus-based programs. It also 

freezes direct grants for students and cuts the support for student 

loans by $2.3 billion over the next 10 years. 

Mr. Secretary, with tuition rising and State funding falling, these 

cuts can only make college less attainable, less affordable for millions of college students across this country. We have a profound 

obligation to give our children a good education, good teachers, a 

safe learning environment where they are challenged to learn and 

equipped to succeed. Instead of living up to this obligation, I am 

afraid this budget is going to leave more students behind and, 

worse still, saddle them with mountainous budget debt. We can 

and should do better. We look forward to your testimony, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Spratt. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome to the Budget Committee. Without objection, your full statement will appear in the record, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RODERICK R. PAIGE, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Secretary PAIGE. Mr. Chairman, Representative Spratt, and 

members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify on 

behalf of President Bush’s 2005 budget for the Department of Education. Before I discuss the facts and figures, I think it is important 

to preface our discussion with some comments about the Federal 

role in education. 

The No Child Left Behind Act, and the President’s budget to support it, is best understood within the context of the Federal role in 

education in our country. Because the Constitution was silent on 

the issue of public education, public education is a direct responsibility of the States, including funding. However, we do have a national interest. Although the Federal Government has provided 

some support for our public education since the late 1800s, it only 

took a prominent role with the enactment of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965. But the increased funds from 

this initiative proved to be an incomplete solution. In 1983, when 

the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued a 

groundbreaking report entitled, ‘‘A Nation at Risk,’’ they chose 

their words purposefully. They didn’t issue a report entitled Some 

Few States at Risk. National inequity does indeed place our Nation 

5

at risk, and it is for this reason the No Child Left Behind Act is 

an important component of ensuring our national well being. 

Our role at the U.S. Department of Education is to supplement 

State and local efforts, not to supplant them. A uniform set of ‘‘Federal standards’’ does not exist in our Nation. No Child Left Behind 

requires that States devise their own set of standards in order to 

achieve the law’s goals. By June 2003, for the first time in our Nation’s history, every single State in our Nation had developed a 

slate of standards for that particular State. This was done in the 

form of an accountability plan, which was approved by the U.S. Department of Education, which assures that every single child is receiving a high quality education in that State. Each State determined its own standards and how this plan was to be put in place. 

Each State determined how it helps its students meet the Statedemanded standards. The President’s 2005 budget request builds 

on this supplemental, yet vital, role of the Federal Government. 

Mr. Chairman, fiscal year 2005 is a critical year for the No Child 

Left Behind Act. The 2005 appropriations will fund the 2005–06 

school year, a year that will witness two significant milestones 

under the new law. First, States and school districts will begin 

testing all students in grades 3–8 in reading and math. With the 

information provided by these annual assessments, teachers will 

have the data they need to teach each child effectively, and parents 

will be empowered to make informed choices about their children’s 

education. 

Secondly, all teachers will be highly qualified by the end of the 

2005–06 school year. To be ‘‘highly qualified,’’ a teacher must hold 

a bachelor’s degree and certification, licensure to teach in the State 

where they are employed, and have proven knowledge in the subject that they are teaching. There is no better way to improve education than by putting highly qualified teachers in every classroom. 

The No Child Left Behind Act recognizes this fact and will continue 

to work hard with the States to see that it comes true. 

The President’s budget proposes $57.3 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2005. 

This represents an increase of $1.7 billion, a 3-percent increase 

over the 2004 level, and an increase of $15.1 billion, or 36 percent, 

since President Bush took office. 

As was the case in the President’s previous education budget, 

most resources are dedicated to three major programs that fund 

the cornerstone of the Federal education policy. The first is the 

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies. The President is 

seeking $13.3 billion, an increase of $1 billion over the 2004 level. 

Title I helps children who are most in need to get extra help. 

They are the children most in danger of falling behind. Our determination to help these children, which I know is shared by the 

members of this committee, is reflected in the request that would 

complete a $4.6 billion increase, or 52 percent increase in Title I 

funding since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. 

The President also is asking for his fourth $1-billion increase in 

for the Special Education Part B Grants to States program. Under 

the request, funding for Part B Grants to States would rise by $4.7 

billion, or 75 percent, since 2001. This represents the highest level 

of Federal support ever provided for children with disabilities. 

6

And for the needs-based Pell grant program, the budget includes an increase of $856 million, for a total of $12.9 billion. This level 

would fully fund the cost of maintaining the $4,050 maximum 

award and provide grants to an estimated 5.3 million postsecondary students. I would point out to the committee that more 

than 1 million additional students are now receiving Pell grants 

than when President Bush took office. 

Included in this increase is a $33 million line for Enhanced Pell 

grants for State Scholars. We know that students who complete a 

rigorous curriculum in high school are more likely to pursue and 

succeed in postsecondary education. This proposal would provide 

an additional $1,000 for low-income postsecondary freshman who 

took challenging courses in high school. 

Another priority is President Bush’s, ‘‘Jobs for the 21st Century’’ 

initiative, which would help ensure that middle and high school 

students are better prepared to succeed in postsecondary education 

and the workforce. These proposals focus on improving instruction 

to ensure students are performing on grade level in reading and 

mathematics and on increasing the rigor of secondary school curricula. The Department’s share of the ‘‘Jobs for the 21st Century’’ 

initiative includes $220 million to improve the reading and math 

skills of secondary school students who are performing below grade 

level. The request for vocational education complements ‘‘Jobs for 

the 21st Century’’ by proposing a $1 billion Secondary and Technical Education State Grants program that would more closely coordinate high school and technical education. It also includes $12 

million to increase the number of States implementing the rigorous 

high school programs of study in order to prepare students for postsecondary education and the workforce. This program would work 

to improve academic achievement and successful transitions from 

high school to further education and the workforce. 

The 2005 request provides new funding for other ongoing priority 

areas as well, such as reading, expanding choice options and support for our postsecondary institutions serving a large percentage 

of minority students. 

Funding for Reading First State Grants and Early Reading First 

Grants would grow by a total of $139 million, more than 12 percent. Reading First programs offer children through grade 3 the 

benefit of research-based, comprehensive reading instructions designed to help meet the President’s goal that all children are reading on grade level by the end of third grade. 

Funding for research would rise by 12 percent. 

Our budget also reflects the importance of extending educational 

options to parents and students, not just to those who can afford 

this freedom. No Child Left Behind has greatly expanded the 

choices available for students in low-performing schools, including 

both the option to transfer to a school that would better meet their 

needs and to obtain supplemental educational services like afterschool tutoring. And this fall we will, for the first time, provide federally funded opportunity scholarships to low-income students in 

the District of Columbia. 

The President’s 2005 budget would build on these achievements 

by investing an additional $113 million in expanding choices for 

students and parents. This would include $50 million for a new 

7

Choice Incentive Fund. This fund would provide competitive 

awards to States, school districts, and community-based nonprofit 

organizations to provide parents the opportunity to transfer their 

children to a higher performing public, private or charter school. The request also includes a $63-million increase for the Credit 

Enhancement for Charter School Facilities program. This program 

would assist with one of the largest obstacles standing in the way 

of charter school development, and that is finding decent facilities. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, our request reflects the President’s 

ongoing commitment to postsecondary institutions that serve large 

numbers and percentages of minority students. We are asking for 

a total of $515 million for these institutions, an increase of almost 

$21 million, or 4 percent, over the 2004 levels. 

Before I conclude, I want to mention some of the improvements 

we have made in managing the Department of Education programs. I knew when I came to this Department that we were going 

to expect States, school districts, and schools to implement the No 

Child Left Behind programs and to be accountable for the achievement of these students. If we wanted that to happen, we would 

have to demand the same kinds of accountability from ourselves 

and from the Department. Now, because of a concerted effort on 

the part of the Department staff, taxpayers can rest assured that 

their hard-earned tax dollars will be managed responsibly. Fiscal 

year 2003 marks the second consecutive year that the Department 

received an unqualified ‘‘clean’’ opinion from its financial auditors. 

Now, that may not seem like much to some. They may not see that 

worth celebrating, unless you know that the 2003 ‘‘clean’’ audit was 

only the third clean audit in the Department’s 24-year history and 

with the 2002 audit, it was the only clean audit opinion to be delivered by an outside audit firm. 

We also are continuing to make progress in all areas of the President’s Management Agenda. Two weeks ago, the Office of Management and Budget announced that the Department received a major 

upgrade in its financial performance, moving from red to green status score. Our performance is ranked in the top one-third of all 

Government agencies and reflects our continued determination to 

inject accountability in everything we do at the U.S. Department 

of Education. 

The President’s 2005 budget request for education demonstrates 

his ongoing commitment to investing in educational excellence and 

achievement for all students. Nearly 50 years ago we all celebrated 

the historic ‘‘Brown v. Board of Education’’ opinion. In the years 

that followed, we found that educational access didn’t automatically produce educational excellence or educational equity. We still 

have much work to do to ensure that a high-quality education is 

available to all students. I believe the No Child Left Behind Act is 

the logical next step to the Brown decision. The best way to eliminate racial inequity in our society is to close the achievement gap, 

which is the main purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act. By ensuring that all students count and their achievement is regularly 

assessed, we are extending civil rights and social justice. We have 

joined together to declare that it is no longer acceptable to shuffle 

students through the system and to console ourselves with excuses 

that poor students don’t learn well. Our public schools not only 

8

serve the public, but in many ways they create the public. They 

will set the future course for our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, when I last appeared before this committee, No 

Child Left Behind was a blueprint, it was a set of proposals. In the 

time since the No Child Left Behind law was passed, we have 

made tremendous progress in building a solid foundation of educational equity. Now we are in our third year of this legislation, 

and I believe we are witnessing a historic moment. No Child Left 

Behind extends the full promise of freedom to all of our Nation’s 

students. I can think of no more effective program to ensure the 

future strength, security, and vitality of our Nation. 

I thank you, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions 

that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Paige follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RODERICK R. PAIGE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION

Mr. Chairman, Representative Spratt, and members of the committee, thank you 

for inviting me to testify on behalf of President Bush’s 2005 budget for the Department of Education. Before I discuss the facts and figures, I think it is important 

to preface our discussion with some comments about the Federal role in education. 

FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION

The No Child Left Behind Act—and the President’s budget to support it—is best 

understood within the context of this Federal role. Because the Constitution was silent on the issue of public education, it is a responsibility of the States, including 

funding. However, we do have a national interest. Although the Federal Government has been involved in education since the late 1800s, it only took a prominent 

role with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. 

But the increased funds from this initiative proved to be an incomplete solution. In 

1983, when the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued the 

groundbreaking report entitled, ‘‘A Nation at Risk,’’ they chose their words purposefully. They did not issue a report entitled, ‘‘A Few States at Risk.’’ Educational inequity does indeed place our nation at risk—and it is for this reason that the No 

Child Left Behind Act is an important component of ensuring our nation’s wellbeing. 

Our role at the U.S. Department of Education is to supplement State and local 

efforts, not to supplant them. A uniform set of ‘‘federal standards’’ does not exist. 

No Child Left Behind requires that States devise their own set of standards in order 

to achieve the law’s goals. By June 2003, for the first time in our nation’s history, 

every single State, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had developed an accountability plan to ensure every single child is receiving the high-quality education 

they deserve. Each State determined its own standards and now has a plan in place 

to help its students meet these State-defined standards. The President’s 2005 budget request builds on this supplemental-yet vital-role. 

A KEY YEAR FOR NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

Mr. Chairman, fiscal year 2005 is a critical year for No Child Left Behind Act. 

The 2005 appropriation will fund the 2005–06 school year, a year that will witness 

two significant milestones under the new law. First, States and school districts will 

begin testing all students in grades 3–8 in reading and mathematics. With the information provided by these annual assessments, teachers will have the data they need 

to teach each student effectively—and parents will be empowered to make informed 

choices for their children’s educational outcomes. 

Second, all teachers must be highly qualified by the end of the 2005–06 school 

year. To be ‘‘highly qualified,’’ a teacher must hold a bachelor’s degree in the core 

academic subject he or she teaches, hold a certification or licensure to teach in the 

State of his or her employment, and have proven knowledge of the subjects she or 

he teaches. There is no better way to improve education than by putting a highly 

qualified teacher in every classroom. The No Child Left Behind Act recognized this 

fact, and we continue to work hard with States to make it a reality. 

9

MAJOR PROGRAM INCREASES

The President’s budget proposes $57.3 billion in discretionary appropriations for 

the Department of Education in fiscal year 2005. This represents an increase of $1.7 

billion, or 3 percent, over the 2004 level, and an increase of $15.1 billion, or 36 percent, since President Bush took office in 2001. 

As was the case in the President’s previous education budgets, most new resources are dedicated to three major programs that form the cornerstone of the Federal role in education. For the Title I Grant to Local Educational Agencies program, 

the President is seeking $13.3 billion, an increase of $1 billion over the 2004 level. 

Title I helps the children who are most in need of extra educational assistance, 

who are most in danger of falling further behind. Our determination to help these 

students—which I know is shared by the members of this committee—is reflected 

in a request that would complete a $4.6 billion increase, or 52 percent, in Title I 

funding since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. 

The President also is asking for his fourth consecutive $1 billion increase for the 

Special Education Part B Grants to States program. Under the request, funding for 

Part B Grants to States would rise by $4.7 billion, or 75 percent, since 2001. This 

represents the highest level of Federal support ever provided for children with disabilities. 

And for the need-based Pell grant program, the budget includes an increase of 

$856 million, for a total of $12.9 billion. This level would fully fund the cost of maintaining a $4,050 maximum award and providing grants to an estimated 5.3 million 

postsecondary students. I would point out to the committee that more than one million additional students are now receiving Pell grants than when the President took 

office. 

Included in this increase is $33 million for Enhanced Pell grants for State Scholars. We know that students who complete a rigorous curriculum in high school are 

more likely to pursue and succeed in postsecondary education. This proposal would 

provide an additional $1,000 for low-income postsecondary freshmen who took challenging courses in high school. 

JOBS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Another priority is President Bush’s, ‘‘Jobs for the 21st Century’’s initiatives, 

which would help ensure that middle and high school students are better prepared 

to succeed in postsecondary education and the workforce. These proposals focus on 

improving instruction to ensure students are performing on grade level in reading 

and mathematics and on increasing the rigor of secondary school curricula. The Department’s share of the Jobs for the 21st Century initiative includes $220 million 

to improve the reading and math skills of secondary school students who are performing below grade level. 

The request for vocational education complements Jobs for the 21st Century by 

proposing a $1 billion Secondary and Technical Education State Grants program 

that would more closely coordinate high school and technical education. It also includes $12 million to increase the number of States implementing rigorous high 

school programs of study in order to prepare students for postsecondary education 

and the workforce. This program would work to improve academic achievement and 

successful transitions from high school to further education and the workforce. 

OTHER PRIORITIES

The 2005 request provides new funding in other ongoing priority areas, such as 

reading, expanding choice options and support for postsecondary institutions serving 

large percentages of minority students. 

Funding for Reading First would grow by $139 million, or more than 12 percent. 

Reading First offers children in grades K–3 the benefits of research-based, comprehensive reading instruction designed to help meet the President’s goal that all 

children read on grade level by the end of third grade. 

Funding for research would rise by 12 percent under the budget request to help 

us better evaluate what works in education. 

Our budget also reflects the importance of extending educational options to all 

parents and students—not just to those who can afford this freedom. No Child Left 

Behind has greatly expanded the choices available to students in low-performing 

schools, including both the option to transfer to a school that will better meet their 

needs and to obtain supplemental educational services like after-school tutoring. 

And this fall we will for the first time provide federally funded opportunity scholarships to low-income students in the District of Columbia. 

10

The President’s 2005 budget would build on these achievements by investing an additional $113 million in expanding choices for students and parents. This includes 

$50 million for a new Choice Incentive Fund. This fund would provide competitive 

awards to States, school districts and community-based nonprofit organizations to 

provide parents the opportunity to transfer their children to a higher-performing 

public, private or charter school. The request also includes a $63 million increase for the Credit Enhancement for 

Charter School Facilities program. This program will assist with one of the biggest 

obstacles to starting a charter school-finding and affording a decent facility. 

Finally, our request reflects the President’s ongoing commitment to postsecondary 

institutions that serve large numbers and percentages of minority students. We are 

asking for a total of $515 million for these institutions, an increase of almost $21 

million, or 4 percent, over the 2004 level. 

MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

Before I conclude, I want to mention some of the improvements we have made 

in managing the Department and its programs. I knew when I came to the Department that if we were going to expect States, school districts and schools to implement No Child Left Behind and be accountable for the achievement of students, we 

would have to demand that same kind of accountability from ourselves. 

Now, because of a concerted effort on the part of Department staff, taxpayers can 

rest assured that their hard-earned tax dollars will be managed responsibly. Fiscal 

year 2003 marked the second consecutive year that the Department received an unqualified ‘‘clean’’ opinion from its financial auditors. That may not seem like something worth celebrating, unless you know that the 2003 ‘‘clean’’ opinion was only the 

third ‘‘clean’’ audit in the Department’s 24-year history. And, along with the 2002 

audit, they are the only ‘‘clean’’ opinions to be delivered by an independent auditor. 

We also are continuing to make progress in all areas of the President’s Management Agenda. Two weeks ago, the Office of Management and Budget announced 

that the Department received a major upgrade on financial performance-moving 

from a RED to GREEN status score. Our performance is ranked in the top one-third 

of all government agencies and reflects our continued determination to inject accountability into everything we do here at the Department of Education. 

CONCLUSION

The President’s 2005 budget request for education demonstrates his ongoing commitment to investing in educational excellence and achievement for all students. 

Nearly 50 years have passed since the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision. In the years that followed, we found that educational access did not automatically produce educational equality. We still have much work to do to ensure that 

a high-quality education is available to all students. I believe the No Child Left Behind Act is the logical next step to the Brown decision. The best way to eliminate 

racial inequality in our society is to close the achievement gap. By ensuring that 

all students count and their achievement is regularly assessed, we are extending 

civil rights and social justice. We have joined together to declare that it is no longer 

acceptable to shuffle students through the system and console ourselves with excuses for poor student achievement. Our public schools not only serve the public; 

in many ways, they create the public. They will set the future course of our Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, when I last appeared before this committee, No Child Left Behind 

was a blueprint, a set of proposals. In the time since No Child Left Behind became 

law, we have made tremendous progress in building a solid foundation for educational equity. Now as we enter the third year of this legislation, I believe we are 

witnessing an historic moment. No Child Left Behind extends the full promise of 

freedom to all of our nation’s students. I can think of no more effective program to 

ensure the future strength, security and vitality of our nation. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your testimony. 

And I would advise members, as I mentioned at the outset, that 

the Secretary is on a time schedule, but obviously he wants to respond to all of our questions, so I would ask everybody to adhere 

as much as you can to the 5-minute rule, and we will be OK. I will 

try to expedite that. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to start the questioning just by saying 

something that you alluded to and I alluded to in my opening reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\HEARINGS\108TH\108-18\HBU042.000 RYAN PsN: RYAN
11

marks, and that is that since President Bush became president, 

funding for educational dollars has increased dramatically, and 

specifically with the No Child Left Behind. The question I have is 

do you feel that what we have funded on No Child Left Behind is 

sufficient for the States and the local school districts to successfully 

implement No Child Left Behind? 

Secretary PAIGE. Mr. Chairman, I am certain of that point. Nothing could be clearer. The No Child Left Behind Act is sufficiently 

funded to accomplish the goals of the Act. The barriers in front of 

the accomplishment of the No Child Left Behind Act are not financial barriers. It is true that we are experiencing tight money situations in many of our States and school districts, but the Federal 

growth and the Federal amount for achieving the Federal goals is 

quite sufficient. 

Mr. HASTINGS. And that is primarily, as you pointed out in your 

testimony, because the Federal role is a supplement to what has 

historically been a responsibility of locals and State government. 

Secretary PAIGE. Precisely. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I have to say, just in closing, in my State, in 

Washington State, we had State-wide testing prior to No Child Left 

Behind, and your Department acknowledged that test as being a 

test that would comply with No Child Left Behind. When I have 

been out in my district talking to various school districts about 

this, they tend to be very enthusiastic about the concepts and the 

accountability of No Child Left Behind; they worry about the testing. And, of course, I point out to them that is something that they 

can affect on the State level. Is my State somewhat similar in that 

regard? 

Secretary PAIGE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. HASTINGS. OK, good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary PAIGE. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Spratt. 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Secretary, the President’s budget for this year 

didn’t come to us with the customary level of detail. We don’t have 

the 5 to 10-year funding levels for discretionary programs, but we 

do have a computer run from OMB. And this computer run shows 

that for 2006, year after next, the function we are dealing with, 

which is function 500, is cut by almost $2 billion below the level 

that is requested for 2005, and for the next 3 years it stays below 

that level by about $2 billion. Furthermore, it appears to us, looking through the computer run, that these cuts are reflected in 

every office and account of the Department of Education; it affects 

education for the disadvantaged as well as the office of elementary 

and secondary education programs, special education, discretionary 

student financial assistance. 

What you are effectively saying with this budget, particularly in 

the outyears, is that we will plus it up a bit this year to make it 

look good, but then the years succeeding, for the next 4 years, there 

will be less for all of these programs. For example, education for 

the disadvantaged: The amount allocated for this year’s request is 

$15.2 billion, but next year it slips to $14.8 billion and never rises 

above $14.9 for the next four fiscal year. Elementary and secondary 

education programs: The requested level this year for 2005 is $22.5 

billion; next year, 2006, it drops to $21.9; and stays at or below 

12

that level. And that is true throughout here; you are raising it a 

bit this year, but then cutting it by basically $2 billion over the 

next 2 years. What is the logic of that? 

Secretary PAIGE. Congressman Spratt, it is my understanding 

that long-term estimates are calculated by formula. OMB has advised us that the numbers beyond 2005 do not reflect detailed policy decisions by this administration; they are roughly held estimates. And so we will have to await the policy decisions to draw 

conclusions about what the funding level will be in the years beyond 2005. The budget for 2005 is holding down increases. Outside 

of defense, homeland security, and international activities, the 

overall growth proposed is only about half of 1 percent. The outyear 

numbers are consistent with constrained spending, but they don’t 

represent, as of this time, policy decisions. 

Mr. SPRATT. Is it your plan to seek, in 2006 and 2007 and 2008 

and 2009, enough money so that you can at least maintain the current level of purchasing power, current services for all of these vitally important accounts? 

Secretary PAIGE. It is my intent to seek and advocate for that 

level of funding that is sufficient to accomplish the goals of the No 

Child Left Behind Act and the other programs inside of the U.S. 

Department of Education, and I am confident by the fact that despite all of the competitive forces for the Federal dollars now, the 

evidence is clear that the President has been very good in providing the support for education that is needed. Now, I anticipate 

that to continue. 

Mr. SPRATT. But you are not getting it this year. I mean, OMB 

hasn’t been able to see fit to provide you the money that you, I 

think, would acknowledge you need. If you are going to close the 

achievement gap, you have got to close the funding gap, right? 

Secretary PAIGE. Well, I don’t believe that it has been established 

that this funding linkage with performances is that tight. In fact, 

if that were true, then the Washington, DC public schools would 

be one of the highest performing school districts in all of our Nation, and it clearly is not. 

Mr. SPRATT. Well, let me ask you about that. The President’s budget, by our calculation, provides $9.4 billion less than Congress 

and the President promised by way of authorization when the No 

Child Left Behind Act was passed. My school districts think that 

they have been the victims of a giant bait-and-switch scheme, 

where they were told that there would be more accountability expected, the standards would be more rigorous, but at the same time 

there would be more funding, and that funding was represented 

specifically in the bill that was passed in 2002. Nevertheless, the 

funding level next year will be $9.4 billion less than what the authorization levels would have seemed to imply just a couple of 

years ago. 

What do the authorization levels mean; were they just an arbitrary stab in the air? Was there not some sort of expression here 

that this is what is needed or this is what is desirable, and this 

is what we will shoot for, or is it just a number? 

Secretary PAIGE. My understanding is the authorization levels 

represent a cap on spending, that there can be no more than that 

amount spent. In fact, in my limited time here in DC, I have noVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\HEARINGS\108TH\108-18\HBU042.000 RYAN PsN: RYAN
13

ticed that it is not at all unusual to see a difference between that 

which is authorized and that which is appropriated. 

Mr. SPRATT. It is unusual to see this big a difference, $9.4 billion, in a program that is about $30 billion. And I think your answer, 

then, is the authorization levels are not a desirable level, they are 

an upper cap, and you can do with $9.4 billion less than the authorization. 

Secretary PAIGE. Mr. Congressman, I think that the debate about 

money masks the real problem in public education in the United 

States of America, and it takes the focus away and it also says to 

the people in our Nation that the real reason why our students are 

performing at the levels they are performing now—which is clearly 

an undesirable level—is money, and I just disagree with that 

wholeheartedly. 

Mr. SPRATT. Aren’t you asking the school districts who are subject to No Child Left Behind to do more than ever in compliance 

with this Act in order to qualify for Federal funding? 

Secretary PAIGE. Yes, sir, we really are, and also we are supplying funds more than ever. This is historical in terms of the 

amount of money that we are providing for them. In fact, if this 

budget is approved, the increase in Title I will be in the neighborhood of 42.5 percent. 

Mr. SPRATT. Can we be assured that that is going to last in 2006 

and 2007 and 2008, given the fact that we have got a shrinkage 

in the total pie? 

Secretary PAIGE. I am very confident that the President is so 

committed to this as a priority that whatever amount that is needed to cause the achievement that we are seeking will be provided, 

or be requested at least. 

Mr. SPRATT. One particular point and I will turn it over to others. The President, in his campaign, pledged to increase Pell grants 

for first-year college students, but this budget would still freeze the 

maximum Pell grant for the third straight year. And with the strictures on discretionary spending we are seeing in this budget, I 

don’t see any increase in the Pell grant in sight in the individual 

Pell grant. Not in the overall funding, in the individual Pell grant, 

the maximum Pell grant. 

Secretary PAIGE. Well, one might find some comfort in the fact 

that about 1 million more students now are receiving Pell grants 

than was the case when the President took office. And in addition 

to that, the growth in the enrollment of students in higher education is substantial. In fact, it is in the neighborhood of 7, 8 percent, and between 1996–99, it never increased in a single year 

more than about 2.5 percent. 

Mr. SPRATT. But if you have more students seeking Pell grants 

and a fixed amount allocated for Pell grants, when you divide one 

into the other, you get a smaller Pell grant, don’t you? 

Secretary PAIGE. The average Pell grant recipient—the amount 

that they receive has not been substantially reduced. More students are receiving Pell grants, but it has not impacted in a way 

that would reduce the average amount of a Pell grant. 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary PAIGE. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Schrock. 

14

Mr. SCHROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming. Thank you for leaving 

the good life you had in Texas to come up here to put up with the 

rigors of Washington, DC. It takes a special person to do that, and 

obviously you are that person. 

I do support No Child Left Behind. When I was in the State senate, I thought if anything came from Washington it was an unfunded mandate and I was automatically against it. I think a little 

different now because I think this is different. And critics in several States are asserting that the cost of implementing this Act is 

prohibitive and that the law really amounts to nothing but an unfunded mandate, and it is my understanding, of course, that States 

have the right to forego these funds that are awarded under the 

law. 

I want to ask you how costly is it for the States to implement 

the law, and what do you say to those who call it an unfunded 

mandate? Our House of Delegates in Virginia just did a resolution 

against this thing, and I would like to know what your answer is 

to that. 

Secretary PAIGE. The information we have on costs, especially 

that part of the costs that is associated with the accountability—

the development of the tests and the implementation of tests—this 

turns out to be where a lot of the complaints about cost reside. 

Mr. SCHROCK. That the States are going to pay for it whether we 

do it or not, because they have got to do some kind of testing? 

Secretary PAIGE. Not only that. This budget provides around 

$400 million for that purpose, and the earlier budgets provided 

$390 million for that purpose. A researcher at Harvard University 

computed what they determined to be the amount of money that 

would be spent to do that, and they found out it would be less than 

1 percent of the average per pupil expenditure. And to spend less 

than 1 percent of the average per pupil expenditure in the United 

States, which is about $8,700 now, for accountability to measure or 

give you some clue in how much growth that should be. Just recently, in fact, just today, I saw a research study that was done by 

a person in Massachusetts, which is clearly not a conservative hotbed, that estimated the cost of this assessment to be about $20 per 

child, about $20 per child out of the $8,700 that we spend on a 

child for assessment. I think that we are drastically underspending. And, finally, even those States that have already developed these accountability systems are eligibile to share in this fund 

as well, so they might even make money above what their cost is 

going to be. It is clearly a bogus argument about the cost of assessment. 

Mr. SCHROCK. And I agree with the chairman. In his opening 

comments, he suggested that money does not equate to results, and 

I absolutely agree with that. My wife is a school teacher; she tells 

me that every single day. 

In your opinion, is there a link between per pupil expenditure 

and the educational results? And why is it that so many school districts with high pupil expenditures demonstrate low achievement 

scores, as you mentioned DC, which I believe has the highest per 

pupil expenditure and one of the lowest scores in America? 

15

Secretary PAIGE. The closest link is the efficiency of the expenditure, how wise is the expenditure that takes place. And we find 

that there are many cases where the systems that are in place, and 

the programs that are in place, the pedagogy that is used can offset 

the amount of spending, and you can pile money on top of that 

until you turn purple, and you won’t change the performance of the 

students. You have to look and see how wisely those dollars are 

spent. 

Mr. SCHROCK. We need to get parents involved in the education 

of their children, and that just isn’t happening these days, unfortunately. 

Secretary PAIGE. Not nearly enough. 

Mr. SCHROCK. No. You know, despite sizeable spending increases, 

some on the other side of the aisle have criticized the lack of full 

funding of the authorization ceilings for the No Child Left Behind 

Act, particularly Title I programs. Yet, when Democrats were in 

charge of both the Congress and the White House, appropriated 

levels for these same education programs were routinely below the 

authorized ceilings. 

In your opinion, and you may not want to answer this, do you 

think that the debate over this ceiling is driven mostly by election 

year antics, or do you think there is real substantive issue at stake 

here? 

Secretary PAIGE. Whatever its purpose, I see it as one of the 

most devastating things that is impeding the progress in student 

achievement. They are sending the wrong message. It is masking 

the analysis of the programs that could point out some of the other 

aspects of the programs that need our attention. It is true that we 

need funding, and we need adequate and sufficient funding, but 

there are many other aspects of the pedagogical system that need 

examining, and right now nobody is paying attention to that because the emphasis is all on how much money we are spending, as 

if victory is measured by how much money we spend. 

Mr. SCHROCK. I agree. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Schrock. 

Mr. Moran. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me follow up on the initial comment that my colleague from 

Virginia made about the Commonwealth and the fact that the majority-controlled, Republican majority-controlled House in Virginia 

just voted 98–1 to reject the No Child Left Behind program. They 

did call it an unfunded Federal mandate. They objected to substituting arbitrary Federal goals of accountability for the State’s 

own accountability program, which had in fact been achieving results. They objected to the fact that they had to spend almost $8 

million to modernize its computer systems just to track No Child 

Left Behind goals, and then the Federal Government would come 

up with only $4.5 million of the cost of that. 

Now, all of the people in Fairfax County that I represent agreed 

with that Republican resolution to reject the program. Fairfax 

County has a million people; twelfth largest school district in the 

country. It has 79 different languages spoken. About half of the 

limited English proficiency students in the State are in Fairfax 

16

County. But their legislators—and their educators, more importantly—tell me that they are getting punished for much of the results that they are achieving, particularly with disabled children 

and with the limited English proficient children. 

They get credit for 3 years of a child not being able to speak the 

English language, immigrant children, first generation American 

children. But it generally takes 5 to 7 years. Once that 3-year period is up, then they don’t get credit for having achieved their results, and that is one of the reasons why many schools are failing. 

In fact, one of the best schools in the State just failed solely because it had a disproportionate number of LEP, limited English 

proficiency, students there. They were told that the high school 

failed. This is a very affluent community, but they could send their 

children to other schools, such as a school that passed which was 

down in a very low-income area of Route 1 that serves children 

with behavioral and learning disabilities. 

This program is not working in my State. It is creating a great 

deal of resentment against the Federal Government. It seems arbitrary; it seems as though it was poorly thought out, and its implementation is even worse. That is why you get one of the few bipartisan resolutions that has passed the State legislature. 

I don’t know where we are going with this, but, you know, when you take $9.4 billion less than the authorized level in this budget 

that you are supporting, it shows that we have very little flexibility 

to make up for these gaps and to respond to these concerns. I 

would like to know what you would say to them. Now, I will give 

you an opportunity to tell them that directly if you would be willing 

to sit down and have a meeting. I have a sense that some of your 

people are avoiding those meetings, but we are more than happy 

to set it up if you are willing to meet with our legislators and educators, particularly our superintendents. But we have got a problem, and I don’t know where else to go to fix it than the person 

that started it, the Secretary of Education. So, Secretary Paige. 

Secretary PAIGE. Thank you. First of all, let me indicate I would 

be more than glad to accept an invitation to speak to any of the 

persons in Virginia who are concerned about this. 

Mr. MORAN. Done. My staff just wrote that down. 

Secretary PAIGE. Yes, please. Secondly, I wrote every member of 

the Virginia legislature to explain our point of view and try to help 

clarify some of what I believe to be clear misunderstandings that 

underpin the decision that they made. First of all, I would be very 

complimentary of the school reform efforts in the State of Virginia. 

It has clearly been one of the States that has led our Nation in 

school reform, and they have got their standards of learning, and 

the way they have conducted themselves is clearly complimentary. 

Mr. MORAN. But you overwrote it, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary PAIGE. The State of Virginia’s accountability plan has 

a goal of 70 percent of their students reaching proficiency. Seventy 

percent. That is to say, 30 percent are not required to reach proficiency. I have an idea who those 30 percent are, I mean, who they 

represent. The No Child Left Behind Act requires 100 percent of 

students to reach proficiency. So our job, then, is to integrate those 

two systems, the very fine, complimentary system that Virginia has 

and the tenets of the No Child Left Behind law that was enacted 

17

by this Congress. That provided some tension, and this tension is 

being experienced, but there are solutions to that. 

I look forward to sitting down and talking to them, because I believe they want their children to have a fine education just as 

much as I do, and I believe that we can sit down and reasonably 

work these issues out. And this goes for every State, not just Virginia. We faced those kinds of problems in Louisiana. There is discussion going on in Utah, and there are some other issues like that. 

But these are just, I think, growing pains resulting from a law as 

complex as the No Child Left Behind Act. We are completely open 

for full discussion, and we are very flexible, inside the limits of the 

law that you ladies and gentlemen passed, in order to provide relief 

for the citizens there. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We will set up that meeting. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Moran. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I am glad to hear, and I want to make sure I am 

not misunderstanding, that what you are saying about granting relief, you are not willing to accept—and I am glad I heard that—

any child left behind as part of that relief. 

Secretary PAIGE. That is where the line is drawn. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Absolutely. 

Secretary PAIGE. And I also am not willing to depart from the 

congressional intent of the No Child Left Behind Act. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Secretary, a lot of States, and we keep 

hearing that, they are complaining that they are not receiving sufficient Federal funding, and yet the Department reports that there 

is more than, and I am looking here, $5 billion in unspent Federal 

dollars which the States have access to. And OMB Director Bolton 

said that the surge in recent education spending, that some of 

those States have not been able to absorb it quickly enough. Can 

you explain why States are asking for more money when it seems 

they are not being able to spend the money that is already there? 

How is that working? 

Secretary PAIGE. Well, I would clearly be speculating with comments on the why, but we can say that a report that I received in 

the third week of December of last year showed better than $6 billion of unspent money, funds that were appropriated for use in 

education—some of it went all the way back to the year 2000. Reasons may vary, but the point is very clear, that although some has 

been drawn down now, there may be as much as $5 billion of 

unspent funds that were appropriated by the Congress for educational services to young students. And there has been kind of a 

rush to draw down some of those dollars, and that is, I guess, to 

be expected. But we think that sufficient planning and implementation of programs and thoughtfulness would require a different 

way of looking at it, let me just leave it like that. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Also, we keep hearing about this and you have been emphasizing that the debate 

shouldn’t be just on money, debate should be on results, and I am 

encouraged by that, the statement and your actions. If you look at 

the Department of Education’s budget, it is basically two-and-a-half 

18

times larger than it was in 1996, when the Republicans took control. 

You mentioned Pell grant funding. It has just skyrocketed, again, 

almost two and a half times greater than it was when the Republicans took control in 1996. 

The Department of Education Inspector General recently identi- fied over $300 million in Pell grants that were issued to students 

who shouldn’t have qualified, who misrepresented their income levels in their applications, et cetera. I know you have been emphasizing that as one of your main issues, and the President has. How 

is the Department taking action against fraud, this sort of fraud, 

which obviously means that that money is not available for others, 

or for increases in Pell grants? What do you think you can do better or what are you doing to try to eliminate fraud in Pell grants 

and other areas, but specifically in Pell grants, when the Inspector 

General identified $300 million? 

Secretary PAIGE. Identifying fraud throughout the system has 

been one of our priorities, and I have with me Associate Deputy 

Secretary Todd Jones, who will comment on that, specific to Pell 

grants. 

Mr. JONES. One of the President’s proposals is to allow what is 

called the IRS data match, which will allow the Department to 

match what people say about how they qualify for Pell grants 

against what they actually tell the IRS that they have earned in 

a given year. Interestingly, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is all people who are seeking or qualifying for more Pell grants than that 

for which they are entitled, but some who actually are entitled to 

more Pell grant than they thought they were, based on that data. 

That requires action, however, by the Ways and Means Committee 

to change the tax laws to permit that, and so that is before the 

Ways and Means Committee at this time. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And lastly, Mr. Secretary, I just want to commend you for sticking to your guns of demanding performance, demanding results. I know that whenever you ask anyone, including 

bureaucracies, to show performance and show results for the 

money that they are receiving, whether it be here in DC or even 

with the States and local school systems, we are going to find a lot 

of complaining, but I want to thank you for sticking to your guns 

and making sure that, again, if school systems want to leave 30 

percent behind or 20 percent behind or 5 percent behind, I want 

to thank you for not accepting that as a given and something that 

has to happen, and for sticking to your guns for the kids in this 

country. Every single one of them deserves an opportunity to learn, 

and every single one of them can learn. Whether school districts 

want to or not, they can learn. Thank you, sir. 

Secretary PAIGE. Thank you very much. I would just express my 

appreciation to you for that because I feel that we are facing an 

unrecognized education crisis in the country, about education and 

the amount of the achievement gap that we have—especially the 

devastating impact that that has on minority kids. And I just am 

unyielding about that. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. 

Ms. Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

19

An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education analyzing the 

President’s budget ends with this quote from a higher education 

analyst: ‘‘The President’s budget starts with frozen student aid 

funding, adds in higher loan limits, and requires students to pay 

a fee to obtain their loans. The result? Students are going to have 

one huge mountain of bigger debt to swallow if these proposals 

pass.’’ I would add to that that these proposals on the part of the 

administration overlay a tremendous increase in tuition experienced throughout the country. 

I would like to share with you a little bit about the pressures on 

college students in my own district and State. I come from the 

State of Wisconsin. My congressional district has three of the University of Wisconsin system campuses. Wisconsin began last year 

with a projected budget deficit of $3.2 billion over 2 years, and a 

lot of tough decisions had to be made, among them the university 

budget was cut by $250 million systemwide over 2 years, and the 

campuses were told that they could recoup some of those dollars 

through tuition increases. 

As I mentioned, there are three University of Wisconsin system 

campuses in my district: the University of Wisconsin Madison 

Campus, with well over 40,000 students attending, where they saw 

a tuition increase this year of 9 percent and next year are promised 

another tuition increase of 9 percent again; the University of Wisconsin Whitewater Campus saw an 8.5-percent increase; and the 

University of Wisconsin Baraboo Campus saw a 16-percent increase in tuition. 

In view of this, I know you have already been asked a couple of 

times about the failure to increase the maximum award for the Pell 

grant, but I wanted to start there. Given that college costs are rising so substantially, how do you justify this continued freeze, and 

when might we actually see the President make some progress on 

his earlier commitment to raise the maximum Pell grant award to 

$5,100 for college freshman? Is that something that you entertain 

in your long-term plans? And then I have several followups relating 

to other aspects of higher education funding. 

Secretary PAIGE. We are very concerned about the cost of higher 

education, but we are also aware of the fact that tuition increase 

and the actual cost of education is not the same. We can’t make 

the case that the price and the cost is the same thing. And we have 

very little control over the tuition increase that the universities decide upon; they make those decisions based on internal information 

and their own volition. 

The 1 percent fee that you spoke of, some could certainly argue 

that that increases the cost to students, but we think it increases 

the benefit to students, especially for those students who are currently obtaining a loan from a guaranty agency. About 50 percent 

of those guaranty agencies, of which there are 37, pay that 1-percent guaranty fee for the recipient; the others do not. That 1 percent is Federal taxpayers’ money, it is taxpayers’ money, and it 

should come back to pay the cost of providing for the integrity of 

the system. Now, whether the guaranty agency decides to pay that 

for the student themselves or whether the students pay it themselves, it is a benefit to the system that those dollars are there to 

protect the system against defaulted loans and to keep the system’s 

20

credibility high. So the 1 percent is not viewed by us as increasing 

the cost to students, as it is providing integrity for the program 

itself, which is a benefit to the student. And, by the way, I would 

add it is what helps keep the interest rate as it is, which is a benefit to students. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Secretary, I have listened to your explanation 

of the 1 percent fee. I would tell you that in Wisconsin our graduates have a default rate roughly half of the national average, and 

so I guess some of my students see it as a 1-percent tax on them 

that is going directly to benefit others, but not them, and is making 

their higher education a little bit more out of reach. 

The last question I have about the concern that this administration may have on rising college costs is has the administration 

taken a position or a view on Congressman McKeon’s Federal price 

control legislation? I know there has been a lot of discussion in 

Congress about H.R. 3311 and lots of concern raised about who 

that would truly help or penalize. Has the administration or have 

you, Mr. Secretary, taken a position on this legislation? 

Secretary PAIGE. Two points. The first one is that we have not 

taken a position on Mr. McKeon’s initiative. The second one is that 

the 1-percent student loan fee for us in higher education is an idea 

quite different from the No Child Left Behind idea, in which the 

standards are provided by the individual States. So we don’t distinguish between how the default rate happens in Wisconsin and 

other States, we see it as one default rate across the system. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Garrett. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Paige, for being with us. I applaud your passion that you have for education and for the children, that they get 

the best education possible. In the years that I was in State government, it is something that I spent a considerable amount of 

time with, serving on the education committee in the State of New 

Jersey. During that time, New Jersey, in fact, was—you might use 

the expression—ahead of the curve inasmuch as we were coming 

up with what we called CCC, the Core Curriculum Content standards for the State. So we were already—before many other States, 

and before the Federal Government came down with such programs—developing our own system to put in place as to what each 

child would be instructed and required to learn before graduation. 

At the same time, I might add, we had legislation that I sponsored which called for not only looking into the classroom and always put the focus and the burden on the teachers, where so much 

emphasis is often placed as far as accountability, but also looking 

at the Department of Education, who spends the money, which I 

think is appropriate as well. 

I wasn’t going to go down this road, but since I note in your 

opening remarks you talked about the proper role for the Federal 

Government in education, you indicate you say, because the Constitution was silent on the issue of publication. I remember Thomas 

Jefferson was once asked why is it that the Federal Government 

does not provide a public education for the students of this country 

back when he was President, and he responded, well, it is very 

simple, because the Constitution does not give us that authority. So 

21

perhaps you can enlighten me for the next time I go to a civics 

class and the class asks me if that is the case, what is the constitutional authority at all for the Federal Government to be involved 

in education funding. 

Secretary PAIGE. The Federal Government has been involved in 

a small way in public education funding since back in the early 

1800s, when it provided Federal land to municipalities to build 

schools. But the main entry into funding in public education came 

in 1965 in Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, when the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act was enacted and funded at the level 

of about $1 billion. And what is the authority? The authority is 

simply the Federal Government’s ability to attach conditions to the 

expenditure of the Federal funds, and that is the primary authority 

that is used even now. 

What happened in the No Child Left Behind Act is that the Congress was very clear about limiting even the Department of Education’s ability to involve ourselves in some of the matters of State 

concern. For example, we are expressly prohibited from dealing 

with curriculum and things like that. All of those are State issues. 

So it is pretty well embedded into Federal law. 

Mr. GARRETT. I was quizzed on that question one time and I honestly couldn’t go and say, well, this is where it is in the Constitution either. So that is one of the interests that you bring that up 

here. 

Back in my State, when I was back in the State government, I 

asked our State department of education, of all the dollars that we 

spend in education, and New Jersey I think spends the most in the 

country—how much comes from the Federal Government? We 

spend around $14,000 per student in our New Jersey schools, and 

they said around 3 cents on the dollar actually comes from the Federal Government. And so like other States, their concern is what 

is the cost of compliance for the State of New Jersey and the other 

States as well. Has the Department done an analysis on a Stateby-State breakdown as to what each individual State’s cost of compliance is with the No Child Left Behind Act? 

Secretary PAIGE. No, I am not aware of a State-by-State breakdown on the cost of the implementation of the act. 

I am going to ask Tom Skelly, who is our budget officer. 

Mr. GARRETT. OK. 

Mr. SKELLY. No, Congressman, we don’t have a study by State. 

But there has been some information, including the study the Secretary referred to earlier, in Massachusetts which found that the 

costs were being covered by the funds that the States were receiving from the Federal Government. That was just Massachusetts. 

Mr. GARRETT. That simply addressed Massachusetts? 

Mr. SKELLY. That is how I understand it, yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. OK. And is the Department doing any other reviews as far as the other States, or is that the extent? 

Secretary PAIGE. That wasn’t us, it was done by an independent 

group. 

Mr. GARRETT. At the Department’s request? 

Secretary PAIGE. There is no initiative that I am aware of in the 

Department that would examine the actual cost of implementing 

the law in each individual State. 

22

Mr. GARRETT. OK. And the last question is, and you may not be 

able to get into the specifics since I know it is hard. In our States, 

where I hear from, of course, is the schools that have come out with 

failing grades and the repercussion that it has in the community, 

as I am sure you can imagine. Some of those schools that are the 

loudest complainers or bring attention to my office the most are 

schools that are, generally speaking, considered some of the best 

schools, not only in my district, but some of the best schools in the 

State. What is my response to them when they find themselves in 

that awkward situation? 

Secretary PAIGE. This is one of the things that we have had the 

most difficulty in communicating. First, the No Child Left Behind 

Act is a positive law, and it never uses the term ‘‘failing;’’ it uses 

the term ‘‘needing improvement.’’ I will give you a personal example. In my district in Houston there is a school called Bel Air High 

School which is a premier high school any way you measure it. A 

very good high school. But that high school has a mix of students, 

and it was either the African-American students or the Hispanics 

students who failed to meet math standards that year. That school 

was identified then for improvement. So Bel Air can claim to be a 

great school, and it is, but it still needs improvement because some 

subpopulations are not receiving the quality education that they 

need. 

The No Child Left Behind Act is built so that you cannot just celebrate the fact that some of the students, some subpopulations, are 

doing well. If you leave any subpopulation behind, the Act identifies you as in need of improvement. We don’t say you are failing, 

but we say you must improve so that you can bring along all the 

subgroups. 

Mr. GARRETT. OK. Thank you very much for that. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I just 

want to take a moment to react to Mr. Balart’s concern and also 

raise a question or two. 

You know, the Constitution is a living document. The very spirit 

of the Preamble to the Constitution suggests that we should look 

out for the general welfare, and I think education is part of looking 

out for people. In the Constitution, you know, some of us were not 

included in the Constitution, and now with action of the Congress 

and other decisions, now people have made changes and we have 

made a lot of progress. But I recall in 1954, May 17, 1954, when 

the Supreme Court issued the decision in ‘‘Brown v. the Board of 

Education.’’ I was 14 years old, in the ninth grade, and I thought 

I would attend a desegregated school, would no longer travel by 

broken down buses or use hand-me-down books, and that didn’t 

happen. 

I want to know from you, Mr. Secretary, have you seen any studies or reports showing that our public school system is becoming 

more segregated, that we are moving away from the spirit and the 

letter of the Supreme Court decision of 1954, and what the Supreme Court went on to say, ‘‘with all deliberate speed’’ in 1955? 

23

And then if you would just hold it for a moment. What is your 

vision with this budget? What is the vision of this administration 

with providing quality education for all of our children? And another thing that struck me, you said victory or success may not depend on the amount of money. But you know, money could be a 

down payment to help people get a little better education. I notice 

in one of the TRIO programs, Upward Bound, which means so 

much to young people in my district, I believe only 70 percent of 

the eligible students are participating, and you are freezing this 

important program. So I think you do need money. You need resources. I travel and spend a lot of time at many schools in my own 

district and all across the State of Georgia and all across this country. People need resources, they need money to help. 

So I just want you to respond. 

Secretary PAIGE. Thank you. May I begin, Representative Lewis, 

by saying your comments at the prayer breakfast were very touching. I appreciated them very much. And I want to continue by saying you are right, some of us were not mentioned in the Constitution, and some of us were left behind as far as the Constitution is 

concerned. Constitutionally, some of us still are being left behind. 

And the ones that are being left behind are primarily impoverished, minority, inner city, and some rural students. This country 

has some of the best high schools and elementary and middle 

schools in the world, but these schools, many of them are satisfied 

with measuring the average performance of the school and not 

looking inside the average and seeing down underneath it that 

their students are not doing well. And if they are celebrating their 

success, they are not paying attention to these kids that are underneath. 

My vision is a system that does not allow a school system to do 

that. While applauding how they are doing, like I applaud what 

Virginia is doing, I wanted to point out that 70 percent of Virginia 

students as a goal of achieving proficiency is a great goal, but 30 

percent of them not required to do that is something that I would 

consider in need of improvement, because I believe that that 30 

percent would be populated in large measure by kids who are underprivileged and minority kids primarily. 

And finally I want to straighten out the statement about victory 

being measured by money. What I intended to say, and I hope I 

said correctly, was that victory is not measured by money. To me, 

victory is only measured by student growth. Money is required in 

order to obtain student growth, but once we make sure that we 

have got a lot of money out there, that, to me, is insufficient in 

terms of meeting the goals that we seek. Students have to perform 

better, and right now students are not performing well, especially 

minority kids. In fact, all kids. Universities now have to remediate 

30 percent of the students who they get right now from our public 

school system. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, Mr. Secretary, it is always perfunctory to thank someone that comes before a panel like this, but I have had the wonderful privilege of following your good work in Houston and other 

24

places, and I say to you with all of my heart that I just think that 

the children of this country are very blessed to have a man in the 

position that you are, with your acumen and your compassion and 

your commitment to each of them, and I truly mean that 

As it happens, some of us have tried to expand upon some of the 

ideas that you had all across the country, and in my case in Arizona. We passed the Arizona scholarship tax credit that allows people to contribute to funds who give scholarships to children to go 

to the school of their parents’ choice, and then the contributor gets 

a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their income taxes. And the reason 

that it has been able to enjoy such a strong bipartisan cohesiveness 

is because, by and large, the contributors are the upper income 

members of society and the recipients are overwhelmingly the lowincome children. 

Because one thing is sure, and your testimony has reflected this 

today, in a lot of the better schools that we have, sometimes those 

are under represented in terms of the impoverished or the minority 

children of this country, because wealthy families already have the 

ability to send their children anywhere they want, and it is time 

that we afford that same opportunity to the minority students, the 

impoverished students in this country. And in Arizona we now 

scholarship 21,000 children under that program. It is the largest 

school choice program in the Nation. And it has taken children who 

were just, forgive me, Mr. Secretary, to the system a little bottom 

in the chair and turned them into royalty, and that is something 

that I think should cause the blood of all of us to turn to fire, because I really believe that if we can empower parents to do what 

is best for their children, they will not only do what is right for 

their particular child, but it will cause the public schools, the 

schools that are the traditional schools to respond to that activity. 

And if there is one thing that the No Child Left Behind Act, in 

my judgment, has done, is it has caused the schools to respond to 

some of these very, very real concerns. I just visited with the 

Under Secretary of Education just the other day about one of the 

schools in my district, and it was considered to be a great school, 

but because of your work they have responded and tried to make 

it better. And I would just encourage you in every way that I can 

to continue to incentivize, to encourage these States to do things 

like the scholarship tax credit, because it is working in Arizona, it 

is working in Florida, it is working in Pennsylvania now. And if 

there is anything that we can do to help empower parents, we 

nearly always do something good for the children. 

I have done a lot of commentary here more than anything else, 

but you mentioned it was $8,700 per student on a national average 

now. Our private schools that get these scholarships for children in 

Arizona are the most integrated schools in the State, and they do 

it for about a third of the money that you mentioned. Tell me what 

your reaction to that is. 

Secretary PAIGE. I think that is a reality, and it is an awful reality, because it denies many children an opportunity to grow like 

they should grow. And it also, in my view, denies the public school 

system the right and the ability to innovate and to be creative. 

When the public school system is protected by the monopolistic tendencies and structures that we have in place now, it does not at 

25

all promote creativity, accountability, and innovation. Where there 

is no consequence for substandard performance, no enterprise anywhere in the world can grow like that. 

So my support of choice is not to move children from one place 

to the other, it is to provide the kind of environment where schools 

can grow. I think that choice is a necessary condition for effective 

school reform; any reform short of providing that kind of choice 

falls short. And, finally, my example would be, here in the District 

of Columbia, on the last NAEP for urban cities, the fourth grade 

reading scores for Anglo Americans were at the top of any city in 

the United States of America. In the same classrooms the reading 

scores for African Americans were 70 points lower. And when we 

looked at the eighth grade reading scores, there were not enough 

Anglo members to be measured; all of them had exercised the 

choice that we are trying to provide for our other students. We 

think that all parents should have the same kind of choice. No one 

should be tied or chained to a school that is not serving them well, 

simply because their financial means dictate that they don’t have 

that power. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well said, Mr. Secretary. And I just thank you for 

your commitment to future generations. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Franks. 

Let me do a little bookkeeping here. I want to ask unanimous 

consent that all members be allowed 7 days to submit their questions for the witnesses or to put statements in the record. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Edwards. 

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Paige, as a Texan, as a former resident of Harris County, I have deep respect for your lifelong commitment to education 

and helping the children of this country better themselves. 

Let me just speak as a father, as a former legislator in the Texas 

Senate, and as a Member of Congress on what I think is happening 

in education. At the State level, frankly, I think legislators have 

been worshiping at the altar of tax cuts, tax cuts at all cost, to the 

point that what States now are doing is underfunding our public 

schools, from kindergarten through 12th grade, all the way through 

college education. As a consequence, more pressure is being put on 

local school districts and communities to fund education, and many 

of those are strapped and can’t raise their property taxes or other 

taxes. So we are moving backwards, rather than forwards, in many 

areas. 

Let me give you a specific example. I like hearing people say 

money isn’t the answer to quality education. I agree. We must have 

accountability. But no one can explain to me as a father of a second 

grader in the northern Virginia school districts that because of the 

lack of funding at the State level in Virginia of education, that 

when my second grader’s class was moved from 18 students to 27 

students the first week of this school year, that those children in 

that classroom are going to get a better education. 

Funding money is a necessary, but not sufficient, factor in ensuring a quality education, and I do want to point out that—not that 

the Secretary has said this exactly, but others have said it—it is 

a logical fallacy to then suggest that, therefore, money is not an imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\HEARINGS\108TH\108-18\HBU042.000 RYAN PsN: RYAN
26

portant factor in improving the quality of our children’s education. 

Try to hire a teacher without money. Try to hire a tutor without 

money. Try to run after-school programs without money. Try to 

fund Pell grants without money. We all know money alone isn’t the 

guaranty of a quality education, but I hope no one gets away with 

the allegation and the logical fallacy that money isn’t an important 

factor in trying to ensure, along with accountability, a quality education for all. 

At the Federal level I think what is happening is that the administration and Republican leadership have, frankly, committed, in 

my opinion, themselves to irresponsible tax cuts, despite a war, despite the largest deficits in American history, and despite an economic slowdown. As a consequence, what we are doing at the Federal level is preaching No Child Left Behind with all good intentions, while in practice we are leaving millions of children behind. 

And I will commend the administration for some plus-ups in this 

budget, but despite the good intentions, I think the consequence of 

this budget, if it is not increased, will be that we will leave millions 

of our youth unable to afford a college education. Because it is simple mathematics; when tuition rates are going up 31 percent a 

year, as they are at Texas A&M University, Mr. Secretary, in your 

home State and mine, but Pell grants are locked in for the third 

year in a row, that means those low-income children are going to 

have a significantly larger gap that they cannot afford to pay, and 

many of them won’t even try to go to college as a consequence. So 

we are leaving our youth behind there. By underfunding the No 

Child Left Behind Act by $9.4 billion, we are leaving millions of 

children behind. They are getting larger class sizes, they are getting fewer tutors, they are getting fewer after-school programs than 

they otherwise should. 

I am reminded—you know former Gov. Mark White, Mr. Secretary, and he told me a story about when he was running reelection and Bill Clements was opposing him, who later defeated Gov. 

White, supporters of the Governor came in and said, Governor, I 

want you to drown your opponent. You are a great Governor, I 

don’t like your opponent, and I want you to drown him; here is a 

check. Gov. White looked at the check, looked at his friend, looked 

at the check again and handed the check back and said, ‘‘you know, 

friend, with checks like this I can hardly get their toes wet.’’

You know, I think we ought to rename No Child Left Behind Act. 

You are doing some good things. You are taking limited resources 

and doing the best you can with them, but we are not being honest 

if we suggest that this level of funding really is consistent with the 

commitment, not just the rhetoric, of ‘‘leaving no child behind.’’ We 

are cutting in this budget $379 million in present day services to 

military children of parents 17,000 of which from my district are 

presently fighting in Iraq. I appreciate some of the efforts the administration has made in this budget on Impact Aid, but it is an 

odd way to say thank you to our servicemen and women in Iraq 

that over the next 5 years we will cut Federal education funding 

for their children’s education in real services by $379 million. 

Mr. Secretary, I know you will do the best you can with the 

budget you are given from OMB, and I respect that and I want to 

work with you on a bipartisan basis, but we are leaving, in all due 

27

respect, millions of children behind by a worshiping of tax cuts at 

the expense of our children and our youth’s education. Thank you, 

sir. 

Secretary PAIGE. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. 

Secretary Paige has to leave at 12:45, and I know there are a lot 

of members who want to ask questions, and I have been a bit lenient here. I am going to be a little more hardcore and I am going 

to ask unanimous consent that hereafter all questions be limited to 

4 minutes, and I will gavel at 4 minutes. Is there any objection? 

Without objection. 

Mr. Wicker. 

Mr. WICKER. I guess it wouldn’t have done me any good to object, 

but it sort of hurts my feelings that you begin to enforce that when 

it comes to my turn. 

Mr. Secretary, my friend, Mr. Edwards, is happy to claim you as 

a fellow Texan, but we all know that it is those early years that 

form the real basis of a man, and you are a Mississippi native, a 

product of our public school system, so let me claim you doubly 

over and say how proud we are of you down there in Mississippi. 

I would like to ask that we put up slide number 6, if we can, and 

just give you an opportunity to discuss this for the time that we 

can, Mr. Secretary. 

What we see here is in spite of a lot of talk about cuts in education, we can see that that top line there represents increases in 

education funding over the last number of years, and it is a figure 

that we can be proud of. Now, you have said that victory is not in 

dollars, and I think we all agree with that, but we can do a lot if 

we spend our dollars wisely. 

The truth of the matter is the Department of Education’s discretionary budget has grown an average of 12 percent a year for the 

past 4 years. Title I has had a 12 percent growth rate for the past 

4 years. Special education State grant funds have quadrupled and 

Pell grant funds are almost two and a half times what they were 

in 1996. 

So while we would probably like to spend a little more, we have 

done pretty well on the spending side of it. And for my good friend 

from Georgia, I share his support for the TRIO programs. I met 

with a group of individuals from Rust College just last Friday, Mr. 

Secretary, and I can tell you that in a time of program elimination 

and a time when we are really asking each of us to look at budget 

cuts, they were pretty tickled that our increase of last year from 

$827 million to $832 million occurred and that we are committed 

in this administration to keeping that level of funding for the TRIO 

programs. There may be some movement around in some of those 

figures, but the level of funding was much welcomed in that community that certainly supports the TRIO programs. 

Let me just give you an opportunity, though, Mr. Secretary, to 

ask you to comment on what we are going to do about this graphic, 

which indicates that while the increase in spending has been there, 

the scores have remained relatively level. What are our goals in the 

Federal Government to address the rather flat line in achievement 

as opposed to that pretty substantial increase in funding? 

28

Secretary PAIGE. The chart before us represents NAEP reading 

scores for 9-year-old students. It shows, since 1984, the reading 

score as measured by NAEP is essentially the same now as it was 

in 1994. Now, this is notwithstanding the emphasis that the Federal Government has put on reading. Before Reading First, there 

was the Reading Excellence Act that was funded at about $300 million a year, and there was a lot of activity about teaching how to 

teach reading. But we can see that it did not produce the kind of 

change in student reading ability that we are desirous of. But we 

can see that the funding continued to increase, and we continued 

to make the assumption that the reason the students are not reading better is that we are not spending enough money. So we tend 

to solve that problem through continued increases in funding. 

Increases in funding are necessary, but they also, in many cases, 

masks the debate about the programmatic structures. Right now 

we are talking a lot about funding. I have heard no discussion at 

all about the mechanics or the pedagogy or the method that people 

are using to teach reading. The assumption is clearly embedded in 

our mentality that if we spend more, we will change the performance, and I am not sure that that is supported by the facts. 

Mr. WICKER. Well, clearly something more than increased spending is necessary, as evidenced by that chart, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary PAIGE. Absolutely. That is the bottom line. Something 

more than spending is required. 

Mr. WICKER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. 

Mrs. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary Paige, for joining us today. Before I 

start my questions, may I please raise an issue with you that is 

very important to California? As you know, the Department of Education recently rejected all of the Fulbright scholarships from UCBerkeley because of a problem with, of all things, FedEx. 

Secretary PAIGE. I didn’t hear the last word, problem of what? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Pardon me? 

Secretary PAIGE. I didn’t hear what you said. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Oh. The rejection of the applications for Fulbright 

scholarships from graduate students from the University of California at Berkeley because of a delivery or a pickup problem. And 

we are very concerned, of course, that students involved may be 

unfairly penalized for circumstances beyond their control. And I 

understand that yesterday the Fulbright oversight board did agree 

and made the decision to work with the University of California, 

and my bringing this up is to urge you, please, with the Department to work with the University of California so that a fair and 

equitable resolution would be the outcome to this situation. 

Secretary PAIGE. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. And speaking of higher education and 

graduate education, I noticed with great interest your discussion of 

No Child Left Behind as one of its goals being that all teachers will 

be fully qualified to teach by the year 2005–06. And, of course, this 

impacts college loans for these students to continue their education 

and become qualified teachers, and that is one of my concerns. And 

others have raised here the number of changes to the student loan 

29

programs that result in a net cut of over $2.3 billion over 10 years, 

compared with OMB’s estimate of current law by freezing Pell 

grants and other issues. 

But I want to ask you to respond on another part of No Child 

Left Behind, which is the mandate in Federal law to provide for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and our Federal 

decision to fund our part of that at 40 percent of the cost to local 

school districts, and what happens when we don’t meet our goal. 

That really is discrimination against both those students with disabilities and also, in fact, the general population or the regular 

school district that has to bear the cost, because special education 

is legally required. This administration is only providing half of 

what we said we would, as Federal legislators, when we enacted 

IDEA, that we promised we would do. And I am asking you does 

this administration support full funding of special education? 

Secretary PAIGE. Yes. May I begin by just making a comment 

about the Berkeley situation, since you brought it up? 

Mrs. CAPPS. Certainly. 

Secretary PAIGE. Our responsibility is to make sure that we 

make fair judgments based on the regulations that are before us. 

The regulation required the applications to be in by a specific date. 

Several schools did not get their applications in by that date. We 

didn’t see it as fair to take one big university who got their applications in later than the date and provide them some additional extra 

credits and to deny the other ones who were late that same ability. 

So we saw only one way to go about including Berkeley, and that 

was to open the whole thing up again and treat everybody the 

same. What we did, rather, was work with the University and others to find a way through private sources to support these students 

that we are completely willing to be helpful with. What we cannot 

do, though, is to show a preference for any university, whether it 

is a big one or a small one. They all must meet the standards. And, 

simply, Berkeley could have met the standard simply by getting it 

postmarked on that date. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I understand. 

Secretary PAIGE. Rather, they failed to do that. It was clearly a 

failing on the part of that institution, and what they are trying to 

do is shift the burden and say that we did something unfair or bureaucratic, and we clearly did not. 

Back to the IDEA, the President is committed to increasing support for our local schools for our special education programs. It is 

true that at some point in our history a commitment was made to 

provide up to, as I read the legislative language, 40 percent of the 

average per pupil expenditure. We are now, with the President’s 

proposal for 2005, we will reach 50 percent of that—it will be at 

about 20 percent. 

But I think what is significant is that this represents the fourth $1-billion increase requested by this President. That is $4 billion 

of requests to move toward the 40 percent that you mentioned. To 

show how aggressive that is, you only have to look at what was 

done in the previous 8 years. And when you look at the previous 

8 years, less than half of that, not even $2 billion, was requested 

in the whole 8 years; whereas, we have had $4 billion requested 

in just the three or 4 years that the President has been here. 

30

So I think that it would be fair to say that this President is very 

committed to students with disabilities. In fact, when we say, 

‘‘leave no child behind,’’ we intentionally include students with disabilities most especially, because we believe they have greater 

needs than other students. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Secretary Paige. 

Secretary Paige, there has been a lot of criticism, but only in 

Washington, about ‘‘cuts’’ in No Child Left Behind. We have added 

43 percent more for No Child Left Behind. Then I started thinking, 

maybe what we did was we took away from all these other education programs, and we did eliminate some, so I thought we must 

have cut the education budget and yet in the last 4 years, that has 

gone up 36.8 percent. Only in this place, when you spend 36 percent more money, almost 37 percent, do people call it a cut. 

I will acknowledge one thing. We have had tax cuts, but we have 

had testimony before this committee that we would still have deficits with all the tax cuts. We would still have deficits. So sometime 

before we leave this place, I am going to hear people tell me where 

we cut spending, where they want to cut spending because I am 

only being criticized in this committee. In this committee, this majority seems to be only criticized for not spending more money. So 

thank you for advocating more education spending, thank you for 

spending 43 percent more on No Child Left Behind, thank you for 

increasing your budget 37 percent, and I know you would like it 

increased more. 

The other thing I like is that you are realizing there are other 

ways that we can have impact. Let me ask you this. The other 

issue that I am interested in is the whole issue of grants for students. I have a daughter who is going to be applying for some, but 

what fascinates me is that I am beginning to wonder who gets the 

grants. Isn’t it a fact that as we increase the Pell grant and increase other loans, the institutions just increase the cost of their 

tuition? Ultimately, who gets it? Is it the student, or is it the university? 

Secretary PAIGE. I think that you hit on a very sensitive but important point. The cost of the university is clearly a factor. I have 

with me Mr. Jones. I am going to ask him to comment on that because he has paid particular attention to that point. 

Mr. JONES. You are very right. The issue of what does a college 

education cost is one that universities and colleges simply cannot 

put a finger on. If they increase tuition, they don’t demonstrate 

what you are gaining from those tuition gains: are there new services or are there new classes? What is being bought with that? So 

ultimately tuition is increased, so then students are put in the position of seeking more money or, and this is the other interesting 

part, the discounting that goes on—where universities have lower 

income students, they will offer grants or they will offer tuition discounts to individual students. That is where the difference is made 

up. 

Mr. SHAYS. And then when they get an increase in the grant, 

they get less of a discount from the school? 

Mr. JONES. Exactly. 

31

Mr. SHAYS. So in the end, the student hasn’t benefitted, it has 

been the institution that has, correct? 

Mr. JONES. That is right. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Secretary, I note the bewitching hour that 

you had mentioned to us has arrived. It is 12:45 p.m., and I know 

you had to get on the road, so I welcome you here and thank you 

very much for your testimony. 

I would remind all members that patiently waited and we apologize you didn’t get a chance to ask your questions but by unanimous consent earlier we allowed you to ask questions and it will 

be a part of the record. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for taking your time. Thank 

you very much for your full testimony on a variety of issues. This 

is the Budget Committee and we tend to focus more on the numbers but I think you have said very eloquently that learning and 

teaching is more than numbers and I thank you very much for your 

testimony. You are dismissed. 

Secretary PAIGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Additional questions for the record follows:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITED FOR THE RECORD

SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING FOR LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

Mr. Nussle: Since 1996, the Republican Congress has quadrupled special education funding. But—at least in the schools in my district—it’s not making it to the 

classroom. 

How much of each year’s IDEA increases would you say have gone directly to 

schools, and how much to the State education department? 

Secretary Paige: The formula for distributing funds under the Special Education 

Grants to States program limits increases in funds that may be set aside at the 

State level from 1 year to the next to the lesser of the percentage increase in inflation or the percentage increase in each State’s allocation. Funds not set aside at the 

State level must be distributed to local educational agencies. Because State allocations have grown much faster than inflation, funds available for local educational 

agencies represent an increasing share of the funds provided to States. 

For example, for fiscal year 1996 at least 75 percent, or $20 million, of the 

$26.671 million provided to the State of Iowa was required to be passed through 

to local educational agencies. For fiscal year 2004, at least 90 percent, or $97.195 

million, of the $107.669 million that we estimate will be allocated to Iowa must be 

passed through to local educational agencies. So, while the total grant for Iowa has 

grown by 304 percent (from $26.671 million to $107.669 million), the minimum 

amount that is required to be passed through to local educational agencies has 

grown by 386 percent (from $20 million to $97.195 million). Correspondingly, the 

amount that may be retained by the State educational agency has dropped from 25 

percent of the State’s allocation in 1996 to 10 percent of the State’s allocation in 

2004. 

UNSPENT FEDERAL EDUCATION DOLLARS

Mr. Nussle: Many States appear to be flooded with education dollars, and unable 

to spend it all. They are actually returning some to Treasury. Why is this happening? 

Secretary Paige: We believe that is a very fair question, which is why we decided to publicize the data on the very large amount of unspent Federal education 

dollars. As for the reasons why these dollars remain unspent, they are probably as 

varied as the 52 States and more than 14,000 school districts that receive Federal 

education funding. In some cases, States and localities have chosen to not spend the 

money until late in the grant cycle. In other cases, there may have been accounting 

errors that led local officials to overlook available Federal funds. In some cases, the 

funding may have been restricted to certain types of program activities that not all 

districts chose to implement. And in others it is possible that States were either 

slow to deliver funds or placed their own restrictions on how they could be used. 

32

UNSPENT BALANCES OF FEDERAL FUNDS

Mr. Ryun: It’s been recently reported that the States have sent back over $5 bil- lion in unspent Title I funds. Kansas sent back over $8 million. My constituentsfrom teachers to school board members-are asking for more Federal funding and are 

unaware of these returned funds. If the States say they are desperate for education 

dollars, then why is this money not being spent; are the funding streams not flexible 

enough for the States? 

Secretary Paige: This was a bigger problem prior to the No Child Left Behind 

Act, which eliminated or consolidated many categorical programs and provided new 

flexibility in spending Federal education dollars. Most Federal education dollars now 

flow through large, extremely flexible State grant programs. Title I, for example, is 

virtually a local block grant for the more than 25,000 schools that use Title I funds 

to operate schoolwide programs. And new flexibility permits States and school districts to transfer funding among four key State grant programs: Improving Teacher 

Quality State Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, State Grants for Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants. 

Mr. Ryun: Are States not able to fulfill the requirements tied to the funds? 

Secretary Paige: I do not believe this is a significant reason for unspent balances, and as I just stated, the new flexibility provided by No Child Left Behind 

makes it even more unlikely that States or school districts would send money back 

because they can’t find a way to use it. 

PROVIDERS OF SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES

Ms. Brown-Waite: Secretary Paige, as a fellow educator devoted to seeing each 

child obtain a quality education, I applaud you for your efforts and commitment to 

ensuring that the goals and spirit of No Child Left Behind become a reality. I have 

the utmost respect for you and all the work you have done in the realm of education. However, I have come across a newspaper article which highlights some disturbing information. This past Sunday, February 8, 2004, the Tampa Tribune printed an article with the headline ‘‘Quality of No-Child-Left-Behind Programs In Question.’’ I would like to highlight a few excerpts from this article. 

To begin, ‘‘At a tae kwon do center in Morris County, eight children who have 

been bussed from Patterson, practice martial arts, make instant pudding and play 

a game of telephone, whispering a word down the line. This, too, is deemed tutoring 

* * * Taxpayers are funding all of this. The untrained college student is being paid 

$25 an hour. The tae kwon do center gets $1,550 per Saturday session it runs. The 

after-school program, which runs 7 months, takes in $1,164 a child.’’

Upon further reading, you will come across an individual named Karen Helmstetter. According to the article, she abandoned her tutoring plans of mathematics 

and reading and substituted it for a lesson plan based on teaching about the human 

body and senses. The article quotes Ms. Helmstetter as saying, ‘‘Did the children 

come in knowing about their body system? No, that’s how we are going to judge the 

success of the program.’’ Ms. Helmstetter’s curriculum and criteria for success lack 

any scientifically backed methods to gauge an appropriate rate of success. Given 

this fact, how does the Government monitor and measure the success of the various 

programs it funds? 

Secretary Paige: The Tampa Tribune article you refer to, which originally appeared in the Bergen Record, looks at supplemental educational services providers 

in New Jersey. The location is important, because under the law it is the State educational agency, working with local school districts, that is mainly responsible for 

monitoring the effectiveness of such providers. More specifically, section 

1116(e)(4)(D) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires States to ‘‘develop, implement, and publicly report on standards and techniques for monitoring 

the quality and effectiveness of the services offered by approved providers,’’ as well 

as procedures for withdrawing approval from providers that do not increase the academic proficiency of the students served. 

If, and I must say I hope this is not the case, an approved provider is offering 

martial arts training rather than academic services, it is unlikely that the academic 

proficiency of the students it serves will improve sufficiently for it to remain on the 

list of State-approved providers. Moreover, while we do encourage States to approve 

a wide range of providers, in order to ensure that services are available for as many 

eligible students as need them, I would hope that no State would ever approve a 

provider that offers martial arts instruction in the first place. 

Also, a school district is permitted to terminate services from a provider if the provider does not meet the achievement goals and timetable that are included in the 

agreement that must be arranged between the district and the provider for each 

student. 

33

STANDARDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PROVIDERS

Ms. Brown-Waite: What are the standards used? 

Secretary Paige: As I indicated earlier, the specific standards for monitoring 

providers are developed by States as part of their statutory role in maintaining a 

list of approved providers. The statute is clear, however, that the services must 

focus on academic enrichment, be based on research, and be both consistent with 

the instruction provided by the school district and aligned with State academic 

standards. In addition, providers must have a demonstrated record of effectiveness 

in improving academic achievement. These basic requirements should have prevented some of the providers described in the Tampa Tribune article from gaining 

State approval. 

Ms. Brown-Waite: How did you arrive at those standards? 

Secretary Paige: Again, it is the States that are responsible for developing 

standards and techniques for monitoring provider effectiveness. However, as indicated in Department guidance on supplemental educational services, those standards and techniques should be consistent with the initial, statutory criteria that 

States use to identify approved providers. 

APPROVAL AND MONITORING OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PROVIDERS

Ms. Brown-Waite: In my opinion these programs do not accomplish the purpose 

of No Child Left Behind, nor do they work to truly educate children. My question 

to you is how do we, as a government, work to prevent programs such as the two 

I’ve mentioned from squandering precious tax dollars? 

Secretary Paige: I believe the structure established by the statute, involving 

States and school districts in approving and monitoring the effectiveness of services, 

combined with the requirement that providers regularly notify parents of the 

progress their children are making, will ensure that poor quality providers are 

quickly weeded out and removed from the State-approved list. In addition, the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education has restructured its Title 

I monitoring procedures to focus on determining whether States and school districts 

are properly carrying out the key requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. 

When we visit States, we now look at such issues as whether they are implementing 

the supplemental service provider approval process as called for in the Act. 

Ms. Brown-Waite: How do we make sure that programs committed to teaching 

kids how to read, write, and calculate math problems receive funding? 

Secretary Paige: Under the statutory criteria that States are required to apply 

in identifying and approving supplemental educational service providers, those are 

the only programs that should be placed on the State-approved list of providers. 

Ms. Brown-Waite: How do the programs like the two I’ve mentioned receive 

funding? 

Secretary Paige: It is possible, particularly at this early stage of implementing 

the law, that there were problems in the State approval process, and that the statutory criteria for providers were not properly applied. It is also possible that the providers in question misrepresented the nature of their programs during the application process. 

Ms. Brown-Waite: Does this problem exist due to a flaw in the qualification requirement for programs to receive funding? 

Secretary Paige: No, I believe the statutory and regulatory requirements for approving and monitoring supplemental educational service providers are adequate, 

and that if States and school districts comply with these requirements it will be 

very difficult, if not impossible, for non-academic providers to receive funding. 

STANDARDS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PROVIDERS

Ms. Brown-Waite: What are the standards used? 

Secretary Paige: As I stated earlier, the statute requires services to be focused 

on academic enrichment, based on research, consistent with the instruction provided 

by the school district, and aligned with State academic standards. Providers also 

must have a demonstrated record of effectiveness in improving academic achievement. 

REMOVAL OF INEFFECTIVE PROVIDERS OF SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

Ms. Brown-Waite: What steps are being taken to prevent further waste of tax 

dollars? 

Secretary Paige: Under the law, it is up to States and school districts to take 

any measures that may be necessary to remove ineffective or fraudulent providers 

from the program. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, as we monitor State impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\HEARINGS\108TH\108-18\HBU042.000 RYAN PsN: RYAN
34

mentation of Title I, we will examine State implementation of supplemental services 

requirements. 

PROGRAM ELIMINATIONS IN THE 2005 BUDGET AND NCLB FUNDING

Ms. Majette: I am concerned that the President’s budget doesn’t include enough 

funding for educators in my State to meet the needs of our children—I am specifically referring to meeting the requirements of No Child Left Behind. It costs money 

to provide tutoring and transportation and teacher training. The Republican State 

School Superintendent in Georgia, Kathy Cox, recently admitted that she was concerned Georgia’s education budget would not be sufficient to meet the needs of our 

children. I am sure that you share my commitment to ensuring that all teachers 

have excellent training and that their expertise is translated into an excellent learning experience for our children. In your Departmental budget summary, you attempt 

to justify eliminating 38 programs as an effort to focus on NCLB. I cannot understand the logic of cutting the $1.4 billion currently spent on these education programs and replacing them with only $1 billion more in NCLB spending. Using the 

Department’s formula, we would actually be spending less on elementary school 

children. How do you explain and justify that? 

Secretary Paige: It is true that we are proposing to eliminate 38 categorical pro- grams totaling $1.4 billion, primarily to consolidate this funding into larger, more 

flexible, easier-to-administer State grant programs. It is not true, however, that we 

are proposing to spend less on No Child Left Behind, or less on elementary school 

children. 

The President’s budget would provide $24.8 billion for No Child Left Behind, an 

increase of nearly $463 million over the 2004 level. If you include funds for Special 

Education and other programs, total spending on elementary and secondary education would grow to $38.7 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion over the 2004 appropriation for these programs. These totals include $179 million in one-time congressional earmarks for specific projects, added as part of the 2004 appropriation. Without the one-time earmarks in 2004, the increase for elementary and secondary authorized programs is actually $1.3 billion over the 2004 appropriation. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION—MATHEMATICS AND

SCIENCE PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAMS

Ms. Majette: Mr. Secretary, improving math and science education in our public 

schools is critical. The House of Representatives recognized this need when we voted 

417 to 7 to increase loan forgiveness for highly qualified math and science teachers. 

Unfortunately, the President’s budget doesn’t sufficiently recognize this need. Instead, there is a shell game that only appears to increase math and science funding. 

While the Math and Science Partnerships within your Department would increase 

by $120 million, you propose phasing out the program by the same name within the 

National Science Foundation, which was funded at $134 million dollars. Therefore, 

this budget actually proposes a decrease in Math and Science Partnerships. 

In addition, while these programs share the same name, they are not identical. 

The Department of Education’s Math and Science Partnerships provide grants to 

local schools, often in the neediest districts, to implement new and improved math 

and science curriculum. The program by the same name within the National Science 

Foundation provides peer-reviewed grants to create innovative new methods of 

teaching these subjects. These programs are not duplicative, but instead are highly 

complementary. Mr. Secretary, in this era of accountability, please explain the 

President’s decision to eliminate the peer reviewed program within NSF that helps 

develop the tools that your Department implements nationally. 

Secretary Paige: The Administration believes that it is now time to apply research findings in the classroom and that the Department of Education, which 

works extensively with States and school districts, is well prepared to assume that 

responsibility. Thus, for fiscal year 2005, the Administration is requesting $269.1 

million for the Department of Education’s Mathematics and Science Partnerships 

program, a $120 million (80.5 percent) increase over 2004. Of this amount, $149.1 

million would be awarded to States by formula to continue State subgrants initiated 

in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, and the entire proposed increase of $120 million 

would support a new program of direct Federal competitive grants to partnerships 

to increase learning in mathematics for secondary students. 

The new 3-year competitive grants are part of President Bush’s Jobs for the 21st 

Century initiative, which reflects the President’s understanding of the challenges 

faced by young people in preparing for future careers, and his determination to help 

them get the skills and training they need to compete successfully in today’s changing economy. These grants would support projects that have significant potential to 

35

accelerate the mathematics learning of all secondary students, but especially lowachieving students, and would focus on ensuring that States and LEAs implement 

federally supported professional development projects for mathematics teachers that 

are strongly grounded in research and that help mathematics teachers to become 

highly qualified. 

NET BUDGET INCREASE FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE

PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAMS

The increase for the Department’s portion of the program would represent a net increase overall for the two Mathematics and Science Partnerships programs of $61 

million for fiscal year 2005. This initiative would absorb funding for similar teacher 

training activities for mathematics teachers currently provided by the National 

Science Foundation (NSF). In fiscal year 2005, the Administration is requesting $80 

million for NSF’s Mathematics and Science Partnerships program, approximately 

$59 million less than the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. This decrease would begin 

the process of phasing out the NSF program, while continuing support for out-year 

commitments for awards made in the first and second grants competitions, data collection, and program evaluation.

Mr. HASTINGS. I want to remind members that we have another 

panel coming, so I would invite you to stick around for that. 

I was just advised that our colleague from California, Mr. Miller, 

will not be here, so I would like to call the next witness if she is 

here, Lisa Graham Keegan, to please come forward. 

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, while she is coming, I would like to 

request unanimous consent that the statement and testimony that 

Mr. Miller would have given be entered in the record. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESETATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Good morning, Chairman Nussle, Ranking Member Spratt, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Bush administration’s fiscal year 2005 Education budget. 

This is the forth budget sent to Congress by the Bush administration. Like the three 

Bush budgets that preceded it, this budget demonstrates that this administration 

does not view education as a priority. 

If this Bush budget were enacted into law, it would amount to the smallest increase in education funding in 9 years. In addition, it eliminates 38 education programs, reducing the Federal investment in education by $1.4 billion. We need to invest in our education system—to close the achievement gap, and to ensure access 

to a college education for all eligible students. President Bush’s budget fails on both 

accounts. 

The Bush budget continues to renege on the commitment to fully fund the No 

Child Left Behind Act. This year the Bush budget underfunds the No Child Left 

Behind Act by $9.4 billion. As part of this shortfall, the Bush budget underfunds 

the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by $1 billion, eliminating 

afterschool programs for over 1.3 million children. The Title I program is underfunded by $7.2 billion. The Bush budget leaves nearly 5 million disadvantaged children without extra academic help and services. Cumulatively, President Bush and 

the Republican Congress have underfunded NCLB by $27 billion since its enactment. 

NCLB placed new challenges on our schools and teachers—challenges it is important that our educators meet: eliminating the achievement gap between poor and 

minority students and other students; improving accountability; upgrading teacher 

quality. Our communities are working hard to live up to their end of the bargain. 

When are the Bush administration and Congress going to live up to theirs? 

Instead, we have radical, unjustified and unnecessary cuts in proven, effective 

education programs. Among these programs are initiatives to reduce alcohol use by 

teenagers, to ensure elementary school children have enough counselors, to reduce 

the number of students who drop out of school, and to provide family literacy programs to allow parents to be a greater part of their child’s education. 

Lets take one example: Even Start’s support of family literacy programs. These 

initiatives have long enjoyed bipartisan support. Secretary of Homeland Security, 

Tom Ridge, when he was the Governor of Pennsylvania, called family literacy ‘‘a 

36

dramatic investment’’ in the future of young Americans that will allow ‘‘parents and 

children [to] learn and succeed together.’’

Similarly, First Lady Laura Bush has expressed her support for family literacy 

programs, saying: ‘‘Family literacy programs * * * work on the front lines of the battle against illiteracy.’’

But the Bush budget would eliminate family literacy programs across the nation. 

Equally alarming is the lack of investment in our higher education programs. 

President Bush’s budget fails to make college more affordable because it fails to address rising college costs, the declining buying power of college grants, or the rising 

debt carried by college students. As parents and students alike watch the cost of 

attending college rise by historic levels, the Bush administration provides no relief 

and no support. 

Instead, President Bush once again has proposed freezing the size of the maximum Pell grant. 

The Bush administration has thrown around rhetoric that they have increased 

funding in this program by billions. Its just that—rhetoric. The fiscal year 2005 

Bush budget marks the third year in a row that the maximum Pell grant would 

remain at $4,050. 

This freeze comes at a time when rapidly rising college costs have negatively impacted the ability of low and middle-income students to go to college. In fact, the 

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education has estimated that 250,000 

students were shut out of college opportunities this school year due to rising college 

costs. 

President Bush has yet to make good on his 2000 campaign promise to make college more affordable by increasing the maximum Pell grant for college freshman to 

$5,100, even though the grant is now worth $500 less than the maximum grant in 

1975–76, adjusted for inflation, nearly 30 years ago! 

The Bush budget also forces a tax on college loans that would charge students an additional $4 billion over the next 10 years by requiring lenders to collect a 1 

percent insurance fee when students take out their college loans. Currently, lenders 

have the option not to charge students this fee. The Bush budget also cuts $316 million of vocational education funding—again. 

Federal vocational education programs have strong bipartisan support, as demonstrated by congressional rejection of past efforts by the Bush administration to 

cut these programs. President Bush has proposed a new job training initiative for 

community colleges in his Labor Department Budget. This proposal masks the real 

record of Bush administration support for community colleges. Since President Bush took office, he has proposed over $1.8 billion in cuts to vocational education and job training programs for community colleges. These cuts 

would have had devastating effects, denying training and educational opportunities 

to thousands of students. 

The Bush budget does propose yet another $1-billion increase for special education, as in prior years. However, at this rate of increase, we will never reach IDEA 

full funding, which we promised the nation’s school districts over 28 years ago. The 

Bush administration dismisses the bipartisan support for reaching full funding, as 

illustrated in the letter being circulated by Congressman Bass and other Republican 

Members in support of a $2.5 billion increase in IDEA funding in fiscal year 2005. 

Lastly, I want to express my disappointment that Secretary Paige’s Department 

of Education continues to use Enron accounting procedures to distort the real record 

on education funding. Secretary Paige responds to charges about underfunding of 

education programs by asserting that states have over $5.7 billion in unspent funds 

from the past 3 fiscal years. He also claims that states have enough funding to comply with No Child Left Behind and IDEA. These claims are nothing but smoke and 

mirrors. 

As the Secretary knows full well, the Department is counting as unexpended 

funds billions of dollars in resources that the states have already designated for renovation of schools, teacher salaries and the purchase of testing system and curriculum. In fact, the administration has provided us documentation that States are 

expending their funds at a rate faster than expected by the Department. 

Very simply, these funds aren’t ‘‘unspent,’’ and the Secretary knows it. Go to your 

school board members, schools and teachers. Ask them if they have the resources 

they need. Ask them if they have enough funding to meet the requirements of the 

No Child Left Behind Act, or IDEA. You will get a dose of reality. With State budgets continuing to be slashed, you will find the need even greater than past years. 

Mr. Chairman, this committee is faced with an issue of priorities. We cannot continue to ignore the funding needs of our K–12 and postsecondary education systems. 

This budget submitted by the Bush administration prioritizes tax cuts for the 

wealthy over education funding for the disadvantaged for the third year in a row. 

37

It is not enough to proclaim yourself the ‘‘education President.’’ You need to provide 

leadership and make the decisions that strengthen our schools, eliminate the 

achievement gap, and make college affordable to all. 

The administration’s Budget fails our students, our teachers, our schools, and our 

communities. They look to us for support, and they get smoke and mirror budgets 

and photo ops in classrooms. We must do better for our children and our future.

Mr. HASTINGS. Ms. Keegan, if you are ready, we are ready. We 

would like to welcome you to the Budget Committee as we pursue 

trying to build a blueprint for spending of Federal dollars in a variety of areas. We are working on the education budget today or at 

least having a hearing on that. We welcome you and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CEO, EDUCATION 

LEADERS COUNCIL 

Ms. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate 

the opportunity to share some information with you. 

I represent the Education Leaders Council which is an organization of State policymakers in education who have supported the tenets behind No Child Left Behind and in fact, have enacted them 

in their States long before the Congress restated the importance of 

this endeavor. 

Secretary Paige said in his comments that he thought No Child 

Left Behind was just a logical follow on to Brown v. the Board of 

Education. We feel the same way. We feel it is a civil right of students to be able to expect that the expectation of them will be 

equally as high regardless of where they are going to school. 

We think unfortunately it can be demonstrated that is not the 

case in American schools right now and that the best remedy for 

that is to know where all students are, to have a great picture that 

the public can use about their performance against the standards 

that a State sets for their children, and given that information, we 

can take action but we can’t take action without it. 

I think what makes me most nervous is listening to talk that 

says this is just an overreach, this is just something that is a Federal mandate. If not this answer, what answer for a situation 

where we can predict in American schools who will fail by race and 

by wealth? It has to be a national answer. Unfortunately this looks 

remarkably the same in every State as far as which students are 

making it and which students are not. 

When the Congress got behind No Child Left Behind and passed 

in a bipartisan way the tenets, we were delighted because it backed 

up the work in the States that was ongoing for which there was 

a great deal of pushback as members know. We thought at the 

Council it would be incredibly valuable for the Congress to know 

exactly what the hard costs in the States of implementing No Child 

Left Behind are. There has been much discussion today about authorizations and appropriations, and so forth, and it seems to us 

the questions are fairly clear. What costs did No Child Left Behind 

as a new law bring to the States and how much money was appropriated? We delivered to your offices yesterday the result of that 

question we asked called, ‘‘No Child Left Behind Under A Microscope.’’ That study determines conclusively that there is more 

money given to States each year than is necessary for the impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\HEARINGS\108TH\108-18\HBU042.000 RYAN PsN: RYAN
38

mentation of all of the new requirements under No Child Left Behind by a figure that increases annually. 

I would refer you to the report itself to take a look at it and we 

would be happy to be contacted specifically about questions and so 

forth but let me just give some actual numbers. No Child Left Behind asks for specific action in four areas: accountability, meaning 

adequate yearly progress; assessing students in every grade, every 

year—a new cost because States up to that time had merely been 

required after the 1994 Act to test in a couple of different grades. 

In 2000, it was every child every year and there is an additional 

cost for assessment. 

The second issue was personnel. This is where rightfully most of 

the money is dedicated by the Congress. The actual costs for personnel are about $1.1 billion, they were in 2002 and 2003 years. 

They were about $2.5 billion in 2003 and 2004. They are projected 

to be at about $4 billion in 2005. 

The actual appropriations for those, if you look at the study, exceed the total amounts. If you add the accountability and personnel, and in addition to that, the data system that has to give 

you information about the data that is collected and then school 

improvement, all of those things together create actual costs that 

are met by the appropriations in No Child Left Behind and then 

there is a surplus of about $1.5 billion that can be used and is 

mentioned in regulation for general school improvements in whichever way the State feels that it needs. 

We believe it is so important to talk about actual costs and what 

is actually being required in No Child Left Behind because if we 

don’t do that, we allow a very vague notion that somehow there is 

a Federal mandate being enacted upon States that never existed 

before and it is costing more money than we are being given. That 

is clearly not true. 

It is also true in a bigger sense that this was our work to begin 

with, that we believe it is our work that all students are taught 

in such a way that they meet the standards of the State. That 

ought not be a new requirement. It has merely been restated in No 

Child Left Behind. In fact, in 1994, when the ESEA was reauthorized, all States were required to list all of the schools in their State 

that were failing by their assessment measures. Most of them did 

not do that. In my office we call, ‘‘No Child Left Behind, No Child 

Left Behind, No, Really’’ because it had been said in 1994. 

I would have the privilege of being the State Chief in Arizona in 

1995 and we struggled to get those numbers out. It was very important. We showed up with one-third of our schools where we 

could tell there were children, at least groups of children, that were 

failing, even failing in a school that looked like it was making tremendous progress. 

Secretary Paige refers often, and is a great inspiration to everybody who is working behind him on this, to the Civil Rights Act. 

When the Nation decided that unfortunately in order to offer everybody opportunities, we had to write that down and get it right for 

all citizens of the country, nobody suggested a percentage. How 

about 70 percent, we give rights to 70 percent. It wouldn’t even 

have been thought of. Nor should it be the case in American 

schools that what we do is simply say, give us an average of who 

39

is getting an equal opportunity and we will go with 60, 70. The 

point is all children. 

It is difficult work, it is expensive work. It is work that has required the huge increases of funding that the Congress has made 

and they have been larger than anything the States have seen for 

quite some time. I believe—I know that there is a difference sense 

in the country. This has made a difference. It is worth the investment that is being made and the investment that is being made is 

sufficient to meet the cost. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Keegan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA GRAHAM KEEGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

EDUCATION LEADERS COUNCIL

Good morning, Chairman Nussle and members of the committee. It is my pleasure 

to appear before you today to discuss President Bush’s 2005 Budget Request for the 

Department of Education. My name is Lisa Graham Keegan, and I am CEO of Education Leaders Council, a member-based organization of education reformers, and 

the only organization that is presently leading an in-the-classroom effort to implement the policies of No Child Left behind (NCLB). 

We believe very strongly in NCLB—but then, our members have been supporters 

of its policies since long before the bill was even in its earliest drafting stage. The 

policies embodied in NCLB have been the policies of our members—from school 

board members to state chiefs to Governors—for nearly a decade. As members of 

this committee, you’ve likely heard warnings that the policies of NCLB are underfunded—or worse, to those of us with a federalist bent, an ‘‘unfunded mandate.’’ As 

an organization of practicing educators who have actually been putting the policies 

on NCLB into place for years, we at ELC believe we can give you a unique, credible 

perspective on how much money it really takes to turn the ideals embodied by the 

law into active practice. I think our answer will surprise you. 

I was also so pleased to have the opportunity to hear Secretary Paige’s comments, 

because I think he’s got it exactly right. NCLB is more than a program—it’s a right. 

And I do not think it is an overstatement to say that NCLB is the heir to Brown 

v. Board of Education, as the Secretary has often said. NCLB is providing students 

in the United States with a new civil right—the right to an educational system that 

makes the same academic demands—and provides the same academic opportunities—for all students, regardless of their race or socioeconomic status. It does not 

allow for one set of standards for one set of children, and a different set of standards 

for another. 

Really, much of what is in NCLB isn’t that new at all—you did much of it in 1994 

with the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). Though the term AYP was still 

about 6 years off, IASA was very similar to NCLB, in that it asked states to ensure 

that all students were all making academic progress. But the 1994 act lacked the 

sunlight and teeth that you have put into NCLB. You gave the states some very 

real goals to meet. They can’t claim academic progress based on averages—they 

have to look at all children. They must report data. They must ensure teachers are 

adequately trained. They must make sure parents know how their children are 

doing. 

What does all this have to do with the job of this committee? I want you to put 

the budget numbers before you in perspective of what it is you’re trying to do with 

the money you’re allocating. The Civil Rights Act became law in 1964. We don’t hear 

people complaining that it’s an unfunded mandate, and therefore we can only give 

equal rights to 70 percent of the people because the government isn’t adequately 

funding this ‘‘mandate.’’ Nor do we hear people argue that the government is meddling in the affairs of states by insisting that anyone—regardless of race or color—

be allowed to vote or ride at the front of a bus. The same is true of NCLB. You 

have no reason to apologize for insisting that all children—not just some—receive 

a quality education. It’s their right. 

But then, what of the claim of ‘‘unfunded mandate?’’ ELC, in conjunction with 

AccountabilityWorks, recently completed a study of those claims and found them to 

be without base. Specifically, we examined what NCLB requires states to do—things 

that weren’t already in the 1994 law—and looked at how much these new activities 

cost and whether the resources had been appropriated to meet these new costs. 

What we learned may astonish you. Not only has the Congress provided the states 

40

with sufficient resources, but, in fact, you may also have provided them with more 

than enough. 

For our study, we looked at the four new activities specifically required by NCLB: 

the costs of new accountability requirements, including new testing requirements; 

the costs of meeting the requirement for ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers; the costs associated with information management, such as those needed to disaggregate student 

data; and the costs associated with school improvement, such as school improvement 

plans and choice initiatives. For these activities, we looked at what we called the 

‘‘hard costs’’—those that have a necessary fiscal impact on states and local education 

agencies—associated with each of these new requirements. 

For all activities, we found existing funding to be sufficient and, in many cases, 

there was still plenty of money left over—anywhere from $785 million anticipated 

in the 2004–05 school year to approximately $5 billion in the 2007–08 school year. 

These remaining funds are then available to states for general school improvement—offering the flexibility that some detractors have said the law does not provide. 

We also thought it might be helpful if we reviewed a number of other cost studies 

of NCLB that many of you have received and which have concluded that NCLB is 

‘‘underfunded.’’ We looked carefully at studies by the New Hampshire School Administrators, the Democratic Congressional Study, the General Accounting Office, 

and other state studies of ‘‘educational adequacy.’’ In each case, we noted flaws or 

limitations that led to questionable conclusions. Some, for example, had relied on 

costly assumptions rather than more innovative approaches. Others had lumped in 

costs not associated with specific requirements under NCLB in determining the 

costs of compliance. In our cost study, we describe the flawed methodology or assumptions that have led to questionable conclusions. 

What do I hope you and your committee will take away from this cost study, Mr. 

Chairman? If anything, it’s the realization that the ‘‘unfunded mandate’’ argument 

is a straw man—a specter invoked by the status quo in hopes of frightening you 

into questioning your own commitment to not only the funding, but also the philosophy, of NCLB. 

Don’t be fooled, Mr. Chairman—the Congress and the administration have backed 

up their promises. Sufficient resources have been provided for states to implement 

the policies you’ve enacted. Funding is not the sole obstacle standing in the way of 

providing all students with the right to a quality education. The issues that plague 

education reform lie beyond dollar for dollar comparisons to larger questions about 

what works best for students—not the system. As a nation, we need to dismiss our 

allegiance to antiquated systems, welcoming new ideas and initiatives based on 

proven results for students. NCLB offers the right incentive and we can wait no 

longer to capitalize on its improvements. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.

Mr. HASTINGS. Ms. Keegan, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I have spent a great deal of my time since No Child Is Left Behind, particularly in the last 6 months, traveling around to school 

districts in my district and my district in Washington State is essentially a rural district, and in some cases, is a heavily minority 

population, a Hispanic population. One thing I hear from those administrators and teachers, I try to meet with all of them together, 

is a bit of frustration coming from the testing aspect. What I point 

out to them is in our State we have had a State test prior to No 

Child Left Behind. If there is an issue with the testing, the issue 

is with the State legislature. The Department here has adopted or 

allowed Washington State to adopt that as testing and they acknowledge that. So they are working with the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction on some of those tests. I think the legislature 

this year has made some modifications to bring it up to date. 

One other train of thought goes through those discussions I have 

had with those educators and that is that it has raised the level 

of accountability, not in a negative way but in fact everybody 

41

should work a bit harder, be a bit more focused because truly no 

child should be left behind. 

I suppose as with any new program, you are going to have those 

fits and starts and there will be some glitches. We will acknowledge those things and will probably have to address them. It wasn’t 

brought out but I was talking to Secretary Paige beforehand and 

he said they are working on some regulations to maybe modify 

some of the things. I think that is a normal reaction when you pass 

something as sweeping as what we did with No Child Left Behind. 

I appreciate your testimony. There is I guess just a little wariness, mainly because K–12 education has historically been the responsibility of the States and now all of a sudden the accountability aspect is coming from the Federal Government. I remember 

one school district that is heavily a minority. They said, we had 

this goal way beforehand that no child should be left behind, this 

just raised the issue. So I was very pleased to have heard that. 

If you would like to comment on anything I have said, that is 

fine. 

Ms. KEEGAN. If I may, Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate in our 

work with the U.S. Department, they have been incredibly flexible 

with States and have taken the State program. It is sort of a little 

repeated fact that standards are set by the States, the testing program is determined by the State, the pass rate is determined by 

the State. The State merely has an obligation to disclose all categories. I think we have all learned a lot. 

As data has come out, we are getting two sets of data, one according to Federal regulations sometimes and one according to the 

State. Our feeling is fine, just let that information come and at that 

point we will be able to sort it but without the information, we 

don’t know where these children are. So it is awkward in the first 

years. There is no question. It does put a great deal of stress on 

teachers and in schools. We do work on about 400 schools specifically on this issue of implementing No Child Left Behind. Those 

schools are trying very hard. It is a change in culture but it is the 

right one, but it will be difficult. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Spratt. 

Mr. SPRATT. I was interested in the group you represent. I can’t 

tell from the title if your organization if individual school districts 

or State superintendents of Education. Who are your constituents? 

Ms. KEEGAN. Our original organization was State Schools Chiefs 

and State Board Members. We also have people who are just interested generally in reform and we serve State board members, Governors offices, anybody who is interested in reform who contacts us, 

we work with them. 

Mr. SPRATT. The reason I am asking is that all of my school districts, and I have some very earnest, able educators in my district 

struggling mightily to make the educational system work and to 

make public education achieve its promise. All of them feel this 

whole No Child Left Behind program has been, as I said earlier, 

a gigantic bait and switch. They have been lured into it and many 

of them supported it because they are for accountability, they believe they need to be challenged to higher levels of achievement, 

but at the same time it was represented to them that they could 

42

work with these standards and two, there would be additional 

funding and the authorization levels of the bill that was signed 

with such a claim certainly would give one grounds for believing 

that more money was coming in return for more accountability. 

I am just curious as to why your constituents don’t apparently 

feel the same way. 

Ms. KEEGAN. There is a letter I would be happy to deliver to you 

from a number of superintendents around the country that was put 

out by the education trust, mostly minority superintendents saying 

that No Child Left Behind needed to be in place, that it was the 

right thing, that yes, it was difficult work but they thought it was 

the right work. 

Mr. SPRATT. I understand. My superintendents say the same 

thing but they also believe they were promised funding adequate 

to the new task and obligations imposed upon them. 

Ms. KEEGAN. I would love to try to help whoever contacted you 

or through us and ask them what the actual expenditure they are 

trying to make is and why the cost is exceeding the money that is 

available to them. We have done some of that work and would be 

happy to answer that question. 

Mr. SPRATT. OK. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Wicker. 

Mr. WICKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

for your testimony, Ms. Keegan. 

Let me see if we can follow up on some of the things the Secretary said earlier in his testimony. I asked these questions today 

in response to a meeting I had with one of my school superintendents just yesterday about the No Child Left Behind Act. 

The Secretary says the act is positive, it is not negative in terms 

of the report card that is required, that there is nothing in the report card about failing schools and yet, while acknowledging that, 

a superintendent that I spoke to yesterday said that it comes 

across in the newspaper as schools that have failed. I just wondered if you have a solution for us at the legislative level to that 

because I think in terms of the semantics, the Secretary is right 

and also the superintendents are right. When the message gets to 

the public, they hear that the school has failed when it may have 

passed with flying colors in many areas and only has room for specified improvement in a few areas. Could you comment on that? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I think you are right, that they are both right. It 

is difficult. How do you say well, the school succeeded but a portion 

of its students failed to make adequate yearly progress? Those two 

things can no longer sort of exist. What we have determined is that 

if groups of children are routinely failing in a school to make 

progress, they are failing to meet standards, then the school itself 

is determined to be in need of improvement. I believe that information by itself incentivizes people to action. I don’t know how you get 

people to change their behavior without pointing out that the behavior they have been engaging in is not sufficient. You don’t do 

that by congratulating somebody for it, so it is difficult. There is 

no question. Were there not that sort of public scrutiny, I don’t 

think you could expect much change. 

Mr. WICKER. So we will await a formal suggestion perhaps from 

your organization is you do have a suggestion about how we might 

43

address that legislatively. Perhaps there is no way to do it. I think 

you have certainly made a correct statement. 

Another thing the superintendent told me yesterday was that he 

was still very much interested in meeting the challenges of Goals 

2000, the first of which was that every child would report to the 

first grade ready to learn and that we have not gotten anywhere 

near that goal here in the year 2004. 

What does No Child Left Behind as an act say about that concept, whether we call it something else or not? What sort of job do 

you think we are doing nationally in making sure that every child 

reports to school ready to learn? 

Ms. KEEGAN. No Child Left Behind is geared, as you know, basically between grades three and eight. The larger act and other acts 

like the Head Start Program and so forth where we have begun to 

focus quite mightily on academic preparedness rather than some of 

the less academic pursuits that were going on in pre-school. I 

should say less academic preparation. 

Mr. WICKER. You are not saying, and I hate to interrupt but we 

are limited, that there was an abandonment though of that concept 

of getting to school ready to learn when we passed No Child Left 

Behind? 

Ms. KEEGAN. No, sir, not in the least. I believe the Head Start 

and the pre-school programs have been strengthened right along at 

the same time. What I was trying to say is that there has been an 

insistence now that those programs focus themselves on school 

readiness rather than just play or child care. That has happened 

at the same time and those investments have been made. I think 

those are appropriate. 

Mr. WICKER. How are we doing? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I would say it is harder to tell because we don’t 

routinely test children as they come into school and we don’t have 

that kind of data. I will tell you my biggest concern remains that 

in third grade the kids are looking fairly strong and they begin to 

drop off. So we can do as well as we want in pre-school but if we 

lose the kids between the third and the fifth grade and they start 

to go south, what you did to get them ready in pre-school will not 

matter. We have to continue to challenge them through the middle 

school years as well, middle school being our biggest academic 

dropoff in the country. 

Mr. WICKER. I would be very interested, Mr. Chairman, in receiving some information in writing from the witness as to any correlation between those who begin to drop off after the third grade and 

what sort of kindergarten and pre-kindergarten education those 

students have had. 

Ms. KEEGAN. The studies have been done. I will do that. 

Mr. WICKER. Thank you. Thank you for indulging me, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Keegan, I would like to see those studies too. I think that 

is a very critical area. 

We heard questions earlier on Pell grants. Have studies been 

done about whether or not a student from a low income family can 

44

reasonably be expected to attend college particularly a private college at this time, questions on affordability? I have seen studies 

that say half the low income students qualified to go to college 

can’t go because they can’t afford it. 

Ms. KEEGAN. I would have to look for that number since we deal 

primarily at K–12 but those are certainly available. I would be 

happy to get them to you. 

Mr. SCOTT. When we did No Child Left Behind, part of the challenge with annual, yearly progress was to deal with dropouts because if people drop out, they are presumably toward the bottom 

of the scale and would have the perverse effect of increasing your 

average if you had a high dropout rate. If you had a dropout prevention program keeping those students in school, it would make 

your average look worse. 

Can you tell me what your studies have shown about how we incorporate the dropout rate and avoid that kind of perverse incentive? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I can tell you that I know more about this personally than we as an organization just because we haven’t undertaken it. I think one of the most difficult things to deal with is that 

State funding systems ordinarily fund students through only a particular day, so they may have 180 academic days but they will stop 

funding after an account is made on the 100th day. That combined 

with high stakes assessment can in fact be a fairly lethal combination for somebody who is potentially going to drop out. It is an unfortunate fact that in many States you can count the huge increase 

in dropout programs that happens on about the 110th day meaning 

that the schools have allowed some kids to go ahead and drop out 

or suddenly encouraged them to drop out after they have been paid 

for the child that year. Those are simply, unfortunately facts of 

State school finance systems. I believe those incentives ought to be 

turned around. They could only be turned around by the State, 

however. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you reviewed the budget in terms of juvenile 

delinquency prevention programs? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I have not taken a review of that. 

Mr. SCOTT. We know it is important, as you have indicated, that 

children who cannot read by the third grade are on track to disaster. Have you reviewed the budget to determine what we have 

done to guarantee that children can read by the third grade? 

Ms. KEEGAN. The Congress, as part of No Child Left Behind and 

in the reading acts that have been such a strong part of that, I 

think are making every possible emphasis on reading for children. 

Most States have an initiative going on reading, many of them 

have those initiatives going prior to No Child Left Behind, has 

merely been strengthened and further investments made in those 

programs. 

Mr. SCOTT. It is my understanding that some reading programs 

have been increased but family literacy programs have been decreased almost in identical amount so that the overall focus on 

reading for early childhood is a net wash. Are you familiar with the 

budget numbers? 

45

Ms. KEEGAN. Not with that number. My understanding for reading first is that the numbers have continued to increase but I will 

go back and check them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Without getting into numbers, I think I understand 

your testimony to be that it is extremely important that we focus 

on children’s ability to read by the third grade? 

Ms. KEEGAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Has there been enough research to let people know 

how to educate children, particularly in urban areas? Urban areas 

and some rural areas have a very poor outcome. Comments have 

been made about the Washington, DC area. Has enough research 

been done so that we would know what methodologies work better 

than others or is more research needed? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I believe we know and I believe more research is 

always needed. We are in the business of educating kids and there 

are new technologies available all the time but I believe we know 

that one must have solid standards you are reaching for, a direct 

and explicit instruction to children, a diagnostic about how those 

children do, where they started, where they went after you taught 

them, then an intervention again and you complete that cycle over 

and over again. I think we do know and there have been studies 

repeatedly that have said with those specific activities, children 

will learn. It gets easier with a lot of the technology that is out 

there to do that. Unfortunately in many instances, we simply 

haven’t done it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Brown-Waite. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you for being here, Ms. Keegan. 

I was attending a budget meeting and that is why I wasn’t here 

to ask the questions and perhaps come up with some of the answers that Mr. Spratt was seeking. 

I am an educator. I teach college and I have so many students 

in college who are so incredibly behind on writing and critical 

thinking skills that it is pathetic. I have never believed that poverty was a reason for children not to learn. That is why initially 

I was very excited about the No Child Left Behind Act. 

I recently picked up a newspaper on a Sunday, February 8 and 

it says, ‘‘Quality of No Child Left Behind programs in question.’’ 

Let me just read a couple of things. ‘‘At a tae kwan do center in 

Morris County, eight children were bussed from Patterson. They 

practice martial arts, make pudding and play a game of telephone 

whisper down the line. Taxpayers are funding all of this. There is 

an untrained college student being paid $25 a hour. The Tae Kwan 

Do center gets $1,500 per Saturday session it runs. There is another program there that the instructor, a Karen Helmster, abandoned her tutoring plans. She said she substituted ‘‘more of an enrichment program exposing children to new topics to broaden their 

general knowledge.’’ Her lesson plan is based on teaching about the 

human body and the senses. Did the children come in knowing 

their body systems? No, she said. That is how we are going to judge 

the success of this program.’’

Mr. Spratt, I think we have found where the problem is and it 

is that many States have approved programs that really do not imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\HEARINGS\108TH\108-18\HBU042.000 RYAN PsN: RYAN
46

prove reading or writing skills of students. How do we correct 

things like this? I think the taxpayers do want to have adequate 

funding for No Child Left Behind but if we are wasting funding on 

programs like this that States approve, no wonder there is concern 

out there. 

Ms. KEEGAN. If that is what is going on, if that is correctly depicted in the paper, then clearly that is nobody’s intention and I 

don’t believe had anything to do with what No Child Left Behind 

was intended to do. However, one of the pieces of No Child Left Behind does add supplemental services. I have been in organizations 

that have done phenomenal work in calling families to let them 

know, your child is eligible for free tutoring, calling those families 

when a child doesn’t show up for their reading and math instruction in the afternoon, the huge phone banks of people working 

every afternoon to track down these kids and make sure they are 

in their afterschool program and their scores are going through the 

roof. That is why I believe you got behind No Child Left Behind 

and funded things like supplemental services and other things and 

when money goes into programs like that, not only does it hurt the 

kids because I dare say they don’t probably need whatever is going 

on there, it hurts the credibility of kids who are not in that program that are in programs where they are receiving fabulous instruction in reading and mathematics. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I couldn’t agree with you more but how do we 

address this issue so that the funding really goes for education? I 

don’t think No Child Left Behind means let us study your behind 

and other parts of your body. 

Ms. KEEGAN. That is difficult to answer. I am quite sure that is 

not what it meant. I believe that the requirements for data and for 

information about the success of programs that you put in the law 

are ultimately going to call out that kind of thing and it won’t be 

able to exist. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Just one more response. Time obviously is of 

the essence when the child is there, so weeding out these kinds of 

programs are no other than wasting money and are not educational. It has to be done. This article happens to concentrate on 

New Jersey. I am not picking on New Jersey, I am originally a 

neighbor from New York, but if this is going on, then shame on us 

for letting it. That is the point I was trying to make. 

I would be happy to give a copy to the committee staff if they 

want it. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Without objection, that will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The article referred to follow:]

ARTICLE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. BROWN-WAITE

QUALITY OF NO-CHILD-LEFT-BEHIND PROGRAMS IN QUESTION, 

By Maia Davis, The [Bergen County, N.J.] Record, Sunday February 8, 2004

FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR TUTORS 

HACKENSACK, N.J.—Five Passaic grade-school children stay after classes for 

special tutoring, but their instructor, a college sophomore, has not been trained as 

a teacher or a tutor. Busy helping three of the children with their math homework, 

he mostly ignores two others. At a tae kwon do center in Morris County, eight chilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\HEARINGS\108TH\108-18\HBU042.000 RYAN PsN: RYAN
47

dren who have been bused from Paterson, practice martial arts, make instant pudding and play a game of telephone, whispering a word down the line. This, too, is 

deemed tutoring. And in a third program, in Paterson, children in need of tutoring 

at one school are mixed in with others engaged in routine after-class activities. 

They get help with homework but little individualized academic guidance. Tax- payers are funding all of this. The untrained college student is being paid $25 an 

hour. The tae kwon do center gets $1,550 per Saturday session it runs. The afterschool program, which runs 7 months, takes in $1,164 a child. 

HELP FOR STRUGGLING SCHOOLS

Because of the No Child Left Behind Act, thousands of schools across the 

country with sagging test scores are being forced to offer tutors. Hundreds of businesses are rushing to fill the need, from established, well-regarded firms to newcomers without track records. Because the law discourages states from weeding out 

unknown candidates, early evidence indicates Federal tax dollars are being thrown 

at dubious enterprises. 

Under No Child Left Behind, schools that underperform three consecutive years 

must use Federal funds to pay for private tutors. The tutoring is intended to provide 

individual or small-group instruction in math and literacy. Poor schools were first 

to land on the ‘‘in need of improvement’’ lists, based on test scores. But the law extends to all schools, and in coming years, publicly funded tutors are certain to turn 

up in New Jersey’s suburban, middle-class schools as well. 

This year, warnings of subpar performance went out to hundreds of suburban 

schools, including traditionally high-ranked schools. Tutoring will be offered to lowincome, academically struggling students at any school that receives Federal poverty funding, as most schools do. The intention is to give needy children the same 

opportunities enjoyed by wealthier classmates whose parents can afford private tutoring. 

OVERWHELMING CHOICES

But with so many schools certain to need tutors, the market is wide open. And 

the law, rather than regulating the field to create a small pool of proven, qualified 

tutoring businesses, encourages states to set standards that embrace a variety of 

private, nonprofit and faith-based providers. In addition, the law gives parents the 

right to choose their children’s tutors, in much the same way that wealthier families 

can shop around. And it discourages teachers and principals from advising parents 

which programs they think are best. 

Christine Krenicki, an administrator in Passaic schools, said this is a bad idea. 

If local school officials could limit the number of programs offered to parents, she 

said, they could better monitor results. ‘‘There are too many choices for parents,’’ 

she said. The law’s tutoring requirement ‘‘was almost doomed to failure.’’

‘‘This is supposed to give parents some sovereignty,’’ countered Thomas Corwin, 

an associate deputy undersecretary for education in Washington. ‘‘These are parents 

who have kids enrolled in schools that haven’t been making adequate progress. You 

don’t just leave it to the district to make the decisions.’’

‘‘The parent is in the driver’s seat,’’ said Suzanne Ochse, who oversees federal 

poverty programs for the New Jersey Department of Education. With districts 

barred from steering parents toward specific tutors, parents have little to go on 

other than the list of approved programs seeking to serve their schools and, maybe, 

word of mouth. 

In Passaic, for example, where 700 children are eligible for tutoring, parents received a list of 33 vendors. Programs Fall Short One of them is Aspira New Jersey, 

a nonprofit social services agency that runs leadership development programs for 

Hispanic students and is venturing into tutoring. 

Most of Aspira’s tutors are certified teachers trying to earn extra money, said Tiffany Gonzalez, an Aspira administrator. But at least one escaped basic 

scrutiny: Anthony Lora, the college student tutoring the children in Passaic’s 

Schools, is only now in his second year of college and so lacks the minimal state 

qualification. 

Gonzalez said the agency coordinator who hired Lora ‘‘didn’t even realize he was 

a college student.’’ But at least Lora shows up. He replaced an Aspira tutor who 

was frequently absent, Gonzalez said. Larry Chenault, owner of the tae kwon do 

academy, gained state approval for his tutoring program, Learner’s Academy for 

Children, after promising it would teach arithmetic and language skills to struggling students. 

But when he learned how much he would be paid per student for the Paterson 

group, he calculated the $9,300 would cover only 6 weeks of instruction—even 

48

though other programs in Paterson and Passaic that receive the same per-student 

fee run from 10 weeks to an entire academic year. 

Realizing 6 weeks would not allow meaningful academic instruction—especially 

considering the children’s age span, from kindergarten to seventh grade—Karen 

Helmstetter abandoned her tutoring plans. She said she substituted ‘‘more of an enrichment program,’’ exposing children to new topics to broaden their general knowledge. 

Her lesson plan is based on teaching about the human body and the senses. ‘‘Did 

the children come in knowing about their body systems? No,’’ she said. ‘‘That’s how 

we’re going to judge the success of the program.’’ 

Helmstetter said she sprinkles lessons in math and reading into the activities. 

Ruben Estrella boasts that he’s learning division. Another newcomer to the Federal 

tutoring initiative is the Boys & Girls Club of Paterson. The club has long operated 

after-school programs that keep youngsters occupied as late as 8 p.m., a boon for 

working parents. It has 44 children enrolled in a 7-month tutoring program. About 

two dozen are bused to the club’s center, where they are tutored through educational computer games supervised by a certified teacher. They also get homework 

assistance and time to play in the club’s gym and game room. 

The remaining 20 students are spread among three public schools where the club 

runs regular after-school programs. All three offer homework help and recreation, 

and two of them provide the same computer-based instruction given at the center. 

But the third offers little tutoring. 

CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND

That’s at School 27, where the three students enrolled in the tutoring program 

typically sit among dozens of classmates doing homework at long tables. They are 

not regularly separated from the other students for individualized instruction, and 

they are not supervised by a certified teacher. 

‘‘I’m not happy with it,’’ said Peter Thornton, executive director of the club. ‘‘We’re 

going to fix it. We do a very good job at other places.’’

Thornton said the Boys & Girls Club’s after-school program serves 700 Paterson 

children daily and has a proven record of raising students’’ grades. When the opportunity arose to offer formal tutoring through No Child Left Behind, he said, it made 

sense to expand. 

How Thornton’s club improves instruction, whether groups such as Aspira properly train tutors or start-ups such as Chenault’s Learner’s Academy pass muster, 

and how the 100-odd other tutoring programs fare in coming years are matters for 

state oversight. 

‘‘The ultimate goal is student achievement,’’ said Ochse, of the state Department 

of Education. ‘‘We’re just going to do what we can to make it work.’’

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. I thank the Chairman. 

If I could call up a slide that Mr. Wicker showed earlier, I would 

appreciate it, the one that showed the change in reading scores 

with the change in Federal expenditures. I have talked with my 

good friend, Mr. Wicker, for whom I have great respect, but this 

particular slide I have to say I think is one of the most specious 

slides I have seen in a town that I have come to believe is known 

for specious slides. 

The reason is multiple but you have taken a developmental factor which is reading scores and admittedly, I couldn’t agree more 

that just throwing money at a problem is not the metric we should 

measure our success by but if you plotted any other developmental 

measure, you would see its developmental curve fairly flat because 

no matter how much money we spend on a program, we are not 

going to make our kids taller, there are some limits to how fast 

they can run and there will be some limits to how well they can 

read. 

Yet, as our population increases and as inflation takes effect, you 

will see Federal spending inexorably increase. So that graph, if we 

spend $1 trillion, is going to stay somewhat flat. I have to say it 

troubles me when our topic is education that we are not using critVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:21 Jun 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\HEARINGS\108TH\108-18\HBU042.000 RYAN PsN: RYAN
49

ical thinking skills and when our own Secretary of Education did 

not challenge the validity of the concepts presented in that graph, 

it is really troubling to me. 

Let me ask a separate question having gotten that off my chest. 

The question has to do with vocational education. I wonder if Ms. 

Keegan might offer us her insights into the importance of vocational education and if she is familiar? My understanding is the Association for Career and Technical Education and others have 

pointed out that in spite of the President’s rhetoric about jobs and 

in spite of the fact we have lost three million jobs under his watch, 

that we are actually proposing to eliminate or certainly significantly cut back one of the more important vocational education programs in the Perkins Program. I wonder if our expert would be interested in discussing that? 

Ms. KEEGAN. The issue for students who will go directly into 

work from high school has to be that they have the skills they need 

to go into those jobs. The studies that have been done that have 

tried to link what students need to go directly into work if they are 

not going to have the ability to go on to post secondary instruction 

indicates they need a higher percentage of mathematics, they must 

have Algebra II, pre-Trigonometry, they must have mathematics to 

a more significant degree in order to make a livable wage than students who are going to be able to do some more studying and unfortunately be able to remediate what they didn’t learn in high 

school. 

I believe that the more compelling truth for kids who are in a 

position to go straight to work from high school is that they must 

have the foundational skills available to them. I happen to also be 

a huge supporter of vocational education and think those things 

can support and in fact strengthen the mathematics study but I do 

think oftentimes they were used in substitute and rather than the 

core curriculum and simply can’t afford that or those children can’t 

afford that anymore. 

Mr. BAIRD. So you see merit in cutting Perkins funding? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I see huge merit in making sure that all students 

have sufficient preparation in everything they will need to get a 

job, including mathematics, good writing skills, and so forth. 

Mr. BAIRD. Let me ask a different question. Maybe I misunderstand but as I look at the assessment of yearly progress, we assess 

our schools and we look at certain cells and say our kids in that 

cell are failing or that cell itself is failing to meet standards. If 

even one cell is failing, then the entire school can be classified a 

failing cell and then parents can take their kids out of that school 

and move them to another location if it is available. 

Let me propose an alternative. Suppose my child is in a special 

education program and my child is not reaching the level of reading desired by all kids in his or her age range, if they are in a failing cell then I would be able to take my child and move them to 

another school which has demonstrated success in that cell but the 

kids who are not in that cell cannot leave necessarily to another 

school because their cells may be doing just fine. Is there a problem 

with that logic? Frankly I haven’t seen the charter schools and the 

voucher schools clamoring for special needs and multilingual kids. 

50

Ms. KEEGAN. The charter schools and any of the public voucher 

programs are required to take any kids who come. The issue you 

have suggested that perhaps only kids who are in a particular 

group of kids that are failing would be able to go to another school 

to me is a little bit tortured. The information is simply given to 

parents that the school is not making adequate progress, in fact 

has not done so for 3 years and you have a choice to go to another 

school. 

Mr. BAIRD. We are giving the parents a false impression. For all 

I know, my kid is in the calc class and is exceeding national standards but the parents are being told your school is failing. For those 

kids it may be succeeding greatly. Why not give more precise information and only allow the flexibility in the areas that are specified 

as not meeting standards? 

Ms. KEEGAN. You do have precise information, particularly if it 

is your child. You would know that your child was in calculus and 

making an ‘‘A’’ and doing fantastic. I think you would be happy 

with the school and wouldn’t be prone to leave. I would give more 

information and more choices and it probably would work out fine. 

Mr. BAIRD. Would you suggest the people in those failing cells 

could only be able to transfer to schools or programs where they 

have demonstrated success and efficacy in meeting standards in 

those same cells? 

Ms. KEEGAN. So far as parents moving their kids into another 

school that is deemed to be failing, I find it difficult to believe they 

would do that but no, I wouldn’t support simply saying you can 

only move into a cell where your child was failing. The designation 

is not sort of a sign to children. You would basically be blaming the 

lack of progress on a particular group of kids. You would have to 

call them out and say only these kids caused you to stay behind. 

I think that would not be a good way to handle that. 

Mr. BAIRD. I spent 23 years doing clinical psychology, I hold a 

doctorate in that and worked with some very, very severely disabled kids. To be perfectly honest, there are some kids who are just 

not going to meet standards. Does that mean the entire school is 

failing because those kids haven’t met those standards and therefore, we should open the doors to that school and grade everybody 

as having failed because a subset of kids through unfortunate natural circumstances can’t meet the standards? 

Ms. KEEGAN. No, I don’t believe that and I don’t believe that is 

what the adequate yearly progress provisions do. They say that a 

State gets to say what their standards are and what the performance standards will be, kids are tested according to the testing provisions for particular groups of kids. If a child is diagnosed with a 

significant disability, they are tested according to that disability, as 

you know, so they would be tested within their own capabilities, if 

you will. I don’t believe that is what is happening. I think that is 

a false portrayal. I do think as we move forward we will get better 

at gauging gain scores which I think ultimately are the best way 

to judge the quality of teaching, how far did you take a student, 

where did you start and where did you end up and we are getting 

better at that. It is impossible to do that in the absence of data 

every year for every child and until we have had that for a few 

years, I don’t think we will be very good at it. 

51

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Wicker wanted to have followup. 

Mr. WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly have a great deal of respect for Mr. Baird and when 

I hear that he is a clinical psychologist, that respect increases. I 

am a lawyer by training and they teach you not to ask a question 

that you don’t know the answer to but I am going to do that. I am 

going to ask that chart No. 6 be put back up there. Ms. Keegan, 

you come to us with a good deal of educational expertise and you 

represent a group that has a good deal of expertise in this area. 

My question is going to be do you think this is a specious chart 

or not? We don’t have programs intended to make our students 

taller or run faster but we do expect that our funding in elementary and secondary education improve reading scores and math 

scores. So I think those are different things to look at. It just seems 

to me that if what Mr. Baird says is entirely correct, then we ought 

to quit trying to spend money to improve math and reading scores 

because there is just no hope in doing much to improve them. 

I will give you an opportunity to comment on this chart. It compares increased spending on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act funding which I think we can agree is substantial to a 

rather flat line in terms of improvement in reading scores and I 

wonder if you could comment on the chart. Do we need to take that 

down as a specious chart? And comment also on the question I 

asked earlier of the Secretary concerning the vast amounts of increased expenditure as compared to a lack of increase in achievement on the scores? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I don’t consider that specious at all. I don’t believe 

that reading ability is as natural a growth pattern as getting tall. 

Unfortunately, reading takes an explicit instruction. Reading requires that somebody sit down with you and show you how to do 

it. You don’t naturally learn to read like you naturally learn to 

talk. Unfortunately there is some confusion about that out there. 

That line means we have not managed to improve the level of 

reading for the kids in the country over that number of years in 

spite of a great deal of additional funding. I would suggest that 

funding was not properly applied to reading instruction or you 

would have seen that line go up. The point is you have to pay for 

something that matters. What would have mattered to those kids 

would have been a teacher expert in reading instruction. 

Mr. WICKER. Can we put up chart No. 5 just to give you the opportunity to see what has happened with regard to math scores. 

They had some moderate improvement early on, about a decade 

ago, but sort of flatlined also in light of a huge amount of increased 

spending. 

Ms. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Wicker, that is right. 

You can see that it goes up and when you pull it out into individual, all of the 50 States, for example, you will see a bit more 

of an angle in those States where you are beginning to get a little 

bit of a difference or you have had a difference. Fortunately, some 

of those numbers are beginning to move and there will never be—

at least I have never seen it—there is not a direct line correlation 

between increased funding and increased achievement. Those numbers just seem not to track each other at all, at least in the environment where there is a minimum amount of money. 

52

What happens on a chart like this is that line, the fact it is showing flat, is actually very demonstrative of all 50 States and the fact 

that we can’t see statistically significant improvement even in an 

environment where increasing investments are being made. What 

it says to me as an educator is that the money is not being applied 

to the right areas. 

Mr. WICKER. Are there places, are there school districts where 

that achievement line has gone up? 

Ms. KEEGAN. Oh, of course, fabulous. If I didn’t see that in places 

where it was highly unlikely because the kids are all poor and you 

are getting outstanding increases in achievement and lines that go 

right off the page, I would just give up. I would say, this must be 

naturally that is the way the kids are. It is not the kids. 

Mr. WICKER. Thank you. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up? 

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. BAIRD. Ms. Keegan, would you believe that it is appropriate 

if we are really looking at the dollar to not adjust that chart as per 

capita spending versus raw dollars? Let me ask it this way. If the 

population of our country increases, would you expect a commensurate increase in reading performance merely because we have more 

people? 

Ms. KEEGAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Baird, no, not necessarily, not 

under the same circumstances. 

Mr. BAIRD. I wouldn’t think so. Then is it not at least minimally 

appropriate to adjust this chart in terms of per capita expenditure 

rather than raw dollar expenditures? 

Ms. KEEGAN. Not necessarily. You are just looking at a score on 

how the kid did, whether there was a difference. 

Mr. BAIRD. I think you are making the point that we spent more 

money. I think we have a real problem in education. I think we 

have a severe problem. I think it is evidenced by the use of this 

chart. As a very minimum, the metric should be how much we are 

spending per student. I would agree that we could spend a lot more 

per student and not necessarily see that line go up but I think it 

is a raw minimum and in intellectual integrity you have to say let 

us adjust that thing for per capita expenditure. 

The second question I would ask is do you happen to have off the 

top of your head the mean and standard deviation for the NAEP 

scores? 

Ms. KEEGAN. You would be shocked to know I don’t have that 

number in my head. 

Mr. BAIRD. Do you think as a statistician there would be some 

merit in understanding what the potential magnitude of the gains 

are on the instrument itself? In other words, what is a reasonable 

increase? You spoke of large increases that have been seen. I would 

kind of like to know what the mean and the standard deviation are 

so that I know what opportunity there is for that red line to increase given the metric of the instrument we are using here? 

Ms. KEEGAN. It might help you understand the chart a bit better. 

The reason you don’t need a per pupil expenditure dollar there is 

it is just shown in constant dollars all the way across, there never 

was a point at which it was per pupil. If it was per pupil at one 

53

point and they switched it, that would be specious but just constant. 

Mr. BAIRD. No, it is probably reversed, Ms. Keegan. It is quite 

the reverse. The average expenditure per pupil would be a factor 

of the total spending divided by the number of pupils. So you would 

expect and increase as our population increases in the blue graph. 

You would expect that. That has to happen, but we haven’t adjusted that blue graph in terms of per capita expenditure and that 

is the metric in terms of how much support is getting to kids. Secondly, there are limits. You are absolutely correct, we don’t necessarily have programs to make kids grow taller and we need better reading programs. Nobody disputes it but would you dispute as 

an educational expert that there are some finite parameters within 

which we can expect kids to improve their reading or math scores 

as a function of the development levels? 

Ms. KEEGAN. I think that those limits are so irrelevant right now 

as to not even be worth talking about because we are so far below 

them. 

Mr. BAIRD. What on this NAEP would you consider as valid and 

probable, reasonably probable, assuming the best optimal expenditure of funds, what kind of level would we expect to see in the 

NAEP scores? I recognize, Ms. Keegan, you didn’t present this 

graph, so I am being a little unfair to you but I worry when in a 

discussion of educational standards, we don’t use our best intellectual analysis of the data because I think it is somewhat inconsistent. I don’t expect you to have off the top of your head, nor do 

I, frankly, the NAEP scores but I would say that this chart to be 

meaningly interpreted, you need to know some sense, we all need 

to know, what a reasonable standard is and what kind of fluctuation we would expect to get. In other words, what percentage of the 

kids already, the very top kids, how high can they get on this test? 

Let us suppose you have the very best kid, the best genetics, the 

brightest school and the best teaching, how high can they go and 

where could that graph go if we got all our kids there? 

Ms. KEEGAN. That is right, you can make a much richer graph 

there but the fact of the matter is that red line is a statistical creation of kids. No one student takes all of the math questions at 

grade nine, it is a compilation. So there would be no reason for you 

to want to do that. The score line doesn’t relate to individual students and therefore, I don’t think the expenditure actually would 

reasonably relate to individual students. They are not necessarily 

the same thing. You can change the line. I think the point it makes 

is that there have been huge increases in funding, relatively flat 

scores, and you could improve that by putting an upper line at the 

point at which you would be meeting even basic standards. That 

would be helpful but it wouldn’t lower it. 

Mr. BAIRD. I appreciate the opportunity to raise this issue. I appreciate Mr. Wicker’s efforts. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much. 

I don’t want to put motivations behind what people are asking 

but clearly the tone of this budget hearing, which is focusing on 

trying to build a blueprint for education spending, was focused on 

dollars. Secretary Paige I thought very clearly said that is not the 

only way you measure education. Thus we have charts on both 

54

sides. Maybe this discussion would help us not have some of those 

charts that are clearly here for maybe reasons beyond what we feel 

ought to be doing as policymakers but being a realist, I doubt that 

will happen. 

With that, Ms. Keegan, I want to thank you very, very much for 

your testimony. I appreciate the give and take here. That was educational. No pun intended. 

Thank you very much and the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

Æ