U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

54–738 PDF 2010

BUILDING A STRONGER ECONOMY: 

SPURRING REFORM AND INNOVATION 

IN AMERICAN EDUCATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 3, 2010 

Serial No. 111–48 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

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

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

Judy Chu, California 

John Kline, Minnesota, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 3, 2010 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Pennsylvania, prepared statement of .......................................................... 42 

Kline, Hon. John, Senior Republican Member, Committee on Education 

and Labor ...................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor ......... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 42 

Statement of Witness: 

Duncan, Hon. Arne, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education ................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Responses to questions submitted ........................................................... 49 

(1) 

BUILDING A STRONGER ECONOMY: 

SPURRING REFORM AND INNOVATION 

IN AMERICAN EDUCATION 

Wednesday, March 3, 2010 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Andrews, Scott, 

Woolsey, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, 

Bishop of New York, Loebsack, Hirono, Hare, Clarke, Courtney, 

Shea-Porter, Fudge, Polis, Pierluisi, Sablan, Titus, Chu, Kline, 

Petri, McKeon, Castle, Souder, Biggert, Guthrie, Cassidy, Hunter, 

Roe and Thompson. 

Staff Present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; Jeff Appel, Senior 

Education Policy Advisor/Investigator; Andra Belknap, Press Assistant; Calla Brown, Staff Assistant, Education; Jody Calemine, 

General Counsel; Jamie Fasteau, Senior Education Policy Advisor; 

Denise Forte, Director of Education Policy; Ruth Friedman, Senior 

Education Policy Advisor; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; 

Fred Jones, Junior Legislative Associate, Education; Sharon Lewis, 

Senior Disability Policy Advisor; Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; Charmaine Mercer, 

Senior Education Policy Advisor; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; 

Lillian Pace, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Kristina Peterson, Legislative 

Fellow, Education; Rachel Racusen, Communications Director; 

Julie Radocchia, Senior Education Policy Advisor; Alexandria Ruiz, 

Administrative Assistant to Director of Education Policy; Melissa 

Salmanowitz, Press Secretary; Ajita Talwalker, Education Policy 

Advisor; Dray Thorne, Senior Systems Administrator; Mark 

Zuckerman, Staff Director; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative 

Assistant; James Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education 

and Human Services Policy; Kirk Boyle, Minority General Counsel; 

Casey Buboltz, Minority Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Allison Dembeck, Minority Professional Staff Member; Amy 

Raaf Jones, Minority Higher Education Counsel and Senior Advisor; Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director; Alexa Marrero, Minority 

Communications Director; Susan Ross, Minority Director of Edu-
2 

cation and Human Services Policy; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority 

Education Policy Counsel; and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief 

Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairman MILLER. A quorum being present, the committee will 

come to order. 

This morning we will be conducting a committee meeting so that 

members of the committee can have a conversation with the Secretary, and the Secretary can present his views and goals for the 

Department. 

And, Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you to the committee and 

thank you for joining us. This is your second appearance before this 

committee. Last May you came and gave us an overview of President Obama’s education agenda from cradle to career. You discussed the administration’s unprecedented commitment to 

incentivizing education reforms through the Race to the Top program. You told us about the administration’s 2010 budget which 

proposed groundbreaking initiatives to improve early education, 

college access and completion. 

Under your direction the Department of Education since has 

made tremendous progress in these goals. The Recovery Act funded 

300,000 education jobs, supporting teachers, librarians, and counselors. The carrot approach of Race to the Top has already proven 

to be a catalyst for change. Forty States and the District of Columbia have applied to compete by focusing on data-driven reforms 

that will strengthen the quality of teachers, standards, assessments, and help turn around struggling schools. We will hear more 

about this from you today. 

Last fall with your help and support, the House passed President 

Obama’s proposal to originate all new Federal student loans 

through the reliable, cost-effective Direct Loan Program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this will save about $87 billion over 10 years. We will use these savings to raise the bar for 

early learning, transform community colleges, modernize schools 

and make historic investments in student aid. Many colleges are 

already taking steps to offer Direct Loans to better protect students 

from the shaky credit markets. We hope that the Senate will soon 

take the decisive action on behalf of millions of families by voting 

to make college affordable and invest in students and taxpayers instead of the banks. If Congress wants to show we are serious about 

changing Washington, this bill is a great place to start. 

Today you are here to tell us about how you and we can build 

a stronger economy by providing our students with the knowledge 

and skills they need to compete globally. For the second year in a 

row, President Obama’s budget reflects the innovative vision for 

education. It requests $4.5 billion increase over last year for the 

Department of Education and $2.5 billion increase for early education in Health and Human Services, a signal of his belief that the 

stronger the education is vital to student success down the road. 

It calls for fixing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 

currently known as No Child Left Behind, and sets aside a billion 

dollars if Congress reaches that goal. It calls for Congress to enact 

the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. 

And, Mr. Secretary, as you have said so many times to this committee, we need to educate our way to a better economy. I think 
3 

these proposals help us achieve that goal. However, too many of 

our students are not reaching their full academic potential through 

no fault of their own. They are not being taught to the same rigorous standards as their international peers. They also aren’t getting a strong foundation in math, science and other innovative 

fields. College Presidents tell us that high school graduates aren’t 

ready for college, and business leaders and CEOs tell us they can’t 

find workers who are trained for the jobs for the future. 

It is time to finally do something about the education crisis in 

this country that impacts our competitiveness and our position as 

the leader in the global economy. President Obama has set a critical goal for producing the most college graduates in the world by 

2020. To get there we will need to reform ESEA so that it fulfills 

the promise of an excellent education for every student that prepares them for the rigors of college and good jobs. 

In recent years a seismic shift has been happening in our schools 

and in our conversation about education. There is now a willingness to consider ideas just a few years ago that were controversial, 

such as performance pay. There is now an understanding that you 

can give States and districts the room to innovate without watering 

down accountability or standards. 

Several weeks ago we announced that we are moving forward 

with a bipartisan and open and transparent effort to overhaul our 

Nation’s education laws. We will seek input from all stakeholders 

who share our serious interest in improving our schools. And we 

will look to you throughout this process, Mr. Secretary. You have 

already shown tremendous leadership, and you have revitalized the 

Department. You have established that the status quo is no longer 

acceptable. We look forward to continuing working with you to ensure top-notch education and all of the opportunities it promises for 

every student in America. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Good morning. 

Secretary Duncan, thank you for joining us for your second appearance before this 

Committee. 

Last May, you gave us an overview of President Obama’s education agenda, from 

cradle to career. 

You discussed the administration’s unprecedented commitment to incentivizing 

education reforms through the Race to the Top program. 

You told us about the administration’s 2010 budget, which proposed 

groundbreaking initiatives to improve early education and college access and completion. 

Under your direction, the Department of Education has since made tremendous 

progress on those goals. 

The Recovery Act funded 300,000 education jobs, supporting teachers, librarians 

and counselors. 

The carrot approach of Race to the Top is already proving to be a catalyst for 

change. 

Forty states and the District of Columbia have applied to compete by focusing on 

data-driven reforms that will strengthen the quality of teachers, standards, assessments and help turn around struggling schools. 

We’ll hear more about this progress today. 

And last fall, with your help and support, the House passed President Obama’s 

proposal to originate all new federal student loans through the reliable and costeffective Direct Loan program. 
4 

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this will save $87 billion over 10 

years. 

We will use these savings to raise the bar for early learning, transform community colleges, modernize schools, and make historic investments in student aid. 

Many colleges are already taking steps to offer Direct Loans to better protect students from shaky credit markets. 

We hope the Senate will soon take decisive action on behalf of millions of families 

by voting to make college more affordable and invest in students and taxpayers— 

instead of banks. 

If Congress wants to show we’re serious about changing Washington, this bill is 

a great place to start. 

Today you are here to tell us how you—and we—can build a stronger economy 

by providing our students with the knowledge and skills they need to compete globally. 

For the second year in a row, President Obama’s budget reflects his innovative 

vision for education. 

It requests a $4.5 billion increase over last year in the Department of Education 

and a $2.5 billion increase for early education at Health and Human Services, a signal of his belief that a strong early education is vital to student success down the 

road. 

It calls for fixing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, currently known 

as No Child Left Behind, and sets aside $1 billion if Congress reaches that goal. 

It calls for Congress to enact the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. Mr. Secretary, you have frequently said that we need to ‘‘educate our way to a better economy.’’ 

Across the political spectrum, I think we all agree. Too many of our students are 

not reaching their full academic potential, through no fault of their own. 

They are not being taught to the same rigorous standards as their international 

peers. They also aren’t getting a strong foundation in math, science and other innovative fields. College presidents tell us high school graduates aren’t ready for college. Business leaders and CEOs tell us they can’t find workers who are trained for 

the jobs of the future. 

It’s time to finally do something about the education crisis in this country that 

impacts our competitiveness and our position as a leader in a global economy. President Obama has set a critical goal of producing the most college graduates in the 

world by 2020. To get there, we will need to reform ESEA so that it fulfills its promise of an excellent education for every student that prepares them for the rigors of 

college and good jobs. 

In recent years, a seismic shift has been happening in our schools and in our conversations about education. There is now willingness to consider ideas that just a 

few years ago were controversial—such as performance pay. 

There is now an understanding that you can give states and districts the room 

to innovate without watering down accountability or standards. Several weeks ago, 

we announced that we’re moving forward with a bipartisan, open and transparent 

effort to overhaul our nation’s education laws. 

We will seek input from all stakeholders who share our serious interest in improving our schools. And we’ll look to you throughout the process, Mr. Secretary. You’ve 

already shown us tremendous leadership and you’ve revitalized the Department. 

You’ve established that the status quo is no longer acceptable. 

We look forward to continue working with you to ensure a top-notch education— 

and all of the opportunities it promises—for every student in America. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. With that I would now like to recognize the 

senior Republican on the committee Congressman Kline for purposes of an opening statement. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today. 

I notice that we have an extremely limited amount of time with 

the Secretary today, so I am going to limit my remarks so others 

will have a chance to ask questions as we go through the day. 

Secretary Duncan came to Washington billed as a reformer, and 

I believe he has lived up to that reputation. In particular, his willingness to stand up to the unions and old ways of doing business 

has been a refreshing change. 
5 

There are policies on which I agree with Secretary Duncan, and 

that gives me hope for a bipartisan approach to education reform. 

For example, the Secretary understands high-performing charter 

schools are critical in expanding options for parents and students. 

He also understands that we need to reward the best teachers and 

remove ineffective teachers from the classroom. These issues will 

play a big role in the discussion when it comes time for Congress 

to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

But there are other issues we will have to address in which 

agreement may not be quite so easy. Members and staff in both the 

House and Senate have been meeting with the Secretary these last 

several weeks in preparation for the eventual overhaul of ESEA. To 

help guide that process, Republicans recently released a series of 

principle reforms. Briefly, those are restoring local control, empowering parents, letting teachers teach and protecting taxpayers. 

The Secretary has talked about how innovation comes from the 

ground up. I agree with that sentiment, which is why I am troubled by recent proposals that indicate a more heavy-handed Federal approach. For example, the idea that academic standards 

would have to be federally approved either through participation in 

a government-sanctioned set of common standards or direct consent 

by an unnamed Federal entity looks to many of us like national 

standards. 

Federal law prohibits involvement of the U.S. Department of 

Education in school curriculum. This is not a question of semantics. 

Putting the FederalGovernment in charge of what is taught and 

tested in the classroom would be a radical departure from this 

country’s approach to education. So, Mr. Secretary, that is an issue 

we will need to discuss. 

The same heavy-handed approach can be seen in the recent higher education negotiated rulemaking, particularly when it comes to 

the proposals for schools, especially those in the proprietary sector, 

to demonstrate that their graduates have achieved, quote, ‘‘gainful 

employment.’’ My concerns with that process are too numerous to 

detail here, but it is certainly an issue we will need to address in 

another forum. 

Before I conclude, I would be remiss if I did not address the Department’s budget proposal for 2011. Anyone who knows me knows 

about my concerns about IDEA funding. Mr. Secretary, you recall 

the very first time we met, I raised this concern. And I have to tell 

you, I am deeply, deeply disappointed with the IDEA funding in 

this budget. I am confident we will have a chance to explore that 

later this morning. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary. We have lots of work 

to do together, and I look forward to hearing from you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Senior Republican Member, 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Thank you Chairman Miller, and thank you Mr. Secretary for joining us. We have 

an extremely limited amount of time with the Secretary to cover a number of pressing topics, so I will keep my remarks brief. 
6 

Secretary Duncan came to Washington billed as a reformer, and I believe he has 

lived up to that reputation. In particular, his willingness to stand up to the unions 

and the old ways of doing business has been a refreshing change. 

There are policies on which I agree with Secretary Duncan, and that gives me 

hope for a bipartisan approach to education reform. For example, the Secretary understands high-performing charter schools are critical in expanding options for parents and students. He also understands that we need to reward the best teachers 

and remove ineffective teachers from the classroom. 

These issues will play a big role in the discussion when it comes time for Congress 

to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But there are other 

issues we’ll have to address, on which agreement may not be quite so easy. 

Members and staff in both the House and Senate have been meeting with the Secretary these last several weeks in preparation for the eventual overhaul of ESEA. 

To help guide that process, Republicans recently released a series of principles for 

reform. Briefly, those are: 1) Restoring Local Control; 2) Empowering Parents; 3) 

Letting Teachers Teach; and 4) Protecting Taxpayers. 

The Secretary has talked about how innovation comes from the ground up. I agree 

with that sentiment, which is why I am troubled by recent proposals that indicate 

a more heavy-handed federal approach. For example, the idea that academic standards would have to be federally approved—either through participation in a government sanctioned set of common standards or direct consent by an unnamed federal 

entity—looks to many of us like national standards. 

Federal law prohibits involvement of the U.S. Department of Education in school 

curriculum. This is not a question of semantics. Putting the federal government in 

charge of what is taught and tested in the classroom would be a radical departure 

from this country’s approach to education, so Mr. Secretary, that’s an issue we’ll 

need to discuss. 

This same heavy-handed approach can be seen in the recent higher education negotiated rulemaking, particularly when it comes to the proposals for schools, especially those in the proprietary sector, to demonstrate that their graduates have 

achieved ‘‘gainful employment.’’ My concerns with that process are too numerous to 

detail here, but it’s certainly an issue we’ll need to address in another forum. 

Before I conclude, I would be remiss if I did not address the Department’s budget 

proposal for FY 2011. Anyone who knows me knows that my first priority in the 

education budget is to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

For 35 years, the federal government has failed to live up to this obligation to 

states and schools. Year after year, we find room in the budget for new programs 

and new mandates. Some of these are good ideas—others are not. But from my perspective, we should not be funding any new programs or initiatives until we’ve fully 

funded the obligations already on the books. 

The $250 million increase for IDEA provided in this year’s budget is, quite frankly, an outrage. For all the time this Administration has spent touting the significant 

education spending increases provided in a supposedly austere budget, the pittance 

provided for special education is unacceptable. We can simply do better for our 

states and schools. 

Thank you for being here Mr. Secretary, we have lots of work to do together and 

I look forward to hearing from you. I yield back. 

Chairman MILLER. I thank the gentleman, and I would like to 

take a moment to introduce Arne Duncan. He doesn’t need an introduction to this committee, but for the public, Secretary Duncan 

was nominated to be Secretary of Education by President Obama. 

Prior to that appointment as Secretary of Education, Secretary 

Duncan served as the chief executive officer of the Chicago Public 

Schools and became the longest-serving big-city education superintendent in the country. As CEO, Secretary Duncan raised education standards and performance, improved teacher and principal 

quality, and increased learning options. 

Secretary Duncan has 71⁄2 years tenure. He united education reformers, teachers, principals and the business stakeholders, behind 

an aggressive education reform agenda. As Secretary of Education 

he spearheaded major education reforms, including the Race to the 

Top program and Investing in Innovation Fund. I know I am not 
7 

alone in saying that he has done a tremendous amount in just his 

first year to improve the educational opportunities for children 

across the country. 

We welcome you, Mr. Secretary, to the committee, and thank you 

for giving us your time, your expertise and this report to the Education and Labor Committee. 

One moment before you start, I would like to recognize, as privilege of the Chair, the chancellor of our California State University 

system Charles Reed, Chancellor Reed behind you. 

Thank you, Charlie, for being here. 

Mr. Secretary, you are recognized. As you know, we will give you 

5 minutes. Because you are the Secretary, if you take a couple 

extra minutes, we want you to be coherent and impart the information you think is important to the members of this committee. 

Thank you, and welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak today, and thank you for the extraordinary leadership and commitment you have shown around education. 

As you know, I submitted written testimony outlining our 2011 

budget request, which is built around three core areas: college and 

career ready standards developed not by us, but by States at the 

local level; supporting and rewarding excellence in the classroom, 

and excellence in educational leadership; and carving out a smarter, more targeted Federal role to give States and districts as much 

flexibility as possible while ensuring as much accountability as possible. 

At the same time we are working with members of this committee and your colleagues in the Senate in a bipartisan way to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And I am 

deeply grateful for your support and hard work. 

As we continue that process, and, again, I love the sense of bipartisan commitment, there are a couple of themes that are important 

to me. First of all, focusing much more on growth and gain; how 

much are students improving each year, year to year. Are we improving graduation rates? That is hugely important. 

Having high standards, not dummying down things due to political pressure, but really making sure that our students around the 

country truly are college and career ready is very important. 

Making sure there is that flexibility at the local level. We can’t 

begin to, nor do we want to micromanage, 100,000 schools from 

Washington. The best ideas will always come at the local level, and 

we want to continue to support that. 

Fourth, we have to continue to reward excellence. Great teachers, 

great principals, schools, school districts, States make a huge difference in students lives. Under the previous law there are numerous ways to fail, but very few rewards for success. We want to 

change that. 

And then finally, for those schools, not the 99 percent of schools, 

but that 1 percent of schools at the bottom, however you want to 

define it, where things simply are not working for children, we 
8 

want to be clear that the status quo can’t continue, that we have 

to get better. 

I am happy to take any questions about our 2011 budget request 

and our broader ESEA reauthorization agenda. I would like to use 

my opening remarks today to talk about our teacher quality agenda. 

Teachers and principals are the real game changers in education 

reform. The men and women working in schools and classrooms are 

making a difference in the lives of children every single day. We 

must support them, empower them and invest to strengthen and 

elevate the teaching profession. Great teachers and principals are 

absolute heroes, helping students accomplish dreams that the students themselves may have thought unattainable. That is why our 

2011 budget seeks $3.9 billion to improve teacher quality. This is 

an increase of $350 million, or 10 percent. Most of that money, $2.5 

billion, will be distributed by formula as it always has been; however, we will push States and districts to invest this formula money 

more effectively on school-based professional development that provides teachers and leaders with the real support they need to succeed; on evaluation systems that recognize great teachers and give 

teachers useful real-time feedback on how to improve; and on supporting collaborative work so that teachers can work together and 

improve their practice. 

We want more money used to give great teachers and to keep 

them in high-need schools through better development and mentoring as well as incentive pay. About $950 million in our budget 

request will go out competitively to support innovative ways of 

boosting teacher and principal quality. Folded into this bucket is 

the Teacher Incentive Fund that districts use for pay-for-performance programs, innovative programs developed at the local level 

that have both management and union support. Dozens of such 

programs are operating successfully today in school districts 

around the country. 

Lastly, about $400 million will support high-quality preparation 

programs for teachers and leaders who want to work in high-need 

schools. We want to get the best from all backgrounds into the 

classroom, from midcareer professionals to college graduates, to 

military veterans. Getting and, more importantly, keeping great 

teachers and principals at high-need schools is also at the heart of 

our Turnaround program. And I want to take a few minutes to 

walk through that with you. 

As you know, school improvement grants are funded through the 

Title I program. The dollars are distributed to States by formula 

and competed out to districts. Between the Recovery Act and our 

last two budgets, we have $4 billion for turning around our Nation’s low-performing schools. This money targets the bottom 5 percent of schools, roughly 5,000 schools nationwide, including 2,000 

high schools that by themselves produces about half of our Nation’s 

dropouts. 

These schools are struggling academically, and the children and 

the community need better. Under our regulations districts that 

want to compete for a share of this $4 billion in Turnaround money 

have four options. They can replace the principal, but keep the 

teachers and improve the school through professional development, 
9 

strengthening the instructional program, and extended learning 

time and other strategies. Districts can close the school and hire 

a new principal who can hire back up to half of those teachers. Districts can also close the school and reopen under new governance, 

or they can simply close the school and send children to a better 

school elsewhere, which is most likely to happen in big districts 

where enrollment is declining. 

Turnaround programs are currently under way all across the 

country, in Charlotte, North Carolina; Delaware; New York; Colorado; Louisiana; Boston; Chicago; Philadelphia; Los Angeles; South 

Carolina; and Cincinnati. In many cases they work with existing 

staff; in others, a high percentage of staff is replaced. We encourage both bold approaches and a collaboration among unions, parents and administrators. 

Working at low-performing schools is extraordinarily hard work. 

It takes talented, committed staff willing to do whatever it takes 

to help those children be successful. You need great leadership, effective supports and more time for learning. We support all of that. 

These will always be local decisions, not Federal decisions. We 

can’t make these decisions in Washington, and they must be made 

at the local level. And we encourage adults at the local level to collaborate and work together to do what is best for children. 

As hard as this work is, it is also critically important. And for 

all the challenges, I have never been more optimistic. Across this 

country, Mr. Chairman, we have never had more high-performing, 

high-priority schools than we do today. We know what is possible. 

We have to take to scale what works and make those shining examples not the exception, but the norm. 

Before we get to questions, I want to make a few points about 

our budget request. First of all, there is still some confusion about 

competitive versus formula funding. We are absolutely committed 

to continuing the formula funding in programs like Title I and 

IDEA, as well as programs serving English language learners, 

homeless children, migrant and rural students. Every State faces 

educational challenges with special populations, and we would 

never put those children at risk. At the same time, every State 

needs to get better, and as Race to the Top has demonstrated, a 

little bit of competitive funding can eliminate barriers to collaboration and reform. 

I also want to make a few points about efficiency in our budget 

request. We have eliminated earmarks and cut programs that were 

duplicative or ineffective, saving hundreds of millions of dollars. 

We have also consolidated a number of programs to reduce red tape 

for schools and districts seeking grant funds. We want them spending their time not on paperwork and bureaucracy dealing with us, 

but on working with their students. 

Looking ahead we still have money from the Recovery Act to distribute, including through Race to the Top and the Investment in 

Innovation Fund. We have approximately $11 billion in special 

education and Title I funding to distribute. We have billions more 

in Pell grants, and we have several billion dollars left in the State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund which will also go out in the months 

ahead. However, I am deeply concerned about States’ funding 

shortfalls in the upcoming school year, and I am very hopeful that 
10 

we can do something to help States avert an education catastrophe 

that would sacrifice vital education programs. 

We also need the Senate to consider the proposal that passed the 

House to eliminate banker subsidies and shift to direct lending, because our early learning and higher education agenda depends on 

that. 

There is much more I would like to talk about, but let me stop 

there and take your questions. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

[The statement of Secretary Duncan follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Education 

CHAIRMAN MILLER, RANKING MEMBER KLINE AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: Thank you for this opportunity to come before this Committee and talk about improving education in America. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Miller, as well 

as other Members of the Committee, for your extraordinary leadership over the past 

year on behalf of American students and their families. It was just over a year ago 

that Congress and President Obama worked together to complete the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). This legislation will deliver nearly $100 billion to Recovery Act recipients, including States and school districts, to help address budget shortfalls in the midst of the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

college by increasing federal student aid. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

States also are demonstrating the progress they have made toward implementing 

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

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

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

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

awards, both for States and for a new school district-level competition—and we 

greatly appreciated your statement of support for that initiative, Mr. Chairman. The 

2011 budget request also includes $500 million for the Investing in Innovation (i3) 

program. 

This Committee also developed and helped to win House passage of the Student 

Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA), which would make much-needed reforms 

to Federal postsecondary student aid programs that would enable us to make key 

investments in education by redirecting the tens of billions of dollars that otherwise 

would be spent on unnecessary subsidies to lenders over the next decade. These investments include expanding student aid though a more generous Pell Grant program and low-cost student loans, preparing students and workers for 21st Century 

jobs to increase our social well-being and economic prosperity, including through 
11 

President Obama’s American Graduation Initiative, and helping more low-income 

children enter school with the skills they need to succeed through the President’s 

Early Learning Challenge Fund. SAFRA also includes important investments in 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority-serving institutions. We 

share your commitment to this important legislation, which is strongly supported 

by the 2011 budget, and are working to win Senate approval for it as soon as possible. 

Once again, thank you for your achievements during the past year. It is a record 

to be proud of, and one on which I hope we will build as we continue to move forward in the coming year. 

President Obama’s 2011 budget request 

As you know, last month President Obama released his fiscal year 2011 budget 

request. The centerpiece of the 2011 budget request for the Department of Education is the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA). The President is asking for a discretionary increase of $3.5 billion for 

fiscal year 2011, of which $3 billion is dedicated to ESEA, the largest-ever requested 

increase for ESEA. Moreover, if together, we complete an ESEA reauthorization 

that is consistent with the President’s plan, the Administration will submit a budget 

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

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

resources more effectively. We would greatly appreciate your support for this historic budget and look forward to working with you on the reauthorization. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget materials and are on www.ed.gov. 

ESEA reauthorization 

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

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

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

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

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

in new funding for the Race to the Top and i3 programs. In addition, our reauthorization proposal for Title I, Part A of ESEA would reward schools or LEAs that are 

making significant progress in improving student outcomes and closing achievement 

gaps. We also propose to increase the role of competition in awarding ESEA funds 

to support a greater emphasis on programs that are achieving successful results. 

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

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

teachers in every classroom and effective leaders in every school require a restructuring of ESEA program authorities. For this reason, our reauthorization proposal 

would consolidate 38 existing authorities into 11 new programs that give States, 

LEAs, and communities more choices in carrying out activities that focus on local 

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

and homeless, neglected and delinquent and migrant students. 

College- and career-readiness 

Another key priority builds on the Recovery Act’s emphasis on stronger standards 

and high-quality assessments aligned with those standards. We believe that a reauthorized Title I program, which our budget request would fund at $14.5 billion, 

should focus on graduating every student college- and career-ready. States would 

adopt standards that build toward college- and career-readiness, and implement 

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

student growth toward these standards. Our budget request would provide $450 

million (a 10 percent increase) for a reauthorized Assessing Achievement program 

(currently State Assessments) to support implementation of these new assessments. 
12 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that help. 

Effective teachers and school leaders 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving STEM outcomes 

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

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

prepare them for that world. 

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

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

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

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

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

STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups, including 

women and girls and individuals with disabilities. 

Specifically, we are asking for $300 million to improve the teaching and learning 

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

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

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

and retaining, engaging and effectively teaching undergraduates in STEM fields. 
13 

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

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

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

align our efforts toward our common goal of supporting students. 

Comprehensive solutions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

student drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. 

College access and completion 

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

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

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

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

would help expand access to accelerated learning opportunities such as Advanced 

Placement and International Baccalaureate courses, dual-enrollment programs that 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$10,000 to help pay for four years of college. The 2011 budget request would bring the maximum Pell grant to $5,710, nearly a $1,000 increase since the President took office. In that time, the number of students receiving grants has grown from six million to nearly nine million, and the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving outcomes for adult learners 

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

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

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

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

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

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

$612.3 million for Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants, an increase of 
14 

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

Improving outcomes for persons with disabilities 

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

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

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

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

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

supported employment opportunities for youth with significant disabilities as they 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investment Act. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, thanks to the combined leadership of President Obama, Chairman 

Miller and the Members of this Committee, and others, we have made extraordinary 

progress in meeting the needs of our schools and communities in the midst of financial crisis and recession, making long-needed reforms in our Federal postsecondary 

student aid programs, and reawakening the spirit of innovation in our education 

system from early learning through college. The next step to cement and build on 

this progress is to complete a fundamental restructuring of ESEA. I know that all 

of you are interested in this reauthorization and that many of you have worked on 

these issues for years, and in many cases, decades, and I look forward to working 

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

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

Chairman MILLER. I will ask you the question about ESEA since 

almost every Monday or Tuesday when I return to Washington, 

D.C., my colleagues come up to me and ask when are we going to 

do the reauthorization of ESEA. And between us I don’t know if we 

have a complete answer to that question yet. 

One, I want to commend you for spending a considerable amount 

of time over the last several months meeting with both the Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate on this 

issue, and then the Chairs and Ranking Members of the committees in the House and the Senate, and then to convening our meetings among the Chairs, and the Ranking Members, and the subcommittee members to discuss this. I think this is a very positive 

development in terms of developing a bipartisan bill for the reauthorization, and I want to thank you for that. 
15 

The other part of this, before I get to maybe a little elaboration 

on your part on the timeline, is that what intrigues me about Race 

to the Top—and I recognize it is not completed yet, and people 

have made application, and you are going to go through that process, and the Innovation Fund, and I think even the common standards—is that States and in some cases quite possibly school districts, they get to initiate the reform, they get to decide. If a Governor doesn’t believe that common standards aren’t good for them, 

if he or she doesn’t want to take a shot at internationally 

benchmarked standards to measure their students and try to develop the curriculum and achievement, then they will make that 

choice. And as we saw in Race to the Top, most Governors made 

the decision that they wanted to try and compete, knowing that 

they will not all necessarily be successful, but hopefully those that 

do will show others how it can be done and the changes for that. 

I am really encouraged by this, that I think it is very often that 

we suggest reforms, but they are not properly funded. So I think 

that in this case what you have seen is, in my own State where 

there is great resistance to many of the parts by different parts of 

the education community, they came together in the State legislature. I am not saying what they passed was perfect, but they have 

taken that first big step where 2, or 3, 4 years ago you could not 

discuss it. And I think that is important. I think, again, that had 

to be done on a bipartisan basis in the State legislatures all across 

the country. And so I think this is a pretty darn good beginning. 

The questions about time frame is I think our discussion suggests that we would really like to get this done this session of Congress. We know that the Congress had a huge amount of activity 

in its last session. We had the economy that we had to deal with, 

we had a crisis in our financial institutions, and it took up a lot 

of people’s time. I assume that is consistent with all of the groundwork that you laid for these meetings and the meetings where the 

joint staffs and the bicameral staffs have been working together. If 

you would like to elaborate on that, I think it would be helpful to 

the members of the committee, because they may have more detailed questions that they want to ask you. 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is absolutely the goal. And I think there 

is so much that we can do to fix the current law. I think far too 

many schools, and school districts, and teachers have been labeled 

failures when they are not. 

Let me give you an example. If I am a fifth-grade teacher, and 

a child comes to me three grade levels behind reading at a second 

grade level, and that child leaves my classroom reading at a fourthgrade level, on No Child Left Behind that teacher, that school, ultimately that district, is labeled a failure. I would argue not only is 

that teacher not a failure, that teacher is a remarkable success. 

That child gained 2 years of growth for 1 year’s instruction. That 

is remarkable, remarkable work. 

We need to emphasize gain, we need to emphasize improvement. 

We need to make sure that students are being taught a well-rounded curriculum. I have heard throughout the country a narrowing 

of the curriculum. And we want to make sure not just our high 

school students, but our elementary students have access to arts 
16 

and music, science, social studies. Reading and math are hugely 

important, but we can’t focus exclusively there. 

We have talked about having high standards around the country. 

It is critically important that our students graduate from high 

school college and career ready. And in so many places, due to political pressure, not due to what is right for children, or not due 

to what is right for that State’s economy, standards have been 

dummied down, and ultimately that is not what our students need. 

We need to raise expectations. It is not what our country needs. We 

need to educate our way to a better economy. 

So I think we have a huge opportunity working together, working 

through where we have legitimate differences, in finding compromises. I think we have a chance to dramatically improve, stop 

labeling so many places as failures, have high standards for everybody, reward success, reward excellence, but be tough-minded 

where things aren’t working. 

Chairman MILLER. We had a hearing earlier this week on Mr. 

Polis’ bill on charter schools, and one of our witnesses was Eva 

Moskowitz, who runs the Success Academy in the Harlem Children’s Zone, and she is a tough defender of what she is doing. And 

she said the deal was this, that in her mind when she opened these 

schools inside of the New York City school system as a public charter, that she was trading outcomes for flexibility. And her job was 

to deliver the outcomes, and it was the system’s obligation to provide her some flexibility to design and to deploy personnel and parents and community and others in support of those kids. It sounds 

a little bit like what you are outlining here. 

We have talked about the growth model, how it could be shaped, 

how it could be improved. And we want to make sure that those 

children are on target to be ready to go to college or enter a career 

when they graduate from high school, and that they graduate from 

high school. Easier said than done, but I think the right concept, 

so that the Federal Government might back out of some of the 

business of the districts that we are now pretty deeply involved in. 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is absolutely philosophically aligned. I 

think one of the things, one of the big issues, problems, challenges 

with the current law, is it got fundamentally wrong what you manage tight and what you manage loose. NCLB was extraordinarily 

loose on the goals. And so, again, those goals got dummied down, 

50 different goalposts all over the country. That is not good. Very 

loose there, but very tight, very prescriptive on how you get there. 

I want to flip that literally on its head. I want to be very tight 

on the goals, have a high bar, college-ready, career-ready standards, again, determined by the States at the local level, not by us; 

have a high bar, but then give folks much more flexibility and be 

much less prescriptive about how they get there. Hold them accountable for results as in your example. But we can’t, nor should 

we, be micromanaging 100,000 schools. 

I would go further. We need to recognize success. There are so 

many great schools, great school districts, States that are both raising the bar for all children and dramatically closing the achievement gap. We have to learn from them. Under the No Child Left 

Behind, there are like 50 ways to fail, but very few awards for excellence. Where we have seen folks knock the ball out of the park 
17 

year after year after year working with very disadvantaged children, seeing remarkable results, we need to replicate that, and we 

need to reward that, we need to clone that as much as we can. And 

we have a huge opportunity here, I think, to get those things right 

that didn’t quite work the first time around. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I recognize Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I want to 

say again publicly how much I approve, how much I applaud the 

approach that we are taking at looking at reauthorizing ESEA, the 

work. And just echoing Chairman Miller’s comments, the fact that 

we are working together in a bipartisan, bicameral way with the 

White House and with the Department starting with a blank piece 

of paper to see what we can do is absolutely the right process, and 

I applaud that and thank you for it. 

IDEA. Mr. Secretary, I just look at the numbers, and you know 

I expressed my disappointment with the previous administration, 

Bush administration, as well for not funding this in the budget. We 

have known now for over 30 years that the Federal Government is 

supposed to provide 40 percent of the excess funding required. 

Looking back over a 10-year period, in 2000 we were at 12 percent, 

worked our way up to a peak in the 2005 period of around 18 percent, and this budget shows us at 17 percent. 

If we would just meet the Federal obligation, we would help 

every school in America, every school district, every administrator, 

every principal, every teacher. Parents all over my district and all 

over the districts of all of us here would like to see that funded. 

And in this budget where we need to reach 26.1 billion, we have 

got 11.755 billion. And in the words of our friend and colleague, the 

Member of Congress from Connecticut Ms. DeLauro, she says, this 

is budget dust. And it is, $250 million. It is very, very disappointing. 

Mr. Secretary, I heard you just say that there are efficiencies in 

this budget, saving hundreds of millions of dollars. If we save hundreds of millions of dollars, how could we only get $250 million for 

IDEA? I am not even talking about other priorities that have gone 

in here; 1.35 billion for more Race to the Top, 500 million for I3. 

A billion is just sitting there for an ESEA contingency, 7.5 billion 

over 10 years to expand income-based repayment options and forth. 

There are other priorities in here that it seems to me we could 

have addressed, but just in the hundreds of millions of dollars in 

efficiencies, we can only do $250 million for IDEA? How can that 

be? Why did that happen? 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is a more than fair question. So I don’t 

think of $250 million as budget dust. I think that is real money. 

I understand that is nowhere near where you would like it to be. 

A couple other thoughts on it. As you know, we requested $12 billion through the ARRA Act to increase IDEA funding. About half 

of that has been spent this year.We anticipate the other half, $6 

billion, still being available for the upcoming school year, fall 2010. 

So there is a huge increase there. 

And secondly, as you know, so much of what we are trying to do 

through Race to the Top and other funding, while it is not direct 
18 

to IDEA, all those programs, if we improve education, that is going 

to significantly improve education for children with disabilities. So 

between the $250 million increase, $6 billion under the ARRA Act, 

and all the other grants we want to put out to districts and States, 

those will touch and improve outcomes for students with disabilities. 

Mr. KLINE. Mr. Secretary, thank you for the answer. 

We have had this discussion before as well. The stimulus money, 

if you go out and talk to the school administrators and school 

boards in schools across the country, they look at this stimulus 

money as sort of one-time money. They can’t use it to fix the program, they can’t use it to go out and hire more teachers. That is 

the reason we need to put certainty in the budget. We have a spike 

of money that came out of this. Some of it can’t be used to be spent 

in the ways they wanted. 

I just reiterate to you that I appreciate the answer, you know. 

You are defending the President’s budget. That is your job. I just 

want to tell you how deeply disappointed I am, and, I think, 

schools across the country. There had to be groans from coast to 

coast when they looked and saw $250 million. And I understand 

$250 million is money, but in terms of what we need here, in terms 

of this budget, Ms. DeLauro is correct, it is budget dust. This 

should have been billions of dollars not 250 million. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Kildee. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I enjoyed hearing you read Dr. Seuss to the thirdgraders yesterday. It is good to see that your are still in the trenches in education. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Mr. KILDEE. Last year we had 1.16 billion for the 21st Century 

Learning Centers. The President’s budget puzzles me a bit by proposing to make the 21st century initiatives include extending 

learning time and full-service community schools. That essentially 

would cut resources for the 21st Century Learning Centers. Those 

centers have been very successful, and they go beyond just the educational, intellectual, but the social development of the child. How 

do you propose to keep those 21st Century Learning Centers 

healthy and productive? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Great question. Obviously I am a huge, huge 

fan of after-school programming. This is where I normally get 

booed by students when I talk a lot about the school day having 

to be longer, and the school week, and the school year. I would love 

our schools to be open 12, 13, 14 hours a day, particularly in disadvantaged communities. Our students need more than what we 

are giving them now, and those programs we want to continue to 

support. 

This has caused some confusion or controversy, but what we 

tried to do is to do fewer things, but to do them well. We have focused our funding in K-12 in sort of six big buckets around innovation; around teachers and leaders, as I have talked a lot about; 

about a well-rounded education; around making sure students are 

college- and career-ready; focusing on diverse learners. But the one 

that is most relevant to you, Mr. Congressman, is around student 
19 

support. And that total pot of money, which the after-school money, 

21st Century Learning Center is part of it, that is up to $1.8 billion. There is a $245 million increase there. So there are a whole 

series of things we want to do to make sure our students are safe 

and healthy and have a chance to be successful. The Promise 

Neighborhoods money is in there. 

I will also say that one thing we haven’t talked about that the 

President made a very unusual statement in his budget, on top of 

the money we are discussing today, he has requested an additional 

billion dollars if we pass, if we reauthorize ESEA this year. Part 

of how we want to use the additional billion dollars is more money 

for after-school programming. So the total pot there to support students, including after-school programming, is up about 245 million. 

If we successfully reauthorize, there is a chance for significant new 

resources to come that direction as well. 

Mr. KILDEE. I think we and the Appropriations Committee really 

have to be focused very carefully, because we have a program—it 

started when Secretary Riley was Secretary of Education—that has 

been very, very successful. I visited them throughout the country, 

and I am very, very skeptical about lessening our help for those 

programs that have proven. In Flint, Michigan, I tell you, they 

have saved many, not only a child, but many a family because of 

that program. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, yes. 

Mr. KILDEE. I just am very, very skeptical, but I am going to listen more. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I hear your concern. Again, to be clear, we requested a $245 million increase, so we don’t see anything going 

down here. We want increased resources there and additional 

money on top of that if the ESEA passes. So we want to have more 

students going—staying in schools longer hours, getting the community supports engaged there; not just children, I would argue 

families as well, parents, GED, ESL, family literacy nights. The 

more our schools truly become community centers, the better our 

children are going to do. 

Mr. KILDEE. We will continue the discussion. By the way, I appreciate your reaching out to both sides of the aisle in writing this 

bill. I think you have done really goodwill, and I personally appreciate that. I have been in this Congress for 34 years, and it is good 

to have a Secretary who does recognize it. The best education bills 

we ever pass are bipartisan education bills, and I appreciate your 

work on that. 

Let me ask you one thing. You are talking about teacher development and teacher evaluation. Are you meeting with teacher organizations to get their input on that issue? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I meet with the leaders of the major national 

unions on a daily basis. I was with the head of the NEA yesterday. 

I am with the head of the AFT tomorrow. Their input is hugely important. 

Let me just say, everyone agrees, teachers, everyone, teacher 

evaluations in this country are largely broken. They don’t work for 

adults. I spoke before the AFT convention, I went and spoke before 

the NEA, I said that, and everybody applauded. Teacher evaluations today generally don’t reward excellence. We don’t identify the 
20 

best teachers. We don’t support those in the middle, and we don’t 

weed out those at the very bottom, who, after great support and 

mentoring, shouldn’t be teaching. And if it doesn’t work for any 

adults, it is definitely not working for children either. 

So we have a real opportunity to do this together. This has to 

be done with the input, with the support, with the collaboration of 

teachers and teachers unions, but where we have meaningful evaluation that helps any of us—this is any profession—grow and develop, and recognizes talent and supports that in the middle, and 

some folks, if it is not working, being honest about that. We have 

to get there as a country. There is a huge opportunity here, and 

everybody wants to work on this. Nobody is defending the status 

quo, nobody. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. McKeon. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Morning, Mr. Secretary. It is good to see you again. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Good morning. 

Mr. MCKEON. For the job that you are doing, I have just a couple 

of concerns I would like to address this morning. First I am concerned about a proposal that was discussed during the recent negotiated rulemaking decision surrounding an attempt by the Department to define ‘‘gainful employment’’ in a way that will force closure of many good programs, specifically in the proprietary schools. 

Has the Department heard about these concerns, and could you detail the analysis the Department has done to examine the impact 

of the proposal to ensure that good schools will not be forced to 

close down these very important programs? 

Secretary DUNCAN. As you know, we have put out some drafts, 

and we have had lots of conversation. By no means is this a decisionmaking point. This is a three-step process. There is a draft that 

is out there. In June we will put out a proposal and get feedback 

on that, and then we will come back for final rulemaking in November. So we have lots of time on this. I would love to have your 

thoughts, your input on what the right thing to do is here. 

We are by no means wedded to any one direction. We want to 

make sure students are not being abused or taken advantage of, 

but we don’t won’t to be heavy-handed or overly heavy-handed 

here. So whatever thoughts you have. Placement is important to 

us, graduation rates are important to us, default rates are important to us, and you want to let the free market play. You also at 

the ends of the free market want to make sure bad actors aren’t 

taking advantage of folks who are really working to try and improve their lives. I am a big believer in competition, and I think 

the market will play here, and bad actors will lose business. 

So at the very end of the spectrum, I think we need to hold folks 

accountable, but we don’t want to put in place something that has 

unintended consequences. So if you have thoughts or ideas in this, 

we are more than open, and, again, we have lots of time here to 

work this thing through. 

Mr. MCKEON. I appreciate that, and I will be contacting you 

about those concerns. 
21 

I know No Child Left Behind has some detractors, it has some 

champions. No bill is perfect. But I thought one of the good things 

that came out of No Child Left Behind was the supplemental education services. Now, the administration has provided numerous 

waivers to States and school districts, and one of the concerns I 

have is that the administration’s opposition to SES is restrictive to 

some by granting these waivers to some of the schools, and that it 

causes some low-income and some people that benefit greatly from 

that program that can’t use the services or can’t make them available. So I am wondering why is the Department doing this through 

waiver and circumventing the Congress? Why don’t we wait and 

address this during the reauthorization process? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Let me just be very, very clear. I am not at 

all in opposition to supplemental services. In fact, you will be hard 

pressed to find a bigger advocate for tutoring and more time than 

me. My mother has run an after-school tutoring program for 49 

years now. I ran an after-school tutoring program for 6 years before 

I joined the Chicago Public Schools, and so this is in my DNA. 

Sort of thinking out loud here, what I philosophically think is 

that, you know, should we be mandating this, or should districts 

have an opportunity to use their resources in the best way to help 

students improve? And again, should we be from Washington saying, you have to do this, or should we be saying, here is the pot 

of money; if this is the right way to do it, go ahead and do it? If 

you have a better idea, we will hold you accountable for results, 

you do it. 

You may remember a couple of years ago when I was on the 

other side of the law, I fought the Department of Education like 

heck because they were refusing to let me tutor. I had tens of thousands of poor children who were below grade level, and the Department was trying to tell me I wasn’t allowed to tutor. And fortunately, we had data that showed that we were doing it at about 

a third of the cost of the private providers, and that our results— 

we had objective, quantifiable data that showed that we were getting better outcomes for students than about two-thirds of the providers—my numbers wouldn’t be exact—the majority of providers 

we were doing a better job at about a third of the cost. I always 

will thank the previous administration for finally, after a bit of a 

battle, seeing the light and letting us help literally tens of thousands of students who would have been denied. 

So I am going to be very, very clear. I am absolutely for tutoring, 

I am for accountability around it, and I am for results. Where districts have Title I money, whatever money they have, if this is the 

right—you know, good actors should get business, nonprofits, forprofits districts; bad actors should not get business. And I want to 

empower local education to figure out what the right thing to do 

for their children is. 

I don’t know if that answers your question. I want to be very 

clear how I am thinking about this issue. 

Mr. MCKEON. I know that that is where you are, because we 

have had discussions about this before, and I have heard you talk 

about your DNA and how this is so important to you. My concern 

is that there may be others in the Department that don’t have 

quite those same concerns, and I know that there is at a local level 
22 

conflict between the unions wanting to keep the SES out, or make 

sure that they get the money, that their teachers are the ones that 

are doing all that work. So I just appreciate you maybe looking into 

that and seeing that some aren’t being deprived of that. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I will. And let me just—so hold me accountable on that. Let us continue the conversation. I will be very clear. 

I don’t think this is the unions fighting the providers. Let me tell 

you what happened. What was the irony of this in Chicago, we 

checked all this, the overwhelming majority of folks hired by the 

private providers were actually union teachers. They hired them 

and paid them what we were paying them. The difference was we 

weren’t taking any overhead, we weren’t making a profit. The private providers were making a profit. Some were doing a good job, 

some weren’t doing a good job, but every dollar that went to their 

bottom line was another child in a desperately long waiting list 

who didn’t have an opportunity. 

So this is not the union’s opposing this, these are union teachers 

getting paid to the dollar what we—— 

Mr. MCKEON. It is in some areas. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Okay, okay. Got it. 

Mr. MCKEON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Good to see you, and I wish 

you continued success. 

We talk about the President’s goal to lead with college graduation by the year of 2020. I am wondering how we are looking at 

programs like TRIO and GEAR UP in support of the goals. Are 

these programs still being embraced in your budget? I didn’t get a 

chance to go through it that specifically, and I actually would be 

suggesting perhaps increases in those programs. Tell me where you 

stand on that. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yeah, I am a big fan and supporter of TRIO 

and GEAR UP. There have been a couple of things, there has been 

some rumors and numbers out, that somehow those numbers decreased. 

Let me give you our numbers here. The numbers actually went 

up between TRIO and GEAR UP in 2009 by about 6,100 students. 

It went up, so from 738,000 to roughly 747,000. So there has been 

some significant increases there. 

We want to support students going on to college and to graduating. We have as part of the SAFRA bill that you guys have 

passed, and appreciate the leadership and support of the Senate, 

$2.5 billion in the College Access and Completion Fund. There is 

a chance for these programs to continue to grow and expand. And 

so again, we want to find ways to provide support particularly for 

disadvantaged students to not just successfully graduate from high 

school and not just go to college, but graduate at the back end. We 

are programmed to doing a great job at that. We want to continue 

to support that. 

Mr. PAYNE. In the same vein, and maybe we are reading your 

budget incorrectly, but I think you proposed the elimination of 

funding for the LEAP program, and, of course, as you know, many 

States are certainly struggling. And I am just wondering if that is 
23 

true, and why at this point would—I know everyone is cost-conscious, but why would you move in that direction at this time? 

Secretary DUNCAN. What we are looking to do is, again, bucket 

programs in these larger buckets. Naturally we increased funding 

in every single bucket that we did. So around college- and careerready students, there is a $354 million increase there. So we are 

trying to put more money behind programs that are working, but 

consolidate them, but some places compete them out. So programs 

can demonstrate success, we are going to put more resources there. 

Where things aren’t working, we want to move them elsewhere. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thanks. And I agree with you in the Leave No Child 

Behind. When you called a school a failing school, there was supposed to be a component that it would show the yearly annual 

progress, I guess. However, and actually students were supposed to 

have, failing students, a plan for that individual student. I wonder 

have you looked into being able to urge the educators to do those 

plans that are supposed to be for each failing kid? 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is a great question. And the thing that has 

most troubled me with what I call this dumbing down of standards 

is there are lots of students who have worked hard, and they have 

been told by districts and States that they are on track to be successful. What I honestly think, Congressman, is that we have lied 

to those children; that in many places these standards have been 

so reduced, those students that are hitting the State standard, this 

proficiency level, because the bar is so low, they are barely able to 

graduate from high school, and they are totally inadequately prepared to be successful in college. 

We have to stop lying to people. And so if we have a higher bar, 

we need to be very clear about college- and career-ready standards 

coming out of high school. 

And then to your point, we need to back-map that, this is what 

these 48 States, Governors, State schoolteachers are doing, their 

work, not ours, being driven to local levels, which is exactly what 

should happen—we need to back-map that to eighth grade, fifth 

grade and third grade so that our sons and daughters know what 

their strengths and weaknesses are, are they on track, or are they 

not. Where they’re on track? Great. Where they’re behind? The 

child, the parent, after school, the teacher needs to work together 

behind that. And we have not had those honest conversations. By 

doing that and getting it to the individual child student level, we 

have a chance, I think, to get much better results over the long 

haul. 

Mr. PAYNE. Quickly before my time expires, there is—I have seen 

a lot of attention, of course, to charter schools. I know that is one 

of the big moves in this administration. However, I have seen less 

interest, it appears, in failing public schools and really concentrating on that. Now, the charters, you know, you are going to get 

the parents who have the initiative. You know, in charter schools, 

if one sibling is in it, the other automatically gets in it. The failing 

schools just become more chronically bad. And I just think that 

they are not going away. And I believe that as much attention has 

to be put into—I would like to see some of those charter school people take the failing public school that everybody is still at and 

make that successful. 
24 

Charter school can be successful, no question about it. And actually Seton Hall University, which I want to give you a proposal, 

has a plan where they want to take failing schools, work with the 

teachers union, and keep the kids right there where they are and 

make them successful, rather than cherrypick and send them to 

the new charter schools that we see going up all around. 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is a great point. And to be clear, I am a 

fan of good charters, not a fan of all charters. Some charters are 

great, and some charters are part of problem. I have been very 

clear with the charter community around that. 

We are putting $4 billion behind turning around the Nation’s 

lowest-performing schools. We all have to get together behind this. 

We all have to say where we 50, 60, 70 percent of students dropping out, they have no chance of chasing the American dream. 

There are no good jobs out there. All of us have to get in the business of turning around these schools. District, universities, States, 

charter organizations, unions, all of us have to step up to the plate. 

There is a tiny handful of charter groups who are actually doing 

this. Green Dot in Los Angeles took over a charter school, took over 

a school, kept all the kids. I think in the first year attendance went 

up for the students about 12 percent, which means students were 

going to school about a month more. Mastery Charter in Philadelphia took over a school. It was the second most violent school there. 

Violence basically disappeared. They went in 2 years from 7 percent of students in seventh grade math at proficiency levels, to 

about 54 percent, like a 700 percent increase, same children, same 

socioeconomic challenges. 

So charters can be part of the solution, but all of us have to be 

part of the solution. Charters can’t begin to do this alone; they 

don’t have the capacity. States, districts, unions, nonprofits, charters, all of us have to step up. 

And to me it is a manageable number. Every year we should be 

taking those chronically underperforming schools and doing something differently as a country, as a Nation. If we do that, these students in very, very tough communities will perform exponentially 

better. This is hard work, it is tough. This is the hardest work, I 

would argue, in America today. 

Folks often think, too, it is an urban issue. We talk about 2,000 

dropout factories, about half are in urban areas, about 20 percent 

are suburban, about 30 percent rural. This is a national challenge. 

So we all have to think about this, and the answers have to be 

local levels. It would be very, very different situation by situation, 

case by case, but we have to do something. We can’t just stand on 

the sidelines and continue to see these things happened. 

Mr. KILDEE [presiding]. Governor Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, my first question is a little bit off anything you 

talked about, but I wandered around and looked at many programs 

supported by businesses in this country, not just in Delaware, but 

all over the country, too. And I watched the charter movement particularly in my State, and some of our best schools now are charter 

schools. Others have had to give up their charter as charter schools 

because they sort of basically failed. 
25 

My question to you, is your research arm or is anybody in the 

Department trying to collate the information about what these 

business programs are that work? I am not talking about regulating them or anything like that, but just trying to find out what 

works in the charter schools, what works in some of these business 

programs that are offered as a matter of understanding and knowledge so that others could borrow from that in the regular school 

system? 

Secretary DUNCAN. We are trying to do it. To me, again, it is not 

just—so there are, again, very high-performing charter schools, and 

there are mediocre charter schools, and there are charter schools 

that should be closed, all along that spectrum. And the same is 

true for traditional schools. I have argued in our country we just 

need more good schools of every form and fashion, but particularly 

more good schools in communities that have been historically underserved. 

We are trying to track that where I am spending lots of time 

looking at high-performing, high-poverty schools. And so we have 

lots of schools that are 70, 80, 90 percent poverty, students living 

below the poverty line, where 80, 90 percent students graduate, 

and we are really beating the odds. And some of those might be 

charter; some may be traditional. 

So I think there are huge examples. Again, that is one of my 

frustrations historically is for all of these challenges, we have never 

had more examples of hope. We have never had more examples to 

understand not because of one miraculous child or one miraculous 

teacher, but year after year these schools are betting the odds. 

So we have to—to your point, we have to learn from them, so we 

do have folks looking at those schools, what is happening there, 

what are the core strategies, how do we replicate that success. At 

elementary, middle schools, high schools, we have across the country people doing extraordinary work every single day. 

Somehow we have been scared to talk about success. We have 

been scared to talk about excellence. I don’t understand that. I 

think there is so much we can talk about with these high-performing schools. What they do is they put the lie in and the myth 

that poor children can’t learn, that children in disadvantaged communities can’t be successful. I think we have to be very open and 

have those tough conversations. 

Mr. CASTLE. You and I discussed before and this committee has 

discussed before what the States have been doing in terms of the 

Governors getting together with respect to standards, and I assume 

assessments to some degree. Can you give us an update on all 

that? This may lead to national standards from the States up, not 

from the Federal Government. 

Secretary DUNCAN. They can’t, and, again, to address Mr. Kline’s 

concerns, if they are national or Federal standards, this thing dies. 

It should always be driven at the local level. We should not be 

touching that. We should not be touching curriculum. I couldn’t 

agree more. 

The fact of the matter is this is being led by 47 Governors and 

48 State school chiefs. It is interesting. You guys who follow this 

know 3 years ago this is probably a third rail; you couldn’t talk 

about this. But you have the leadership at State level, you have the 
26 

heads of both unions absolutely supportive, pushing very hard in 

this direction. You have the business community who has been begging for this for years. You have great nonprofits like College 

Board and Achieve who are behind this, so this is an idea whose 

time has really come. 

I met two weekends ago with Governors from around the country, NGA, to see their level of enthusiasm, bipartisan and Democrat across the country, keep working hard together, I can’t tell you 

how encouraging that is. 

To your point, once you have—and they are still getting there. 

Kentucky has been the first State to adopt, which is great, and 

other States are now following suit. 

Once you have a higher bar, then you need to have better assessments, more comprehensive assessments behind that. Our concern 

was that States would have the courage to do the right thing in 

terms of standards, but, because they are under such huge financial pressure, would not be able to get better assessments behind 

a high standard. So we took $350 million from Race to the Top, 

carved that aside, and we are going to put that out on a competitive basis to groups and States who want to work to create better 

assessments. So they won’t be our assessments, they won’t be Federal assessments, they will be assessments driven at the local level. 

And so we try to remove the financial impediment to getting there. 

So this is going to take some time, and there are some transition 

issues we have got to work through, but over the next couple of 

years, if we could look every child in the country in the eye and 

say that we have real college-ready standards for you, and we have 

much more thoughtful, comprehensive assessments behind that, 

that is a huge breakthrough, huge breakthrough. 

Mr. CASTLE. You spoke about teacher quality, a question or two 

about that. Do you support alternative certification of teachers in 

whatever way you might support it? And I have heard you talk before about teacher colleges of education and the fact that they perhaps need to do more in terms of both preparation and who they 

are attracting and that kind of thing. I would be interested in your 

comments how we could improve teacher quality. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So schools of education, we have hundreds 

and hundreds of schools of education. You have As and Fs and everything in between. 

I will tell you, I traveled to 37 States last year and talked to 

hundreds and hundreds of teachers, new teachers, all teachers, veteran teachers, you name it. The consistent theme I heard from 

teachers, again urban, rural, suburban, across, was two complaints 

or two issues they had with their own schools of education, their 

own preparation. One is they felt they generally did not have 

enough hands-on training. They weren’t in classrooms with real 

children enough. Too much around philosophy and history of education; not enough about how to manage this classroom of children. 

Secondly, there has been this outpouring of innovation over the 

past 5, 10 years in terms of real-time data that is helping teachers 

improve their instruction on a daily basis and differentiate instruction. Teachers’ jobs have never been harder than they are today. 

You have a huge range of students’ abilities coming into your classroom, and how with 28, 30, 34 students, how do you teach that 
27 

wide range? You have to differentiate instruction. There is all this 

great data now that helps you understand each child, where they 

are, what is working, what is not. 

Almost none of that data-driven instruction training is going on 

in schools today. There are great teachers who have all learned on 

the job; and they are questioning, why didn’t I get that at the front 

end? So those two things, more hands-on practical work in classrooms, and, secondly, much more data-driven instruction training 

are the two major issues that I’ve heard almost universally around 

the country. 

In terms of alternative certification, again, to me, I always think 

these are false dichotomies. We just need more great teachers coming in. And we are in a tough time now with the tough economy 

and teacher layoffs. I am very concerned about that. 

But if you look a little bit over the horizon, over the next 6, 8 

years, we could have as many as a million teachers retire. We have 

the baby boomer generation that is going now. And so our ability 

to attract and retain great talent over the next 5, 6, 8 years is 

going to shape public education in this country for the next 30 

years. It is a generational shift. 

Whether it is through alternative certification, whether it is 

through traditional schools of education, we just need to find out 

how we get the hardest-working, most-committed teachers into the 

classroom and then, more specifically, into underserved communities. 

Let me give you one example. I am sorry I am going a little long 

here, but I keep citing this example. 

In Louisiana, they are tracking the data from hundreds of thousands of students back to tens of thousands of teachers and from 

those teachers back to those teachers’ schools of education or the 

alternative certification in the past, wherever they came from. And 

so, in Louisiana, they can tell you which schools of education are 

producing the teachers that are producing the students that are 

learning the most. And what you are having is you are having 

schools of education change their curriculum based upon the results of their alumni’s children. 

This is not about gotchas. This is about continuous improvement. 

And we have one State doing it. You have other States moving in 

that direction, but Louisiana doesn’t have some patent on some of 

the amazing technology that the world can’t share. They have simply had the courage to say that teachers matter tremendously, and 

we want to understand which teachers are working well. And 

schools of education have said, hey, this is a chance for us to get 

better. This is an idea, I think, again, why do we have one out of 

50? What are we missing here as a country? 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, do we have a before-the-gavel 

rule? Because, if we do, I think I would be cutting ahead of some 

other people. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

First of all, I appreciate your interest and your remarks about 

higher education, for trying to find ways to achieve value added 

quality for students; and I look forward to working with on you 
28 

that. I think that we will be guided by the principles of having a 

functioning free market work, where one exists so people can vote 

with their feet and choose the best course for themselves and 

where quality is measured, rather than some rough or inaccurate 

proxy for quality. I look forward to us being able to do that. 

I want to ask you a question about K-12 education, and thank 

you for your contributions there. What changes do you think we 

should consider in the supplemental services area? My observation 

about No Child Left Behind is that we have not really fully exploited the opportunity to improving learning for children and quality of schools by getting the most bang for our buck in supplemental services. What kinds of innovations would you like to see 

us consider there? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think the biggest thing over time, as I have 

said repeatedly, is that we have to continue to extend our time. I 

think our 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 9 months out of the year 

isn’t enough for our children; and children in India and China who 

our students are competing with are just going to school longer. 

I think our students are as smart, as talented, as committed, as 

ambitious as anyone else in the world. I want to level the playing 

field. My concern is that we are putting too many of our children 

at a competitive disadvantage. 

So how we think about schools as community centers, as Mr. Kildee talked about, how we think about doing great tutoring after 

school, weekends, summers for students, again particularly disadvantaged students, I think we have to be much more thoughtful 

in doing that. What I think, ultimately is we need to look at those 

providers, districts, nonprofits, for-profits, whatever, who are demonstrating an ability to accelerate the rate of growth. 

You have phenomenal players who are doing a great job; and, 

you know, they should have a chance to work with more children. 

You have other players that, frankly, are, you know, driven more 

by profit than by student learning; and they are part of the problem. 

And so I think just being—it is not too dissimilar to the higher 

ed point you started with. Where you have good actors, that is 

great. Where you have bad actors—let’s be honest about it. The 

thing to me is we have so many children who have so far to go. 

When we talk about college and career-ready standards, we are 

talking about raising the bar dramatically. We are not there in far 

too many of our Nation’s States today. If we raise the bar, we are 

going to have to work harder, we are going to have to work faster 

at a time when resources are really constrained. How do you get 

there? You have got to work smarter. That is what I am looking 

for. 

Mr. ANDREWS. We know, given your track record, you will accomplish that. 

I want to ask you about a vexing problem that has vexed schools 

and educators and children, which is the proper calculation of AYP 

for students with disabilities, children who are classified under the 

IDEA. There is no one in this committee on either side that ever 

wants to deprive a child with a learning disability issue of the absolute opportunity to achieve his or her absolute maximum poten-
29 

tial. We never want to define limitations or failure for these children and then have that become a-self fulfilling prophecy. 

By the same token, we want to be cognizant of a fair evaluation 

of our schools so that we are not holding schools to unrealistic 

standards. A number of schools in my State and my district are not 

achieving AYP because of that one indicator, because of the special 

ed indicator. What would you like us to consider with respect to 

striking that proper balance between student achievement and fair 

evaluation? 

Secretary DUNCAN. These are really powerful questions. And as 

we think about reauthorization, again, the bipartisan support has 

been phenomenal in the sense of momentum. You could make a 

pretty good case that the toughest issues we have to grapple with 

is how you fairly evaluate students with disabilities and how you 

fairly evaluate English language learners. We are spending tons of 

time talking to national experts to try and get this right. 

I will tell you the two extremes, neither of which works. One is 

which you don’t hold these students or teachers accountable for 

their progress. And there was a time in which these students were 

swept under the rug and people thought, well, if you learn English 

or you had a disability, you couldn’t learn. That would be a disastrous outcome. 

Mr. ANDREWS. We don’t want to do that. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Nobody wants to do that. 

The flip side is when a student, again ELL or special ed, is taking an assessment which they can’t comprehend. You don’t want 

that either. 

So how do you hold folks accountable with an assessment that 

makes sense? That is the middle path, I think, the commonsense, 

logical path, have a high bar for students but make sure that they 

have a real chance to demonstrate their skills and knowledge in 

that assessment. 

I have two people on my team who I am relying heavily on their 

counsel on this. Alexa Posney is working on the IDEA side. She is 

the former State School Chief in Kansas, extraordinarily thoughtful 

on this issue, phenomenal credibility, and her counsel I am going 

to listen to very, very closely. 

On the ELL side, the woman who is in charge of my K-12 agenda 

is Thelma Melendez; and she was told along the way that college 

probably wasn’t for her. And she has lived it. This is personal. And 

she went on to do okay and get a doctorate and was an award-winning superintendent, superintendent of the year in California. 

So these are people who—this is a passion, and we want to get 

this right. I think there is a commonsense middle ground. We want 

to get as close to that as we can. And, again, we are going to work 

with both sides and with community leaders on these issues to fix 

what is broken but, again, maintain a high bar. That is really important to me. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER [presiding]. Thank you. 

Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
30 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to make a few comments, and then 

I have an information request and one simple question at the end. 

This is a real struggle for some of us. On the one hand, I agree 

with many of the things you are proposing to do, whether it is 

teacher performance measurement, accountability, forms of schoolbased management, public school choice, a lot of the things you say 

and how to measure. On the other hand, as a conservative, I don’t 

believe these—I am not part of the Federal School Board; and the 

real question here is, is this the position that the Federal Government should be taking? 

Similar disconnect on, in Indiana, right now, our big talk is the 

budget is tight. The governor has cut back. We see schools laying 

off teachers. We see them closing down schools. And we come out 

here, and we are hearing how we are going to spend more money. 

And we are going to spend money on this and spend money on 

that, when our deficits are far bigger than the State deficits. And 

there is an increasing disconnect between Washington and the 

grassroots. They are glad for the money, which leads me now into 

some substantive points here, that you have paid tremendous lip 

service—and I believe it is sincere—to local leadership and that 

education should come from the local. 

But two phenomenas are occurring here. One is that there is a 

desperation for funds and, therefore, the Race to the Top is having 

a disproportionate steering of local, even if it is the right thing to 

do, than has ever been done before. 

In Indiana, we don’t know if we are going to get the funds. Yet 

the bulk of the school districts are racing to implement, hoping 

they can get a few dollars out of the Federal Government. 

So the lip service saying this is local really isn’t true right now. 

They are redoing at the Federal end. 

The danger here is not your specifics. The danger is that many 

of us don’t believe that you cannot have manipulation of curriculum, that you can ever have a long term, not whatever the latest fad is, for professional development, that when we get into 

whose favorite program is going to be done, the more it gets consolidated, the less diversity there will be, and that whatever the 

latest fad will be looking 10 to 20 years from now the Federal Government will have usurped that power. 

Somebody who doesn’t agree with your approach, which is more 

the American Federation of Teachers approach than NEA approach—historically, over the last 25 years, look at Miami, Chicago, 

places that had AFT they were more flexible in these type of 

things. And if we go back to the old approach but now it is consolidated, we won’t continue to innovate and we don’t do the things. 

That is a philosophical question. 

Then a point I just wanted to raise to you, because it is a dilemma that is a true dilemma right now because, in effect, we are 

seeing a consolidation of approach, even though you are giving 

flexibility to reach some of those goals. 

Another part of that is that States that are actually implementing things in—last night, the two largest districts in my biggest county, second largest district in the State, Fort Wayne, announced they are closing one of the historic high schools, Elmhurst, 

that all teachers would be up for review. They have moved the 
31 

principals from a number of the schools that they felt needed to be 

moved. They are implementing the programs now. The second largest district, the most diverse district in the State of Indiana, announced they are going to have to cut teachers, probably close multiple schools and do this. 

When you do your funding, I think it is important that if you— 

because you earlier said the reason that many States are resourcechallenged and they are struggling with that, that those States 

that are taking the hard actions not even knowing whether they’re 

going to get a dime from you aren’t punished in the process. Actually, they are implementing the programs. 

Because let me say this now from your standpoint. If the States 

that have implemented the programs don’t have adequate resources, the research is going to show they didn’t work partly because they didn’t have the resources. And some of—as you go 

through this decision process, if you will look at the school systems 

that are really doing it and are committed and are actually doing 

it before the money, they are your most likely chances to see that 

something works. And I hope that you will take that into consideration in the process. 

Because, look, Fort Wayne, I am not going to pretend like the superintendent is a big supporter of mine or the teachers’ unions are 

a big supporter of mine, but they are doing some very innovative 

things and they should be looked at very closely because they are 

making really tough decisions. 

Now, a quick information request. On the student loan program, 

you have in your budget on July 1 that there will be the flip. Some 

of us question whether that flip will occur in a good way. Many of 

the universities don’t want to do that. So could you provide me 

with the documentation that outlines past, present, future action 

to make sure that no students will go out without loans if that is 

not passed, in other words, that you haven’t presumed something 

and are forcing people if it is not the law? 

And then, lastly, a quick question on, in the bill, family therapists are not currently allowed in the mental health area, whether 

it is mental health service providers, pupil services, or school counseling. This would just be an allowable use, not additional money, 

but I think it is important when we deal with mental health, and 

I want to know if you support that. 

Secretary DUNCAN. There is a lot there. Let me try and run 

through the answers. 

On direct lending, we are not presuming anything. We just want 

to be prepared. And we think, again, this is a chance to stop subsidies to banks, as much as $87 billion, and dramatically increase 

Pell Grants and Perkins loans and tuition tax credits for hardworking American families whose children desperately want to go 

to college and they feel they can’t afford it. It would also enable us 

to invest about $10 billion in early childhood education, which we 

could make a pretty compelling case this is the best investment we 

could make, all this without going back to the taxpayers. 

We simply want to be prepared on our side. Due to the private 

market collapsing over the past 2, 3 years before we got here, it 

has gone from about 1,000 universities participating in direct lend-
32 

ing to over 2,300. So it has more than doubled again before we did 

anything just because, you know, folks needed us. 

So we think this is the right thing to do. There is a huge opportunity here to dramatically increase education investment, again, 

simply by stop subsidizing banks and cutting out the middleman. 

The private sector will have 100 percent of the loan servicing business. We don’t think we should be in that business. We don’t think 

we are any good at it. We think the private is absolutely the place 

to play. That is a huge and growing market. Good actors will get 

more business; bad actors will get less business. But if we can 

make college dramatically more accessible and affordable for millions and millions of Americans going forward we think that is the 

right thing to do. 

It is interesting, on Race to the Top, what we have tried to say 

is that a few things are important. Having high standards matters. 

Being transparent around data matters. Great teachers and principals matter, and being tough minded when schools aren’t working 

and having those honest conversations matter. 

What we have tried to do to sort of alleviate or to address some 

of your concerns is what we want to do is, whether it is Race to 

the Top or School Improvement Grants, or Investing in Innovation 

Funds or Teacher Incentive Funds, all we want to do is put money 

behind those places that had the courage, to your point, and the 

capacity to deliver better results for students; and that’s going to 

take many, many different forms and fashions. 

We are not going to come up with a playbook. We don’t have the 

playbook. But where folks are raising the bar for all students and 

closing the achievement gap, we want to take those innovations to 

scale. And so where a district is showing great work with 1,000 

students, let’s take that to 2,000. If a State is working with half 

their kids in a way and wanting to reach every child, let’s get 

there. 

So what we want to do is use our—and we have been absolutely 

blessed to have this opportunity—use these resources to put it behind districts with the courage, the capacity, and the commitment 

to get better results for students. So it is not our ideas. It is simply 

investing in that local work to take the scale. 

To your point, districts have never been under more financial duress; and so my worry is that they have a good idea and they can’t 

move it. We want to put the resources behind it to do that. And, 

over time, where they continue to demonstrate ability to close 

achievement gaps and raise the bar we will keep funding them. If 

those things stop happening, we will take that money and go someplace else. And so that is just so you understand sort of where we 

want to go. 

I will say many, many districts on Race to the Top, many States, 

again, everyone desperately wants the money. No question. I can’t 

tell you how many conversations I have heard with folks in all candor saying to me, yes, we would love the money. 

What has happened in the conversations we have had and the 

movement we have had, regardless of whether we get the money 

or not, we have moved light years from whatever would have happened before. And whether we get the money or not, we are going 

to keep moving. This sort of unlocked what needed to happen in 
33 

some of these honest conversations. The amount of silos in education are staggering, and just getting folks to the table and talking has been hugely beneficial. We are going to have a very high 

bar in terms of who we fund, frankly, a lot more losers than winners. 

We will come back with a second round. We are proposing another $1.35 billion in next year’s budget, fiscal year ’11. To come 

back with a third round. So we want to keep coming back. With 

the movement you have seen in the States before spending a dime, 

I would say you haven’t seen that kind of movement in decades; 

and that in and of itself is of huge, huge value. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Secretary, we only have you—we have a 

memorial service at 11:00, and we agreed that you would leave 

then. Mr. Scott is next, so we will try to do as many members as 

we can, but we’re kind of—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. And I will keep my answers to 5. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Secretary, in the last Congress, we passed the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which included a provision for modeling and simulation programs. In the last appropriations bill, we 

funded the program. It requires the Department to appoint a 

board, develop a curricula, and fund existing programs and new 

programs. Can you tell me what the status is in the administration? Can you tell me that now or in writing later? Would you rather do it in writing? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. I will get back to you on that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. We also passed in the House the Campus Safety Act, which would provide funding for a Center for Campus Safety to prevent and respond to acts of violence on college campuses. 

It passed the House in the last Congress. It passed the House 

again in this Congress, and it has been sitting over in the Senate. 

Can we get some help from the administration to see if we can’t 

pry it out of the Senate so that when acts of violence—so we can 

prevent acts of violence and respond appropriately? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I will check on that for you, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. At the Budget Committee, you responded to the situation of the TRIO programs. There is some concern that the TRIO 

programs’ budgets and the fiscal year budgets do not correspond, 

and there is some concern that 187 programs that were funded in 

the reconciliation bill a few years ago may lose their funding before—if we don’t do something this year. I think it is the Department’s feeling that if we deal with it next year there will be no gap 

in coverage. Is that still your—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. That is correct, and I will reconfirm that. 

And the bottom line is those 187 programs are absolutely safe now. 

We will continue to work with that. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is fine. You also indicated—I thought you said 

an increase in students for TRIO and GEAR UP. Is TRIO not flat 

funded? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. TRIO and GEAR UP are flat funded. 

The number of students actually increased last year that were 

served. There has been some debate that the number of students 
34 

went down. That is actually not factually correct. It went up about 

6,100. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, that says more could be served with Upward 

Bound, which is a more comprehensive program, and Student Support Services, retention in college. If we could get that number for 

TRIO also increased, I think that would be helpful. 

You have been very articulate on the need to eliminate the 

achievement gap. Can you say a word about how the budget and 

policies will reduce the achievement gap, particularly with dropouts? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes. While Race to the Top has gotten all the 

press and attention so far, what folks haven’t focused enough on 

are the School Improvements Grants and $3.5 billion going to 

School Improvement Grants. Race to the Top is supposed to help 

all schools in the State or as many as the State applied for. School 

Improvement Grants are focused just on those bottom 5 percent of 

schools across the country. So we are putting a huge amount of 

money by formula out to every single State, and so there are unprecedented resources. So what we are saying is, where things 

aren’t getting better and we have dropout rates of 50, 60, 70 percent, we have to do something dramatically different; and we are 

putting our money where our mouth is and putting, you know, 

huge—tens of millions of dollars, in some States, hundreds of millions of dollars out there depending on State size to see us break 

through here. 

For all the huge challenges we face, again, we have never—I 

don’t think we have ever had more high-performing, high-poverty 

schools. So we know what is possible. And so we want to learn from 

them. We want to replicate those successes, and we want to put a 

lot of money out there. I think if we are serious about closing the 

achievement gap we need more time for students. And great teachers, great principals matter tremendously. You have got to close 

the opportunity gap. 

Mr. SCOTT. And we thank you for visiting one of those success 

stories in Newport News. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Achievable Dream was one of many schools 

that has just blown me away. And am I correct that the achievement gap there is basically nonexistent? Is that an accurate statement? 

Mr. SCOTT. That is right. 

Secretary DUNCAN. And what is the poverty rate of that community? 

Mr. SCOTT. I think just about everybody is on free and reduced 

lunch. 

There are some dropout factories that are achieving AYP. Can 

we be assured on reauthorization that no school with a dropout 

rate of 50 percent will be designated as adequate for yearly 

progress? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. And on charter schools, one of—there are some good 

and some bad. I heard a statistic that 80 percent of the charter 

schools are either the same or worse than the comparable schools. 

Is that not right? 
35 

Secretary DUNCAN. There are lots of studies out there, often with 

competing numbers. I am not familiar with that number. 

I would tell you one study that was interesting, because there 

are some legitimate concerns at some charters maybe the parents 

are more involved or high functioning, so there is some selection 

bias. There is one interesting study that I looked at that came out 

of Stanford that tracked—many charters have long waiting lists, 

and some students get in, and many don’t get in, so it is sort of 

a little bit more of an apples to apples comparison. And they looked 

at—the researcher looked at students who all were on the waiting 

list, some who got in and some who don’t, so trying to remove that 

selection bias. 

And that study—and this is just schools in New York City, so it 

is one example. Again, there is a big country out there. But that 

example showed that students who actually got into the charters 

from the waiting list performed better than those who did not. 

But I think, you know, charters are very uneven around the 

country. I think you need a high bar in terms of who you allow to 

open a charter school. This cannot be let a thousand flowers bloom. 

Once you have that high bar and select someone, you have to hold 

them accountable for results, and you have to give them the autonomy to get there. 

So those three things: high bar to entry, true accountability, real 

economy. When you see those parameters in play, those structures 

in play, you see better schools. Where you don’t have those things 

in play, I think charters just perpetuate what is already out there. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Guthrie. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary for coming here. We met in the National Airport not long ago. I appreciate your willingness to work, 

and achievement gap initiatives that you have talked about are 

real important to me as well. 

I think hearing that we are going to be focusing on the No Child 

Left Behind reauthorization this year I think would be good that 

we all work together. So I appreciate that and really offer my services to do that and some ideas. 

I have been meeting with superintendents, I have been meeting 

with teachers, and they have a lot of good ideas, practitioners, and 

so we will bring that together. 

On the higher ed Direct Loan and FFEL program, the question 

I have, the money, as I was really looking at the bill when it was 

before us—it has been a little while—but the $87 million is being 

spent. A good part of that money, if I understand, is that the Federal Government borrows at a cheaper rate. Therefore, the Direct 

Loan program can borrow money at a cheaper rate but still lends 

to students at the same rate. And I would have been more inclined 

to have supported that if we had made it a reduced interest for 

people to borrow to spend. 

It did move money into the Pell program, which made college 

more affordable. Because I can tell you the biggest fear for most 

people that have a moderate income to higher income in my district, there is a lot of help for people with lower income, is just the 

affordability of college. I mean, that is the main thing on their 

mind. 
36 

And then just specific—and Mr. Souder hit it just a little bit— 

is a big concern I think there are people moving into the direct loan 

program now that anecdotally say, we are just worried about what 

is going to happen in July. And I spent all of August—and it didn’t 

get a lot of publicity because other things happened in August. But 

the Cash for Clunker program—which I voted for, so I tried to 

work through the answers with—but people saying, I can’t—nobody 

will take my phone call. I have sold a car. Am I going get paid for 

it? And I can see students in August going, well, is my Pell in 

place? I mean, how are we going to prevent that from happening? 

And if we get to that point would y’all support maybe extending to 

get through that point until we move forward? 

Secretary DUNCAN. What I would say again is that what folks 

don’t understand is over the prior 2 to 3 years we have gone from 

1,000 universities participating to 2,300 universities participating, 

more than doubled our interaction. I don’t think you have heard a 

peep. I don’t think you have—you know there hasn’t been any huge 

stories about lack of service or lack of whatever. 

Our FSA unit, I think, has extraordinary leadership. Brought in 

Bill Taggart from the private sector, who I have tremendous confidence in. I am absolutely holding him accountable for gearing up 

and preparing. His team has been working unbelievably hard to do 

this. If you are hearing that we dropped the ball or a phone call 

isn’t returned, they have been doing training out around the country. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I am sorry. That was the experience with the Cash 

For Clunker and the Transportation Department. I am just hoping—I was just bringing that up as an example. I have not heard 

that from your group. 

Secretary DUNCAN. So hold us accountable for results. And if you 

are hearing something is not working, please come to me directly. 

We understand this transition and what a big deal it is, and we 

want to make sure we do this absolutely as smoothly as is possible. 

And, again, part of the reason I am confident that we can do this 

well—we won’t do it perfectly. We will make some mistakes—is 

again I am seeing this mass migration our way anyway with the 

private sector collapse, and so far that has been handled I think 

exceptionally well. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. But everybody is going to be moving into the program over the next few months if the bill I think it passes through 

the Senate, so your volume is going to—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. Many people already have. That is my point. 

Many people already have. There is not going to be a huge—there 

is some additional movement, but this movement has started, you 

know, again, 2 or 3 years ago. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Right. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MILLER. Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

First of all, I would like to echo Congressman Kline’s request to 

fund IDEA. This is across the board for all of us. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, ma’am. 
37 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Secretary, charter schools have been a successful experiment. It was intended to identify new methods in 

learning and teaching and with the idea—when charter schools, 

when we first started this, when I first got elected 18 years ago, 

the idea was to integrate these successes and learn from what 

worked and didn’t work into the public school system. The idea was 

not, Mr. Secretary, to result in the third rail of education to compete with public education and, as usual, leaving the kids most disadvantaged and the districts most disadvantaged and most in need 

to the public school system. 

So my question to you is, as we reauthorize ESEA, are we going 

to be committed to ensuring that there is the additional support 

funds, support necessary to incorporate the best learning practices 

and methods and systems that are available for every child and 

those that are actually being left behind? Because, Mr. Secretary, 

some districts, some students are considerably more in need of support when they enter the classroom. They aren’t fed well. They’re 

scared. They don’t have parental stability. They need supplemental 

services. 

I always say this. It kind of goes, duh, nobody quite knows what 

I am talking about. But you can’t work smarter, you can’t put together a system or a product if the individual parts are flawed. 

And I worry that we are going to take flawed parts and insist that 

even the best of teachers are able to meet our standards. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think if children are scared, they can’t 

learn. If children are hungry, they can’t learn. If children can’t see 

the blackboard, they can’t learn. And so those foundational 

things—glasses, clothes, food, safety—we absolutely have to address those openly and honestly. 

When I ran the Chicago public schools, we fed tens of thousands 

of children breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day. We built a program where we have sent a couple thousand children home with 

food Friday afternoons because we were so worried about them not 

eating over the weekends. We gave out tens of thousands pairs of 

eyeglasses free every single year, because you have to do those 

things before you can talk about algebra and biology. And so I 

couldn’t agree with you more that those foundational essentials we 

have to do. 

And some folks say, you know, schools shouldn’t be doing these 

things. I don’t see how we educate without doing those things. My 

mother always said, you know, you can’t teach someone when their 

stomach is grumbling. You have to feed children. And so these 

aren’t in conflict. 

We are working very, very hard with Secretary Vilsack to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act. I think he is providing visionary 

leadership there. He wants to increase the nutrition content of 

those meals. He wants to make sure snacks that are available are 

healthy. 

The First Lady’s anti-obesity program—it is interesting in many 

communities you have this dual issue of obesity and hunger. It is 

fascinating. And so how do you address both sides of that same 

coin? And so we are committed to doing those things and want to 

work hard to do that. 
38 

We also have great—again, whether it is traditional schools, 

magnet schools, gifted schools, charter schools, I don’t care. We 

have great schools, all these public schools in these communities 

that face these huge challenges. One of the—and so we want to 

learn from those examples that, despite poverty, despite, you know, 

the challenges at home, children still achieve at remarkable levels. 

And so we need to fix those issues, but we don’t want to ever say 

that poor children can’t learn. We need to get there. 

I will tell you, one of the models that has been most impressive 

to me is what Geoffrey Canada has done at the Harlem Children’s 

Zone, where he has created great schools but around those schools 

he has created an entire community behind these children; and 

children in Harlem have basically closed the achievement gap with 

children in the wealthiest suburbs. It is fascinating. And we want 

to put $210 million behind what we are calling Promise Neighborhoods and trying to replicate that success, build entire communities 

in neighborhoods around the country; and we only want to go to 

disadvantaged communities where the biggest need is. 

So I want to let you know that philosophically I couldn’t agree 

more. We are committed to getting there, and we want to do everything we can to remove every impediment to giving children a 

chance to be successful. 

Chairman MILLER. It is the intent of the Chair to go to Mr. 

Thompson and then back to Ms. McCarthy, and then we will adjourn the hearing so members can attend the memorial service. 

Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member; and, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much. 

I want to thank you. Last year at one point I reached out to you 

regarding an issue that came up regarding four universities in 

Pennsylvania—Penn State, Pitt, Temple, and Lincoln—and I have 

to tell you I was very impressed. I think I heard back from you 

within 48 or 72 hours, your responsiveness. 

And I also really get a sense from listening to your testimony, 

as a former school board member for many years at home, that I 

think we share the same passion for unleashing the innovation of 

local education at the local level and what can come from that. 

I just want to touch on—and I will be brief—go back to Mr. 

Guthrie’s discussion with you on direct lending. And I know we 

went from 1,000 to like 2,100, which is great, folks who have voluntarily moved to that. I guess I would argue that within that is one 

of my universities I have. I represent seven in my rural district. 

One of them is Penn State. Penn State is direct lending. It works 

well. They are a model for it. 

I would have to say, though, that that is the only university that 

direct lending works for in my congressional district. I have six 

that struggle. And largely it is an economy of size. Penn State’s got 

this wonderful university. It is very large. It has got lots of infrastructure, and it works well. For the other six—and I have met 

with them on a regular basis over the past number of months— 

they are really struggling to do this. 

So I am concerned about the transitioning of the remaining 4,000 

institutions into the Direct Loan, because I really think we have 

cherry-picked voluntarily those who are best adept and prepared to 
39 

go to Direct Loan. They went voluntarily because they were ready 

for it. 

So while the Department has been hosting webinars and meetings, and I know you have put, it sounds like, a very talented individual as a point person on this, here is my question. What sort 

of plan B do you have, does the Department have in place in case 

the plans to convert just don’t go as smoothly as what you would 

like? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, obviously, we are preparing plan A, 

plan B, plan C, but we are really focused on plan A. And the only 

thing I could tell you is we would be happy—if you wanted us to 

do it, we will send staff out next week to sit down with you and 

put those six universities in a room. 

Again, we are doing trainings all around the country. Most folks 

are transitioning literally in a matter of weeks. We are seeing 

every—I am getting reports every couple of weeks. We are getting 

60, 70, 80 universities making the transition. 

So I don’t know all the details of what those issues are at those 

particular universities. But, you know, if you wanted to put us in 

a room with those six next week and walk through what the challenges are and what we can do to be helpful, I would absolutely 

welcome that opportunity. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. 

And, given the circumstances, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding back, a 

noble person on this committee. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Does that mean I have got to follow suit? 

Chairman MILLER. Well, you can decide. Congresswoman McCarthy. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Secretary Duncan for covering an awful lot of 

subjects, and we are going to follow up on them. I know this is only 

the beginning of our discussion as we go forward. 

Safe schools, healthy students, I think is important. I also want 

to make sure that we look at the good public schools that are working, on how we bring that down to those that are underserved. Financial literacy for our young people for the future is going to be 

extremely important, and parental engagement. Charters schools, 

I think we have talked a lot about it. That would be a discussion 

that will go forward, and I will send all my questions off to you. 

What I did want to talk about is the gainful employment. You 

had talked about teachers. Right now, on the Recovery Act, we 

were able to save a lot of teaching jobs, but we also know a lot of 

them are going to be aging out soon. It is the same as nursing and 

many fields in the health care. 

And so when we talk about gainful employment—and I am glad, 

because I will work with myself and a number of other members 

on this side of the aisle and the other side to come to some sort 

of agreement. I would also like to see that you did recommend a 

10 percent income when someone starts working to pay back their 

debt. I think that is going to be extremely important. 

But when we are looking at jobs that are not out there now— 

and, believe me, no one here on the committee wants to support 

any kind of schools that are actually failing their students or not 
40 

doing well by the students—but we have to make sure that during 

this particular time that those that are graduating and doing very 

well, their jobs that they are going into sometimes are actually 

lower paying than they were 3 years ago. 

The other problem is trying to find a job. So I think we need to 

work on that, how we get through this rough period so that students that are getting their education, hopefully, this is just a 

small stopgap and then, you know, we are going to see down the 

road more job opportunities out there. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, one of the most important things that 

we haven’t talked about today, and I appreciate you bringing it up, 

is part of this higher ed bill, is this income-based repayment. And 

what we want to do—we have lost so much great talent, folks who 

wanted to go into education, had a heart for it, had a passion, but 

because they had 60, 80, $100,000 worth of loans, they couldn’t afford to do it. So one of the things we are talking about is, if we 

can reduce loan repayments to 10 percent of income, and then after 

10 years of public service—and, obviously, I have a huge bias towards teaching, but all public service—so you could be coming out 

of law school and work in a legal clinic or coming out of medical 

school and work in a medical clinic in a low-income community, 

that after 10 years of service all those loans would be reduced. So 

if we can dramatically reduce loan repayments and then erase 

them after 10 years, I think we can get that next generation of extraordinarily talented folks to come into education. So we are pushing very, very hard here. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. And I agree with on you that. 

The other thing, too, is that with the shortage of nursing and 

teachers in the future, you know, we need to look in other ways on 

how we are getting nurses out there. Right now, we have plenty 

of nursing schools. We don’t have enough professors to be able to 

teach those that want to come into the field. 

We are also seeing in some of the nontraditional universities and 

career schools, they are actually, in my opinion, doing really, really 

well in nursing schools, especially for, you know, when someone 

graduates from a university, pays that 40 or $50,000, then goes to 

take their State boards and don’t pass the first time or the second 

time, somewhere they have lost that education. And yet we are seeing the scores coming from these nontraditional nursing schools 

graduating at a higher rate and passing the State nursing tests the 

first time around. 

New York State, we treat all schools the same. They have to be 

under the same regulations. We treat our career colleges, for those 

nontraditional students—and I think that we need to certainly 

keep an eye on that. Because there are a lot, a lot of people that 

want to go back to school but don’t fit in to the regular university 

or you know, 9 to 5, go to school. You can’t do that. 

Secretary DUNCAN. The other piece of, again, this higher ed bill, 

and there is so much here. That is why we are so passionate, and 

we appreciate your extraordinary leadership on this. We want to 

put $10 billion behind community colleges. And we think community colleges, whether it is 18-year-olds or 38-year-olds or 58-yearolds going back to retrain and retool in a tough economy, green 

jobs, health care jobs, tech jobs, we think community colleges have 
41 

been like this underutilized gem along the education continuum. So 

we want to put huge, huge resources behind them. 

I have brought in as my under secretary Martha Kanter, who 

was a phenomenal community college president in California. We 

have never had a community college president or someone with 

that experience in that position before. We did that very intentionally, because we think community college is so important to our 

agenda. And as families get back on their feet, we think community 

colleges are going to play a huge role there, and we want to see 

them grow and prosper. So it is a big, big play there, and we want 

to be part of the solution. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. And I think and I agree with you on the community colleges, but I think we need to go into the 21st century 

also, being able to take your classes over the Internet, being able 

to fit your schedule into that. 

And with that I yield back the balance of my time. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Chairman MILLER. The gentlewoman yields back. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you to all the members for 

your attendance and, Mr. Secretary, for answering all of the questions of the members. I know there are members—Mr. Pierluisi has 

indicated he would like to submit questions to you in writing, and 

if we could get a quick turnaround on those questions—— 

Secretary DUNCAN. And I am happy to stick around, if you want 

to. 

Chairman MILLER [continuing]. We would appreciate it. 

Let me just say, I guess one of the nice things about longevity 

here is that you have some institutional memory. And there is a 

lot of discussion about whether people in the Race to the Top are 

doing this for the money or their hearts are really in it or what 

have you. 

In the Clinton administration we had something we were talking 

about, Ed Flex. And so we asked Governors who said that they 

would—for additional money, they would create a flexible accountability system. And so we gave them the money first. 

I asked for a GAO report. The GAO report came back and said, 

out of I think it was 13 Governors only one Governor who was not 

originally included was not given the grant but then asked, why 

would I not be included? I represent a large State. I am from 

Texas. Only one Governor made any changes with respect to accountability, and that was Governor Bush. And the rest of the Governors took the money. They just didn’t do anything for this. 

So I think you might have it right here, that you know the idea 

that you are going to change your loss so you align data systems, 

so you align teacher performance systems, so you align these various parts that are already in the law. They’ve just been ignored 

for almost, well, even before the Bush administration. Much of 

what is in No Child Left Behind was there before. It just didn’t 

happen. 

So I think you are right. The energy that has been created, the 

conversations that have been created. But I also think you are 

right, and let’s make sure that people meet these thresholds. 

It is sort of like, you know, in poker. You want to have jacks or 

better to open. If you don’t, don’t play. 
42 

Because there is not that much money around. And so I think 

there is some wisdom. It is different. You know, we drop a lot of 

money off to people who are just doing tomorrow what they did 

yesterday. And so I think there is some wisdom in this, and I think 

it has created energy in many parts of the education community 

that now see this as really changing the workplace, modernizing it, 

giving them say, empowering them in those school sites within 

their districts and working in a collaborative fashion. 

Many of the reasons why we know teachers leave us, it is not 

just salary. It is isolation. It is lack of contact with their peers. It 

is lack of professional development. There is a whole list of things 

that they cite on these exit interviews. 

So I am encouraged by what you have done, and I thank you for 

being candid with the members of the committee. 

And, with that, all members will have 14 days to submit additional materials and questions for the hearing record. The Secretary has agreed that if you have questions you want to submit 

immediately in writing they will respond to those from members of 

the committee. 

And, with that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[The statement of Mr. Altmire follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jason Altmire, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of Pennsylvania 

Thank you, Chairman Miller, and Secretary Duncan, for holding this hearing on 

the president’s proposed FY2011 budget. 

The Higher Education Act of 1965 requires career colleges to provide ‘‘an eligible 

program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.’’ However, ‘‘gainful employment’’ has never been defined. It has come to 

my attention that during negotiated rulemaking for the most recent reauthorization 

of the Higher Education Act, the Department of Education proposed defining gainful 

employment by establishing an eight percent debt-service-to-income threshold based 

on median student debt for recent college graduates with income based either on 

Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data, or, actual earnings of the college’s graduates. 

While it is important to address the rise in levels of student debt, I have concerns 

about using a single formula to determine the appropriate level of debt for every 

student in every career path, especially during this time of economic uncertainty. 

I hope that moving forward, the Department will work with all interested parties 

and Congress to come together on a definition that works best for students. 

Thank you again, Chairman Miller, for holding this hearing. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[Questions submitted to Secretary Duncan and his responses follow:] 

[VIA FACSIMILE], 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, March 19, 2010. 

Hon. ARNE DUNCAN, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. 

DEAR SECRETARY DUNCAN: Thank you for testifying at the Committee on Education and Labor’s hearing on, ‘‘Building a Stronger Economy: Spurring Reform and 

Innovation in American Education,’’ on March 3, 2010. 

Committee Members have additional questions for which they would like written 

responses from you for the hearing record. 

Representative Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ) has asked that you respond in writing to 

the following questions: 

1. With regard to ESEA reauthorization, you have outlined a vision that foresees 

a much greater commitment to competitive grants for schools that are doing what 

works. Can you tell me how the Department of Education plans to specifically ad-
43 

dress the schools in crisis with high dropout rates that need immediate attention 

and assistance? 

2. Does the Departments increased commitment to competitive grants envision 

that schools competing for the various grants should be placed within brackets to 

compete with schools that are similarly situated so that schools that face a myriad 

of obstacles to success are not forced to compete with schools that face fewer obstacles? 

3. Any commitment to turning around high schools with high dropouts will only 

be successful if it also addresses the feeder system, and specifically the middle 

grades. What level of commitment does the Department of Education have toward 

middle school intervention, and does this vision acknowledge middle schools as an 

integral part of dropout prevention and college and career readiness? 

4. As you know, the current ESEA bill does not go far enough in recognizing LEP 

students and guiding states toward academic proficiency and accountability for 

these students. What is the Department of Education’s vision to address the large 

and quickly growing number of non-English speakers, not just in Title III reform, 

but also throughout Title I? 

5. Research studies show that reading for pleasure is one of the building blocks 

for young people to grow into healthy, productive adults. Public libraries can play 

a major role in helping children develop a habit of reading for pleasure. What is 

the Department’s commitment to school libraries, public libraries and library programs? 

Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) has asked that you respond in writing 

to the following questions: 

The FY11 budget you submitted creates a new ‘‘Safe Schools, Healthy Students’’ 

programs. A number of separate programs are combined into this one program, including the Safe and Drug Free Schools program. As you know, I am a strong proponent of school safety and look forward to continuing to work together on these 

efforts. You and I both know well the effects that schools and community violence 

can have on our students’ ability to learn. 

1. Can you describe how you see the ‘‘Safe Schools, Healthy Students’’ program 

working, both to address physical violence in schools as well as bullying and harassment? 

2. I believe we ought to eliminate the term ‘‘persistently dangerous schools’’ in 

ESEA, but we ought to preserve the right for a student in a school that does not 

have a safe climate for academic achievement or who has been physically assaulted 

to transfer to another school. Do you agree? 

3. How will the proposed budget ensure that our schools continue to receive the 

funding they need to keep them safe and keep out drugs? 

We spend so much time talking about failing schools and how to improve them. 

1. What about also looking at good schools and seeing what is working there— 

on school safety, on reading and math, on nutrition—and how we can expand them? 

2. Also, how they could these successful schools serve as a regional model to other 

schools that are struggling? 

AFT President Randi Weingarten recently announced a new proposal for supporting teachers that included a teacher evaluation system based on multiple measures, including student test scores. 

1. What is your reaction to this proposal? 

2. How do you think this proposal affects the ability to move ahead on ESEA reauthorization this year? 

I am a big proponent of financial literacy education for our students and consumers. I am the sponsor of the Financial and Economic Literacy Improvement Act 

of 2009, which will provide grants to improve financial literacy education for K-12 

and college students, as well as adults. As a nation, we have all been impacted by 

the effects of our struggling economy. While there are many factors that have contributed to the current economic climate and there is no one cause, we do know that 

consumers need to be more aware and informed of how their finances work and how 

to avoid some common financial pitfalls. 

1. How do you propose we increase financial literacy education in our schools as 

we move forward with ESEA? 

I was wondering if you can talk about the importance of parental engagement in 

our children’s education. I am preparing to introduce the Family Engagement in 

Education Act. This bill will strengthen the parental involvement provisions in 

ESEA by providing the foundation and capacity for family engagement on the federal, state, and local levels that supports best practices and meaningfully engages 

families to close the achievement gap. I want to see that parents have more of a 

role in decisions about their children’s academic career and safety in schools. This 

could be one of the biggest factors that can close the achievement gap. 
44 

2. How do you view the role of family engagement in education? 

How can we strengthen family engagement as we move forward with the reauthorization of ESEA? 

Secretary Duncan, you have placed a big priority on charter schools as evident 

in the Race to the Top application. I have been a supporter of charter schools and 

believe we have and can continue to learn a lot from them, including their successes 

in school safety. The President of Adelphi University, Bobby Scott, recently wrote 

a great piece in Long Island Business News called ‘‘Public Schools Can Succeed, 

which I would like to place into the hearing record. [See below]. President Scott 

talks about the need to give schools the resources they need and the fact that the 

root problems at many of our public schools are also ignored. He also talks about 

how while charters are an interesting model, they can still limit their size, are free 

from many regulations, and decide who is principal and who can teach. 

1. How can we guarantee that an expansion of charter schools will not come at 

the expense of our commitment to public education in this country? 

2. How can we ensure that all students, including those with disabilities, receive 

appropriate support and services in our nation’s education system? 

I have a question based on my discussions with the Teacher Leaders Network, 

a group of active communities of highly accomplished teacher leaders from across 

the nation, dedicated to student success and the transformation of teaching into a 

true profession. On February 2nd in Nashua, President Obama responded to a question from a teacher about ESEA by stating that he intends to pursue ‘‘richer assessments’’ instead of the standardized tests currently in use—and involve teachers in 

the process. 

1. How does the Department of Education intend to pursue this goal of pursuing 

richer assessments? 

2. How do you anticipate teachers will be involved in this process? 

3. By whom and how will these new assessments be designed and adopted? 

As you know, the current effort at voluntary Common Core Standards is moving 

along well but being designed by groups lacking any input from current classroom 

teachers. I believe it is essentially to have regular and timely input from actual 

classroom teachers when education policy is discussed. That is why I have introduced the Teachers at the Table Act to create a voluntary teacher advisory panel 

consisting of classroom teachers, to report to Congress on implementation and effect 

of ESEA on students and families. 

1. How can you assure the Congress that the voices of those who will have to 

carry out any policy, our classroom educators, are included in all discussions about 

policy as the department moves forward with reauthorization of ESEA? 

I have concerns regarding the Gainful Employment concepts presented by the Department at the recent Negotiated Rulemaking hearings. As a Nurse, I am aware 

of the shortages of Nurses facing our country. If Mark Kantrowitz of Finaid.com is 

correct, almost all Bachelor degree programs and many Associate degree programs 

in nursing and other allied health occupations at the targeted institutions would be 

eliminated by the Department’s proposal. Not only would we lose these needed 

healthcare workers, we would limit or eliminate critical programs to students who 

do not have access in the overcrowded public institutions. 

1. How will the gainful employment proposal limit student indebtedness? 

2. How many programs will the proposal effect? Specifically, how many nursing 

students are currently enrolled in potentially affected programs? 

3. How did the Department arrive at the 8% calculation for gainful employment? 

4. Don’t we already have in place Income Based Repayment, which creates a 

method for borrowers to limit their annual educational debt repayment to a reasonable, affordable amount, 15% of income? 

Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) has asked that you respond in writing 

to the following questions: 

1. Competitive Grants 

President Obama’s budget proposes to shift a great number of programs from formula funding to competitive grants. Under this proposal, how do we ensure that 

smaller states like New Hampshire aren’t disadvantaged by this shift? 

We aren’t afraid to compete. There are actually quite a few innovative approaches 

that we have taken in the state that we are all very proud of, but we face a challenge in a lot of the rural communities where the LEAs don’t have a grant writer— 

and they don’t have the resources to hire a grant writer. 

How do we ensure that smaller states—and rural communities within those 

smaller states are not put at a disadvantage here? 

2. Race to the Top / Principal Replacement 

In the Race to the Top application, one of the steps required was the replacement 

of the principal of a school. We all know that there are certain circumstances where 
45 

a principal is doing the best they can with the resources available. Certainly, it is 

time for some principals to move on. But there are also those (and teachers too) who 

have poured their hearts into their work and really are doing their best with the 

resources available. 

I have real concerns with rigid requirements that preclude the state or LEA from 

working with these principals—especially when at the local level they have been 

recognized as a key player in the community. So going forward, how do we as Federal policy makers provide this flexibility to the states? 

3. Charter Schools 

In the coming months, we are going to be looking at the reauthorization of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In this Committee we recently 

had a hearing on the role of charter schools and looked at a bill that would make 

it easier for charter school expansion. We have seen a lot of discussion about the 

need to create more charter schools. But there has been little discussion about how 

we best disseminate any successful innovations taking place at our existing charters. So my question is this: Going forward, as we consider committing additional 

resources to expanding charters, how do we also make sure that we are committing 

appropriate resources to help our traditional public schools implement appropriate 

innovations? 

4. TRIO Funding 

The FY2011 TRIO appropriation will fund TRIO grants for academic year 2011- 2012. However, because $57 million in mandatory funds for the nearly 200 Upward 

Bound programs provided by CCRAA went into effect immediately (i.e., academic 

year 2007-2008), the last academic year for which funds are available is 2010-2011. 

By failing to include $57 million in additional discretionary funds to account for 

these programs in academic year 2011-2012, there is significant concern that the 

Administration will not be able to maintain the current number of Upward Bound 

projects (956 total). Some estimates show that the FY2011 budget request only provides enough funds to support 778 Upward Bound programs in academic year 2011- 

2012. Given this situation, how are the College Cost Reduction and Access Act-funded Upward Bound projects going to be protected from elimination? Where will the 

funding to continue all 956 Upward Bound programs come from? Based on the budget request, how does the Administration intend that Congress sustain these programs? 

Representative Judy Chu (D-CA) has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

Secretary Duncan, I’ve expressed my concerns to you with respect to Race to the 

Top. It was very controversial in California and in other states, yet you are asking 

for a significant continued investment without any accountability. The winners of 

the 1st round of funding haven’t even been announced and no one knows if this 

funding will be successful in closing the achievement and increasing graduation 

rates. I have two questions. 

1. Why should we provide $1.35 billion for Race to the Top without any measure 

of success? 

2. Before you solicit for a third round of funding, will you look into revising the 

guidelines so that more states will be eligible? 

California has rigorous education standards. But raising academic standards 

alone is not enough to ensure that all students, especially low-income and minority 

students, will graduate from high school and succeed in postsecondary education 

and the workforce. Resources and support must be in place to help schools ensure 

that all students achieve this goal. I believe one of the greatest reforms needed in 

No Child Left Behind was the unfunded mandate of over $85 billion, which has left 

our states and school districts in a poor state. 

1. How are you going to make sure that every standard the federal government 

imposes on states to qualify for funding is matched with the resources necessary to 

achieve those standards so these new standards aren’t really the same unfunded 

mandate from No Child Left Behind? 

In California, I had a record of bringing people together and I hope to continue 

that record here in Congress. I know President Obama has not always sided with 

teacher unions, but we should still look for their support. I am looking at teacher 

evaluations, where we agree and I think there’s room for both sides to get what they 

want. I hope you and the President are looking for union support and will work with 

me on getting union support. 

I’m disappointed at the remarks made by President Obama yesterday with regards to the Rhode Island teacher firings. The comments don’t send a very good signal to teachers. We should be trying to bring unions and teachers to the table. 

We need to retain and build talented teachers, not just fire them. This morning 

I read that the Central Falls High School staff offered a comprehensive reform plan 
46 

for turning around the high school. I think we should start there. It’s not as easy 

to start a school from scratch like some may think. In fact, we heard testimony in 

this Committee room that a school in Minnesota, Thomas Edison High School, was 

under similar circumstances and they totally turned the school around. They retained 60 percent of their teachers, had professional development, increased instruction time and a collaborative teaching and learning environment. Teachers are not 

the only problem and they need to be a part of the solution. 

1. Did you or any of your staff talk to any teachers or parents at Central Falls 

High before your comments applauding the administration’s actions? 

2. What is the procedure for the Administration to take a position on teacher 

firings? 

3. How does your Administration plan on working with teachers unions on this 

issue and on ESEA Reauthorization? 

Secretary Duncan, I am pleased to see in your budget a nod to the growth of English learners and recent immigrant student population as well as a $50 million 

increase in your budget request. I am still concerned that we are not paying enough 

attention to the EL population and their needs are being ignored because of language barriers. In particular, I’ve heard troubling reports of EL misclassification. 

Language barriers are preventing EL’s from participating in gifted programs, language barriers are preventing EL’s from being identified for specials needs and language surveys are misclassifying students who speak English as English Learners. 

While states like California, Texas, and New York have had English learners for 

many years, other states like Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee 

have experience a 300 percent or higher growth of bilingual learners. While I appreciate the 6.6 percent increase, it is not nearly enough to provide for the growth of 

our English learners across the country. 

1. How does the Department of Education plan on supporting school districts with 

the growth of English Learners and closing the achievement gap if grant funding 

is not keeping up with the growth in student population? 

Secretary Duncan, your budget supports increasing alternative teacher training 

programs, but I believe some of these alternative certifications don’t put enough emphasis on pedagogical methods and quality teacher preparation. In fact, Timothy 

Knowles, who you may know is the Urban Education Institute director at the University of Chicago, was quoted saying ‘‘Making the assumption that teacher certification is a proxy for teacher quality is a dangerous one.’’ I don’t oppose great programs like Teach for America, but in effect, your budget diminished the importance 

of schools of education, like California State-LA, for Teacher Quality Partnership 

Grants by eliminating their eligibility. 

1. Why have you eliminated eligibility for higher education institutions for the 

Teacher Quality Partnership Grants? 

2. How would LEAs manage a grant program that provides teacher training when 

they should be focused on K-12 education for students? 

The research is undeniable that when at-risk children experience high-quality 

early learning programs, they have better school, employment and life outcomes. 

However, not all children, including children in my district have the option for early 

education. According to Los Angeles Universal Preschool, the 32nd district of California has the greatest needs for pre-school access in all of LA County. A majority 

of the population of 4 year olds in my district could not choose to go to preschool 

because they are none available. Your budget has frozen funding for IDEA Preschool 

Grants, a program that has seen a decrease in funding every year since 1992. 

1. How is your budget going to expand much needed high-quality early learning 

programs? 

I started my career in public service at the Garvey School Board and know firsthand how some of the school districts handle their education budgets. Competitive 

grants make it extremely difficult to for states and schools to develop and plan their 

budgets since they are not sure whether or not they will receive funds, how much 

they will receive and when they will get the funds. In addition, in these tough economic times, many school district headquarters staff have been laid off and are operating on skeleton crews to keep teachers in place. 

1. Why are we creating this budgetary chaos for our schools and how do you expect them to deal with this uncertainty? 

Representative Tom Petri (R-WI) has asked that you respond in writing to the following questions: 

Under your leadership, the Department has been talking a great deal about innovation, particularly regarding assessment. In many cases, however, the policies of 

the Department seem to lag behind innovation. One of the types of assessment that 

several states are looking at is a computer adaptive test that uses items at, below 

and above grade level to determine with a great deal of accuracy the exact level at 
47 

which a student is performing. Using items outside of grade level is a very useful 

tool to determine the exact level at which students are operating. I know that over 

50 percent of the school districts in my Congressional district and more than 50 percent of the school districts in Wisconsin are paying extra to contract with a provider 

to conduct this sort of testing at the school district level because they find that it 

provides more immediate and more useful data for their teachers. 

1. Is this the kind of innovation in assessment that you support? 

Representative Buck McKeon (R-CA) has asked that you respond in writing to the 

following questions: 

1. SES providers create a number of jobs, especially in low-income areas. Can you 

tell me how many jobs are created by the SES industry and further can you tell 

me how many of those jobs are held by teachers that are able to supplement their 

salaries by working for an SES provider outside of the school day? 

2. Under the final requirements issued by the Department on December 3, 2009 

for the School Improvement Grants program, an SEA is authorized to seek a waiver 

to permit a school that implements a ‘‘turnaround’’ or ‘‘restart’’ model to ‘‘start over’’ 

in the school improvement timeline. Because of this new waiver, students currently 

receiving free tutoring will lose valuable academic opportunities while the LEA figures out how to implement a new ‘‘turnaround’’ or ‘‘restart’’ system that will hopefully lead to improved academic achievement in its struggling schools. What is the 

Department’s plan to ensure that students (many of whom are performing at several 

grade levels behind their peers) who have been receiving extra help—through free, 

individualized tutoring—continue to receive intensive academic interventions as the 

LEA works to turn around its struggling schools? 

Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has asked that you respond in writing to the 

following questions: 

1. I am concerned about the July 1, 2010 effective date that was included in the 

House-passed version of SAFRA and included in your budget proposal. While we 

have seen an increase in the number of schools that have transitioned into the Direct Loan (DL) program, there are still thousands of schools in FFEL, despite the 

Department’s best arm-twisting efforts to push schools into the Direct Loan program. I have also heard from schools that the transition to DL is NOT as easy as 

flipping a switch. Can you provide me with documentation that outlines the past, 

present and future actions the Department has put into place to ensure that no students will go without timely access to federal loans should the July 1, 2010 date 

remain unchanged? 

2. Despite the obvious skills that Family Therapists can bring to children in the 

schools, the growing problem of mental health issues in schools and shortage of personnel the ESEA omits Family Therapists from the list of professionals identified 

as qualified to provide mental health services. Would you be in favor of amending 

ESEA to list Licensed Family Therapists alongside professional counterparts under 

the definitions of: 1) ‘‘school based mental health services providers,’’ 2) ‘‘pupil services personnel,’’ as well as 3) adding Family Therapists to the list of recognized professionals in school counseling programs? 

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) has asked that you respond in 

writing to the following questions: 

1. Well before the enactment of No Child Left Behind, there was the Eisenhower 

Professional Development Program which focused on improving the skills and content knowledge of K-12 teachers in mathematics and science. No Child Left Behind 

transitioned this program into the broader based Teacher and Principal Training 

and Recruiting Fund. I am concerned that our students are falling behind in the 

critical areas of math, science, technology, and engineering. Can you discuss how 

your budget puts forward proposals that ensure teachers are prepared to effectively 

teach these subjects? 

2. One aspect of the Budget that I’m extremely concerned with is the restructuring of the Perkins Loan program. As you know, this program was established in 

the late 1950s in fear that we were failing behind technologically to the former Soviet Union and its space program. Despite its success for the last half century in 

providing financial aid to a critical student population, it was restructured as part 

of SAFRA. Concerns have been expressed by many in the higher education community that as currently proposed the program will not serve the needs-based population that it was intended to serve. Would you comment? 

Representative Judy Biggert (R-IL) has asked that you respond in writing to the 

following questions: 

In January, I held a roundtable with local educators and superintendents from 

my district to discuss their views on Race to the Top. Probably the biggest complaint 

that I heard was that they were being asked to sign memorandums of understanding when there were still so many unknowns about the program. Many of my 
48 

constituents also expressed concern that all of the money awarded would go to the 

City of Chicago. 

1. I have read the detailed grading rubric put out by the Department, but can 

you give us more detail about how the money will be allocated to local districts? 

2. How are you ensuring that suburban and rural school districts have a chance 

to get their fair share of the funds? 

As a former school board President, I firmly believe in local control of education. 

One of my biggest concerns with Race to the Top is that states are graded based 

on their willingness to join a voluntary multi-state consortium dedicated to creating 

national education standards. While I understand that most states joined voluntarily, I am very concerned that this could be a first step toward what is effectively 

a national education board. 

1. Can you assure me that education standards will ultimately remain a state and 

local decision? 

I was recently contacted by Rasmussen College, a proprietary school in my district, with concerns about the Department of Education’s efforts to redefine ‘‘gainful 

employment’’ in the Title IV student loan program by regulation. As you know, the 

current draft proposal would prohibit students at proprietary schools and in certain 

other non-degree programs from borrowing if the interest on that student’s loans 

would exceed 8% of his/her expected income. If this proposal were to be put into effect, it would have severe negative consequences for many of my constituents, including those who intend to work in high-need occupations. According to Robert 

King, Chairman of the school: 

Under the proposed ‘‘gainful employment’’ calculation, Rasmussen College’s School 

of Nursing students would not be eligible for Title IV funding as the debt-income 

calculation is above 8%. The State of Illinois is expected to experience a 21,000 

nursing shortage by 2020 and Rasmussen College wants to help fill that gap. Our 

College has an average 94% retention rate among nursing students each quarter 

and more than 90% of our nursing graduates pass their nursing certification exams, 

with several of our campuses achieving 100%. With a nursing placement rate of 

98%, ED’s proposals run counteractive to President Obama’s goals of increasing the 

educational attainment levels of all Americans and simultaneously creating jobs. 

I agree with the college’s assessment of this proposal, and would like you to address the following questions: 

1. If the purpose of this proposed regulation is to protect student welfare, why 

does it almost exclusively affect proprietary schools? 

2. Where did the 8% debt threshold originate? 

3. Would you consider increasing the debt-to-income ratio? How about making exceptions for high-demand professions? 

As you know, I’m very concerned about the education of children and youth who 

are homeless. The last ESEA reauthorization included the McKinney-Vento Act, legislation that I authored to address the barriers faced by homeless students, so that 

school could be a place of stability and opportunity. I will soon introduce legislation 

to refine and strengthen this program in the next reauthorization. The President’s 

FY2011 budget does not include any increase in funding for this program, despite 

the fact that the numbers of homeless students reported by public schools have increased by 40% over the past two years. 

1. What is the Administration’s vision for addressing the educational needs of 

homeless students? 

2. What efforts are being made to ensure that students who are homeless have 

access to all existing federal educational programs, including Title I Part A, early 

learning, and higher education? 

3. Do I have your commitment to work together on this issue, so that being without a home does not mean being without an education? 

Please send an electronic version of your written response to the questions in 

Microsoft Word format to Calla Brown of the Committee staff at 

calla.brown@mail.house.gov by close of business Thursday, March 29, 2010, the date 

on which the hearing record will close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Brown at 202-226-2068. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE MILLER, 

Chairman. 

[Secretary Duncan’s responses to questions submitted follow:] 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ